Standpoints and Situatedness: Examining the Perception of Benevolent Sexism in Black and White Undergraduate Women and Men

Racial differences in benevolent sexism have been underexplored. To address this gap, we used standpoint theory as a framework to examine race-gender group differences in the endorsement of benevolent sexism and how cultural factors (i.e., egalitarianism, religiosity, and racial identity) and inequality factors (i.e., experiences with racial discrimination and support for social hierarchies) might mediate this relationship. Among 510 Black and white undergraduate women and men, we found racial differences, such that Black women and men had higher endorsement of benevolent sexism than white women and men. Further, there was a gender difference for only white participants, with white men endorsing these attitudes more than white women. For Black women, religiosity and racial identity mediated the relationship between their race-gender group and greater benevolent sexism compared to white women, but only religiosity mediated the relationship for Black men. Neither inequality mediator accounted for benevolent sexism differences; however, both were associated with white women’s lower benevolent sexism, as was egalitarianism. Given these findings, we discuss implications for benevolent sexism theory, the possibility that cultural factors may shape Black women and men’s standpoint by establishing group-based norms and expectations around benevolently sexist behavior, and suggest culturally appropriate methods to reduce sexism.

Hunting in a Hostile Climate?: Hegemonic Masculinity and Emphasized Femininity on a Hunting Message Board

Based on prior research about other male-dominated leisure pursuits, we might expect game hunting to present a hostile climate for its women participants. However, our qualitative analysis of 293 threads posted between 2005 and 2019 on an online hunting message board suggests that women were welcomed within the pastime. While they did not overtly exclude women from their ranks, however, posters curated the boundary between masculinity and femininity, as well as staking out the territory of emphasized femininity. In particular, they accomplished this via benevolent sexism, hostile sexism, and sexual objectification. Our findings not only shed additional light on the gendered dynamics of this pastime but also enriched our knowledge of the ways that hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity can work in tandem—within male-dominated recreational activities, and more broadly.

Generation Z Young People’s Perception of Sexist Female Stereotypes about the Product Advertising in the Food Industry: Influence on Their Purchase Intention

Previous studies have generated important insights into consumer behavior. However, no study has addressed how to persuade young people belonging to Generation Z to increase the purchase intention of food products from a gender perspective. Drawing on ambivalent sexism theory, this paper explores the influence of the attitude toward advertising and the ethical judgment to predict consumers’ food product purchase intention. We applied a quantitative method, partial least squares structural equation modeling, to 105 individuals. Two advertisements with different food products and female role stereotype categories are using: (1) women in a traditional role or housewife’s role (benevolent sexism), and (2) women in a decorative role or physical attractiveness (hostile). However, the results show that attitude toward advertising has a direct and positive influence on purchase intention in advertisement with benevolent sexism. In addition, the effect of ethical judgment on consumers’ food product purchase intention is not significant. In the advertisement with hostile sexism, both—attitude toward advertising and ethical judgment—directly and positively impact purchase intention. The study provides a novelty conceptual model in the food industry for Generation Z and recommendations on the use of female sexist stereotypes in food and beverage advertising.

How do spouses’ levels of ambivalent sexism predict allocations of household chores? Probing why women still perform most of the work in the U.S.

This study’s main objective was to examine whether, in a U.S. sample, ambivalent sexism would show stronger associations with heterosexual husbands and wives’ housework division (hours and proportion) than have previous gender-ideology measures. Unlike earlier conceptions of sexism emphasizing hostile and negative stereotypical views toward women, ambivalent sexism combines the two dimensions of hostile sexism and benevolent sexism (seemingly positive views and behaviors toward women that nevertheless convey underlying paternalistic and patronizing motivations). We hypothesized that male and female respondents high in both hostile and benevolent sexism would report the typical pattern of wives’ housework exceeding their husbands’, whereas those lower in hostile or benevolent sexism would report less housework being performed by wives. Married individuals (N = 249) were recruited via advertisements on Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform and announcements at a university to complete an online survey. Several variables were measured, including own and spouse’s housework hours, hostile and benevolent sexism, and demographic control variables previously associated with housework allocation. An interaction emerged for women, in which those high in benevolent, but low in hostile, sexism reported performing the highest proportion of housework, whereas those low in both forms of sexism performed the lowest proportion. These results provided full or partial support for different aspects of our hypotheses. Men reported greater housework (hours and proportion) the more hours their wife worked outside the house. Discussion examines implications for ambivalent sexism theory, housework sharing, and conceptions of sexism.

