5 results
13 - Ambivalent Sexism in the Twenty-First Century
- from Part II - Prejudice in Specific Domains
-
- By Rachel A. Connor, Princeton University, Peter Glick, Lawrence University, Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University
- Edited by Chris G. Sibley, University of Auckland, Fiona Kate Barlow, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice
- Published online:
- 17 November 2016
- Print publication:
- 31 October 2016, pp 295-320
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Gender-based inequality is pervasive. Historically and cross-culturally, men have held more resources, power, and status than women. Despite general trends toward gender equality, male dominance remains a global reality. As of 2014, the global gender gap in economic participation and opportunity, which includes gender gaps in income, labor force participation, and professional advancement, stood at 60% (Hausmann, Tyson, Bekhouche, & Zahidi, 2014). If progress toward gender equality continues at the same pace, it will take until 2095 to completely close this gap. Yet in contrast to characterizations of intergroup relations as hostile and competitive, gender relations are predominantly cooperative – individual men and women consistently engage in and sustain close relationships with members of the other sex, whether friends, parents, siblings, or significant others. Herein lies the gender relationship paradox. How is the tension between male hegemony and male-female intimacy reconciled?
Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) recognizes that sexism entails a mixture of antipathy and subjective benevolence:
• Hostile sexism corresponds to classic definitions of prejudice as antipathy (Allport, 1954) and reflects the hostile derogation of women who pose a threat to the gender hierarchy (e.g., feminists).
• Benevolent sexism is “a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling (for the perceiver)” (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491). Benevolent sexism bestows affection on women who embrace limited but traditional gender roles (e.g., housewives). Hence, although benevolent sexism may appear positive, it presumes and reinforces women's subordinate status.
Ambivalent sexism theory argues that hostile and benevolent sexism are, in fact, not conflicting but complementary ideologies that present a resolution to the gender relationship paradox. By offering male protection and provision to women in exchange for their compliance, benevolent sexism recruits women as unwitting participants in their own subjugation, thereby obviating overt coercion. Hostile sexism serves to safeguard the status quo by punishing those who deviate from traditional gender roles.
This chapter discusses ambivalent sexism as a coordinated system of control that serves male dominance and limits women's power across personal, economic, and political domains. First, we review ambivalent sexism theory, focusing on ambivalent sexism's system-justifying functions. The second section addresses how ambivalent sexism polices women's bodies through the threat of rape, sexual harassment, and violence, as well as oppressive beauty ideals.
Contributors
-
- By Harriette Andreadis, Abdulhamit Arvas, GerShun Avilez, Brian James Baer, Thomas Bauer, David Bergman, Brinda Bose, Michael Bronski, Steven Bruhm, Christopher Castiglia, Merrill Cole, Peter Coviello, Sara Danius, Tim Dean, Philippe C. Dubois, Chris Dunton, Elisa Glick, Jonathan Goldberg, Helena Gurfinkel, Neville Hoad, Thomas K. Hubbard, AnaLouise Keating, Eric Keenaghan, David DeCosta Leitao, Karma Lochrie, E. L. McCallum, Lisa O’Connell, David L. Orvis, Gema Pérez-Sánchez, Jay Reed, Robert Reid-Pharr, Steven Ruszczycky, Darieck Scott, Patricia Sieber, Hugh Stevens, Lisa Tatonetti, Omise’eke Natasha Tinsley, Robert Tobin, Eric L. Tribunella, Mikko Tuhkanen, Sherry Velasco, Giovanni Vitiello, Sara Warner
- Edited by E. L. McCallum, Michigan State University, Mikko Tuhkanen, Texas A & M University
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge History of Gay and Lesbian Literature
- Published online:
- 18 December 2014
- Print publication:
- 17 November 2014, pp xi-xii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By James Ahn, Eric L. Anderson, Annette L. Beautrais, Dennis Beedle, Jon S. Berlin, Benjamin L. Bregman, Peter Brown, Suzie Bruch, Jonathan Busko, Stuart Buttlaire, Laurie Byrne, Gerald Carroll, Valerie A. Carroll, Margaret Cashman, Joseph R. Check, Lara G. Chepenik, Robert N. Cuyler, Preeti Dalawari, Suzanne Dooley-Hash, William R. Dubin, Mila L. Felder, Avrim B. Fishkind, Reginald I. Gaylord, Rachel Lipson Glick, Travis Grace, Clare Gray, Anita Hart, Ross A. Heller, Amanda E. Horn, David S. Howes, David C. Hsu, Andy Jagoda, Margaret Judd, John Kahler, Daryl Knox, Gregory Luke Larkin, Patricia Lee, Jerrold B. Leikin, Eddie Markul, Marc L. Martel, J. D. McCourt, MaryLynn McGuire Clarke, Mark Newman, Anthony T. Ng, Barbara Nightengale, Kimberly Nordstrom, Jagoda Pasic, Jennifer Peltzer-Jones, Marcia A. Perry, Larry Phillips, Paul Porter, Seth Powsner, Michael S. Pulia, Erin Rapp, Divy Ravindranath, Janet S. Richmond, Silvana Riggio, Harvey L. Ruben, Derek J. Robinson, Douglas A. Rund, Omeed Saghafi, Alicia N. Sanders, Jeffrey Sankoff, Lorin M. Scher, Louis Scrattish, Richard D. Shih, Maureen Slade, Susan Stefan, Victor G. Stiebel, Deborah Taber, Vaishal Tolia, Gary M. Vilke, Alvin Wang, Michael A. Ward, Joseph Weber, Michael P. Wilson, James L. Young, Scott L. Zeller
