discourse, though they report that they themselves do not feel personally affected by these trends. While most participants perceive dating preferences as individual choices influenced by social norms rather than rigid rules, a few men express feelings of being left behind or disadvantaged in romantic contexts. Tomek(male, 29, Warsaw, all-male group) illustrates this perspective: “To be blunt, most women today tend to think in a Machiavellian way. They effectively scan potential partners, evaluating who might be suitable for them, and in the process, certain mental‘filters’ emerge. For instance, if a man is under 170 centimetres, he is immediately dismissed as unattractive. That’s the first criterion. Even if he has other positive qualities, like wealth, one negative trait can nullify the rest, much like discarding a card in UNO. Subsequent‘cards’ are then evaluated in turn.” Overall, the fact that many participants do not recognise or engage with manosphere content during the discussions suggests that the reach and resonance of such material remains limited. At the same time, the prompted statement indicates that there is potential for these ideas to find support among certain groups, particularly young men. It is important to keep in mind that the composition of the focus groups is mixed and diverse, including in terms of party preferences. The groups are deliberately not homogeneous with regard to negative attitudes toward gender equality or feminism. In this setting, participants who question or challenge even some fundamental aspects of gender equality often face pushback or backlash from others who are well-informed and equipped with solid arguments, after which most tend to soften or abandon their positions. In a more homogeneous group, or in a more anonymous setting – such as an online discussion – these critical or anti-feminist stances might have been voiced differently. The implications of these contextual factors, including group composition and interaction format, are examined more thoroughly in the reflection section. 3.5.4 Reflections on the approach and findings One of the key strengths of this study lies in its comparative and multi-country design. Conducted across five countries, the focus groups provide nuanced insights into how societal norms, cultural contexts and local values shape perceptions of gender equality and feminism. The inclusion of three to five groups per country, with varied gender compositions, allowed for the rich observation of both shared and contested viewpoints, revealing the diversity and polarisation inherent in these topics. The groups were deliberately heterogeneous in terms of party preferences, generating a wide range of opinions on gender equality and feminism. Participants who strongly endorsed these principles – sometimes including feminist ideas – tended to be well-prepared, articulate and equipped with factual references. In Poland, participants aligned with parties such as PiS and Confederation similarly drew on structured talking points, representing the opposing perspective. Views critical of gender equality or feminism often faced pushback, reflecting how group composition shaped debate. While this heterogeneity enriched discussions, future research could examine ideologically aligned groups to explore dynamics within more politically homogeneous settings. Societal norms and social desirability influenced what participants felt comfortable expressing. Supporters of gender equality and feminism were generally able to assert their views, while critical or anti-feminist stances were often moderated or softened due to peer feedback. In more anonymous or online settings, or within safer spaces such as an established group of friends, these views might be expressed more openly. Future studies could also investigate such settings to capture private opinions and systematically assess the influence of social media. Another consideration concerns the impact of social media on political and gender-related views. The focus groups indicated that social media frequently served as a source of knowledge, facts and talking EqualiZe 73