Chivalry vs. Patriarchy: Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of Physical Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

<p>Two leading theories propose different reasons for men’s and women’s intimate partner violence (IPV). The gendered theory proposes that society’s patriarchal norms of male dominance and female subordination cause men’s IPV towards women. From this perspective, violence against ‘wives’ is condoned by society, and women only perpetrate IPV in self-defence against men’s primary violence. Conversely, the chivalrous theory of IPV explains women’s IPV perpetration in terms of society’s chivalrous norms, which protect women from male violence and emboldens women to physically assault male partners. From this perspective, women’s violence is not considered harmful to men. As gendered theory and chivalrous theory both reference stereotyped gender attitudes (sexism) towards women, I used the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI) to test the competing theories efficacy in explaining IPV perpetration by heterosexual men and women. The ASI conceptualises sexist attitudes towards women as comprised of two parts: hostile sexism (reflecting the hostility towards women outlined by gendered theory), and benevolent sexism (reflecting the benevolence towards women outlined by chivalrous theory). Gendered theory states that society condones violence towards women. Thus, men’s attitudes approving of male-perpetrated IPV should mediate the relationship between men’s hostile sexism and IPV, if gendered theory predictions are correct. Alternatively, chivalrous theory poses that society does not approve of violence towards women. Thus, attitudes disapproving of men’s IPV against women and approving of women’s IPV towards men should mediate the relationship between benevolent sexism and IPV if chivalrous theory is correct. I hypothesized men’s increased hostile sexism would predict men’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against women, and men’s increased benevolent sexism would predict men’s decreased IPV perpetration through decreased approval of IPV against women. Further, I hypothesised that women’s increased hostile sexism would predict women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men, and women’s benevolent sexism would predict increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men. North American men and women (N = 688) filled out an online questionnaire measuring experiences of IPV as victims and/or perpetrators, approval of male and female IPV perpetration, and hostile and benevolent sexism. Multi-group structural equation modelling tested the extent to which positive attitudes toward intimate partner violence mediated the association between sexism and IPV perpetration for men and for women. Results found that, for both men and women, increased hostile sexism predicted greater IPV perpetration through greater approval of men’s IPV against women. Furthermore, increased benevolent sexism predicted women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of men’s IPV against women. Men’s increased benevolent sexism did not predict men’s lower IPV perpetration or disapproval of IPV against women. However, men’s and women’s ambivalent sexism also predicted greater approval of women’s IPV towards men. Results did not fully support patriarchal or chivalrous predictions, instead aligning well with ambivalent sexism theory which posits a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the relationship between sexism and IPV perpetration. Reducing all forms of sexism and men’s and women’s positive attitudes toward the use of IPV are identified as important targets for IPV treatment and prevention.</p>

Chivalry vs. Patriarchy: Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of Physical Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

