Femonationalism, as described by sociologist Sara Farris in her 2017 book In the Name of Women's Rights: The Rise of Femonationalism (Duke University Press), refers to the use of feminist ideas within nationalist ideology to justify xenophobia, most commonly Islamophobia. It can be recognized in the rhetoric of right-wing politicians across Europe through narratives such as: "we are protecting our women and daughters," "we must save Muslim women from Muslim men," "Islam is an inherently misogynistic culture," "the hijab is a symbol of oppression," and "immigrants must accept our values of gender equality in order to integrate into our society."

While these narratives may appear at first glance to be concerned with protecting women, they in fact diminish the emancipatory potential of society. They promote an ideology that primarily functions to exclude members of migrant origin, and, as a consequence, gradually radicalizes society in ways that, consistent with its own ideological logic, ultimately return non-migrant women to a subordinate position as well.

What does femonationalism look like in practice?

Two of the most cited examples in Farris's own analysis are Marine Le Pen in France and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands.

Le Pen has described herself as a feminist who "does not express hostility towards men" (Politico), which is a framing that allows her to appear as a defender of women's rights while simultaneously targeting Muslim communities. Farris identifies a pattern in which Le Pen's stated support for gender equality is explicitly conditioned on the claim that women's rights are threatened by Islam (Open Democracy) and yet outside of opposing that supposed threat, her party has consistently failed to address the structural dimensions of gender inequality. French women's rights groups have pointed out that Le Pen has spoken of "abortions of convenience" and has opposed extending the time limit for legal abortions (France 24), positions that sit in sharp contradiction to her self-presentation as a defender of women.

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders produced the 2008 film Fitna, in which Islam was framed as a direct threat to gender equality and Western values (Open Democracy). In 2016, following the mass assaults in Cologne, Wilders has handed out self-defence sprays to women fearful of what he described as “Islamic testosterone bombs” (Aljazeera) while simultaneously opposing legal frameworks and social policies that would actually strengthen protections for women.

These examples illustrate a defining feature of femonationalism: concern for women's rights is deployed selectively and instrumentally, as a tool for excluding the racialized "other", rather than as a genuine commitment to gender equality.

The mechanism: misdirection

The key mechanism femonationalism relies on is misdirection. Even in the most well-ordered European societies, full gender equality has not yet been achieved, particularly when it comes to the systemic addressing of femicide and other forms of violence against women. When these structural problems are displaced onto isolated incidents of violence allegedly committed by people of migrant origin, two things happen simultaneously: xenophobia is normalized, and women are left without an adequate systemic response to the problems they face within their own societies.

It is also worth noting that the voices of Muslim women themselves are almost entirely absent from these narratives. Femonationalism speaks about Muslim women, casting them as passive victims in need of rescue, but never with them or through their own perspectives. A rhetoric that genuinely sought to protect women would center women's own voices and choices, including the choice to wear a hijab.

Part of a broader pattern

Femonationalist narratives are not an anomaly or a dark stain on an otherwise tolerant political discourse. They are part of a broader value system that also promotes traditional gender roles, the restriction of women's rights (such as abortion rights), and the vision of a traditional community in which women occupy an inherently subordinate position relative to men. The same parties that invoke women's safety to justify anti-immigration policies frequently vote against equal pay legislation, against funding for domestic violence shelters, and against reproductive rights.

Why media framing matters

This is why the way media outlets cover statements that contain elements of femonationalism matters greatly. Through their reporting, they can either contribute to the normalization of such narratives, or to their critical examination, depending on which approach prevails and becomes the mainstream.

Given the growing prevalence of right-wing politics across Europe, a critical approach to femonationalism has become one of the central challenges of responsible journalism. It is by no means an easy task. The central difficulty lies in the risk of appearing to defend oppressive attitudes simply by critiquing femonationalism. If you challenge the claim that women and girls must be protected from migrant violence, then you risk being accused of promoting violence against women.

How to avoid the femonationalist trap?

Whenever journalists or editors encounter a narrative or statement that contains elements of femonationalism, three analytical steps can help navigate it without falling into the trap.

The first is a critical discourse analysis. In the specific case of "defending women and girls from migrants," useful questions include: Who is defending? From whom? And why? The answer typically reveals that representatives of the majority population are positioning themselves as protectors of "their" women against a violent "other", casting that other as an undesirable member of society, while simultaneously rendering women passive.

The second step is empirical verification, that includes checking whether the claim is supported by data. In this case: are migrants actually the primary threat when it comes to violence against women? Or do women experience violence predominantly in ostensibly safer environments, such as the family home, or in cities and regions with small migrant populations? Statistics on domestic violence, femicide rates, and perpetrator profiles consistently point to the latter.

The third step is an analysis of consequences, or an attempt to trace where a given narrative ultimately leads when followed through to its logical conclusion. The narrative of protecting women from violent outsiders, taken to its end, leads to the re-patriarchalization of society: the return of women to symbolic and social subordination to men, justified now not by tradition but by the language of protection.

A critical approach to femonationalism rather than the uncritical transmission of such statements contributes to public awareness and opens debate grounded in verifiable facts. Femonationalist claims left unquestioned contribute to the indoctrination of society with an ideology that harms multiple social groups, including the very one it claims to defend.