- Edited by Leslie S. Zun
- Edited in association with Lara G. Chepenik, Mary Nan S. Mallory
-
- Book:
- Behavioral Emergencies for the Emergency Physician
- Published online:
- 05 April 2013
- Print publication:
- 21 March 2013, pp viii-xii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
3 - An ambivalent alliance: hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality
- from Part I - Beyond prejudice
-
- By Peter Glick, Lawrence University, Susan T. Fiske, Princeton University
- Edited by John Dixon, Lancaster University, Mark Levine, University of Exeter
-
- Book:
- Beyond Prejudice
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 12 January 2012, pp 70-88
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
If woman had no existence save in the fiction written by men, one would imagine her a person . . . very various; heroic and mean; splendid and sordid; infinitely beautiful and hideous in the extreme.
Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own (1929/1981)What Woolf saw as ‘astonishing extremes’ in men’s images of women date back to ancient texts. Pomeroy (1975), a social historian, suggested that classical representations of women fit into the polarized categories of goddesses, whores, wives and slaves. Feminists who analyse contemporary society (e.g. Faludi, 1992) argue that similarly extreme characterizations of women are alive and well in popular culture, such as film depictions that divide women into faithful wives and murderous seductresses. Although what Tavris and Wade (1984) termed the pedestal–gutter syndrome (or the Madonna–whore dichotomy) has long been recognized by psychologists, historians and feminists, most empirical researchers have identified sexism only with regard to hostility towards women, ignoring the corresponding tendency to place (at least some) women on a pedestal.
This chapter reviews recent theory and empirical research on hostile and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism is an adversarial view of gender relations in which women are perceived as seeking to control men, whether through sexuality or feminist ideology. Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
13 - Ambivalent sexism, power distance, and gender inequality across cultures
-
- By Peter Glick, Psychology Department Lawrence University USA
- Edited by Serge Guimond, Université de Clermont-Ferrand II (Université Blaise Pascal), France
-
- Book:
- Social Comparison and Social Psychology
- Published online:
- 27 October 2009
- Print publication:
- 15 December 2005, pp 283-302
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Although some anthropologists dispute the universality of patriarchy and argue that the hunter-gatherer groups in which humans evolved were egalitarian (Salzman, 1999), agricultural and industrial societies are typically dominated by men, who monopolize the highest status positions in powerful social institutions, such as business, government, and organized religion (Carli and Eagly, 2001; Harris, 1991; Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). Societies are typically structured by a gendered division of labor that reflects prescriptive gender roles, which both create and reinforce gender hierarchy (Eagly and Wood, 1999). It is not surprising, then, that gender is a primary psychological category in both social and self-perception. When perceiving others, gender categorization occurs automatically and (judging by the frequency with which people within categories are confused with each other) predominates over other forms of categorization such as race (Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, and Ruderman, 1978). In self-perception, gender categorization is a basic aspect of self-definition (Bem, 1981).
Given the importance of gender in self and social perception, as well as the regularity with which men and women interact in daily life, cross-gender social comparisons have the potential to occur frequently. Such comparisons potentially have important implications for maintaining or challenging gender inequality. For example, if female employees compare their salaries with male coworkers and find that they are paid less, they might challenge the fairness of the organization or initiate a lawsuit.