cautiously and distance themselves from the label, often viewing it as politicised. Importantly, there is widespread agreement on the goals associated with feminism, including equality and autonomy, even among those who reject the term itself due to cultural or political associations. In some contexts, such as Poland and Spain, feminism may be perceived as foreign or radical, contributing to less enthusiastic use of the term, especially among men, but also among a sizable number of women. Overall, the divide seems to stem less from differences in core values than from divergent interpretations of feminism and its aims, fostering a sense of polarisation despite significant common ground. These interpretive differences may be further shaped by how young people navigate today’s social media environment. While social media is rarely identified by participants as a direct driver of gender divides among young people, it exerts a significant indirect influence on how opinions are shaped and articulated. It serves as an important source of information, particularly for young women, who often draw on feminist content and public debates, while also contributing to a blurred information landscape in which the origins of knowledge are difficult to trace. Participants frequently mobilise and reproduce information without clearly distinguishing whether it stems from social media, traditional news or interpersonal exchanges, suggesting a diffuse and largely unacknowledged influence. At the same time, social media is widely perceived as a space for political polarisation, leading some participants to distance themselves from news and online content due to fatigue and disengagement. Although these concerns are expressed across genders, young women are more likely to reflect on their personal implications, whereas young men tend to frame these dynamics in more abstract terms and more often express a form of“critical confidence” – the belief that they can identify manipulation and remain unaffected by bias. Yet this confidence can coexist with participation in polarised online spaces, where gender equality is sometimes framed as a zero-sum conflict or there is an explicit gender backlash. However, despite these dynamics, it is also important to note that there is little evidence that strongly anti-feminist or“manosphere” narratives dominate young men’s views. While some participants report encountering such content, its direct influence appears limited. Critical or sceptical attitudes toward feminism often soften under peer discussion, suggesting these views are not deeply entrenched but instead reflect provisional interpretations shaped by context and media exposure. Finally, the mixed political composition of the focus groups may have moderated more extreme views. More ideologically homogeneous groups could produce different findings – an avenue for future research. Implications for policy and progressive politics Taken together, the findings suggest that the emerging gender divide within Gen Z should not be understood as a cultural confrontation between men and women. Rather, it reflects shared structural pressures that are interpreted through different social experiences and expectations. Economic insecurity, declining trust in institutions and uncertainty about future life chances form the common foundation of these attitudes. For progressive policymakers, these findings highlight the need for a structured and comprehensive approach that moves beyond cultural debates about feminism or identity politics. Rather than framing gender issues as a zero-sum conflict or focusing primarily on the experiences of either young men or young women, policy and communication should address the underlying conditions of generational insecurity that shape both groups’ lives, while acknowledging the different ways these experiences are interpreted. Crucially, when asked about their main societal concerns, young people tend to frame them in terms of personal independence, life planning and long­term stability. Effective policy and communication should therefore clearly demonstrate how they can improve everyday life along these dimensions. In short, the priority is to make policy personally relevant, grounded in shared material concerns and remaining responsive to how different groups make sense of them. Therefore, we suggest the following policy recommendations: 82 EqualiZe