<p>Two leading theories propose different reasons for men’s and women’s intimate partner violence (IPV). The gendered theory proposes that society’s patriarchal norms of male dominance and female subordination cause men’s IPV towards women. From this perspective, violence against ‘wives’ is condoned by society, and women only perpetrate IPV in self-defence against men’s primary violence. Conversely, the chivalrous theory of IPV explains women’s IPV perpetration in terms of society’s chivalrous norms, which protect women from male violence and emboldens women to physically assault male partners. From this perspective, women’s violence is not considered harmful to men. As gendered theory and chivalrous theory both reference stereotyped gender attitudes (sexism) towards women, I used the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI) to test the competing theories efficacy in explaining IPV perpetration by heterosexual men and women. The ASI conceptualises sexist attitudes towards women as comprised of two parts: hostile sexism (reflecting the hostility towards women outlined by gendered theory), and benevolent sexism (reflecting the benevolence towards women outlined by chivalrous theory). Gendered theory states that society condones violence towards women. Thus, men’s attitudes approving of male-perpetrated IPV should mediate the relationship between men’s hostile sexism and IPV, if gendered theory predictions are correct. Alternatively, chivalrous theory poses that society does not approve of violence towards women. Thus, attitudes disapproving of men’s IPV against women and approving of women’s IPV towards men should mediate the relationship between benevolent sexism and IPV if chivalrous theory is correct. I hypothesized men’s increased hostile sexism would predict men’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against women, and men’s increased benevolent sexism would predict men’s decreased IPV perpetration through decreased approval of IPV against women. Further, I hypothesised that women’s increased hostile sexism would predict women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men, and women’s benevolent sexism would predict increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men. North American men and women (N = 688) filled out an online questionnaire measuring experiences of IPV as victims and/or perpetrators, approval of male and female IPV perpetration, and hostile and benevolent sexism. Multi-group structural equation modelling tested the extent to which positive attitudes toward intimate partner violence mediated the association between sexism and IPV perpetration for men and for women. Results found that, for both men and women, increased hostile sexism predicted greater IPV perpetration through greater approval of men’s IPV against women. Furthermore, increased benevolent sexism predicted women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of men’s IPV against women. Men’s increased benevolent sexism did not predict men’s lower IPV perpetration or disapproval of IPV against women. However, men’s and women’s ambivalent sexism also predicted greater approval of women’s IPV towards men. Results did not fully support patriarchal or chivalrous predictions, instead aligning well with ambivalent sexism theory which posits a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the relationship between sexism and IPV perpetration. Reducing all forms of sexism and men’s and women’s positive attitudes toward the use of IPV are identified as important targets for IPV treatment and prevention.</p>

The Politics of Women's Presence on High Courts: Bias and the Conditional Nature of Cultivating Legitimacy

While we know that women's presence in the legislature positively impacts how citizens view the institution, little is known about the impact of women's presence on the legitimacy of high courts. We argue that despite differences in public expectations for courts, women's presence on the high court does impact citizen perceptions of legitimacy. However, this effect is dependent on both the level and the type of bias held by citizens. That is, when a person feels hostile bias toward women, the bias disrupts the potential legitimacy that the court could gain. On the other hand, we argue that benevolent sexism does not trigger any change in how citizens view the high court in a democracy. Using evidence from an experiment, we find that the presence of women on the high court has a strong positive impact on citizen perceptions of court legitimacy, though not among those with hostile gender bias.

Deconstruction of the Discourse of Femininity: A Case of Thai Girls’ Schools

Summary The study investigates the construction of femininity ideologies of girls-only school websites in Thailand and deconstructs them for analysis at the lexical level. Ideological beliefs underlying the custom of upbringing of young women in Thai cultural contexts are the focus of investigation. We pay a particular attention to how the schools communicate their key messages of vision, mission, core values, and about us on their websites and conduct a corpus-driven discourse analysis on the data. Findings from running tests of frequency and collocation reveal the traits of femininity constructed in the discourse, built the praising of obedience, submissiveness and lady-like features. We conclude that benevolent sexism is a common cultural practice evident in educational institutions.

Sexism and Attitude Toward Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse

Long-standing sexism in the Balinese community, based on its traditional paternalistic culture, may become the main factor to underlie children's vulnerability for abuse. School teachers, considering their regularity to interact with children in schools, might play a significant role in early detection and intervention of such cases. We conducted a cross-sectional observational study by sampling Junior High School teachers in Denpasar as an initial effort to analyze the correlations between sexism and attitude toward reporting of child sexual abuse in Bali. Subjects were requested to complete the questionnaires Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and a Teachers’ Reporting Attitude Scale for Child Sexual Abuse (TRAS – CSA). The two scales were then analyzed for correlations. The score of ASI Hostile sexism (HS) domain was inversely correlated with total TRAS-CSA, while a positive correlation was found between total TRAS-CSA score and total ASI Benevolent Sexism (BS) domain score for Paternalism subdomain. This research also pointed to the tendency of the Balinese sample to conduct the practice of benevolent sexism instead of hostile sexism. In correlation with teachers’ reporting for sexual abuse, cautions should be taken for possible inadequate reporting that might potentially lead to the chronicity of the abuse. Keywords: attitude, reporting, child sexual abuse, sexism, teacher