Sexism and racism perceptions: It depends on who does it and why

Outgroup perpetrators of discrimination are perceived as more biased than ingroup perpetrators, potentially because perpetrator group membership drives inferences regarding their motivation to discriminate. Consequently, when outgroup perpetrators provide hostile justification, greater discrimination and illegitimacy will be perceived compared to when ingroup perpetrators do so. In contrast, benevolent justifications reduce differences in discrimination and illegitimacy perception for outgroup versus ingroup perpetrators. In two experiments (Ns = 243; 382) dealing with sexism and racism, results supported our reasoning that the perpetrator’s explicit justification moderates the influence of the perpetrator’s group membership on discrimination and illegitimacy perception. Results of a third experiment (N = 489) show that when no justifications are provided, the prototype effect on discrimination perception mirrors the prototype effect under hostile justification, but not under benevolent justification. The results are more mixed concerning perceived illegitimacy. We discuss the implications of these findings regarding the processes underlying the prototype effect.     

Interconnecting Race and Gender Relations: Racism, Sexism and the Attribution of Sexism to the Racialized Other

This article analyzes the way that attitudes about gender and race relations are interconnected. Based on a survey study conducted in Switzerland with a sample of 273 Swiss nationals (125 men and 148 women), it shows that the attribution of a higher level of sexism to “racialized Others” than to Swiss individuals is a racist process resulting in the justification and naturalization of the ordinary Swiss sexism seen in the gendered division of labor. However, this study also shows that the attribution of a higher level of sexism to the Other can be countered by simultaneously adopting both feminist and non-racist attitudes.     

Sexism and Education: A Workshop to Increase Awareness

Project ASPIRE, a federally funded program, was designed to increase educators' awareness of sexual prejudice. It consisted of 64 hours of training for 32 educators, parents, and students. The training activities focused on self-awareness, the effects of sex-role stereotyping on students, the development of procedures to assess biases in instructional and counseling practices and materials, and a consideration of methods to reduce sex-role stereotyping within the school setting. A number of positive outcomes are reported. Dennis Sparks is co-director of Alternative Learning Program for the High School Age (ALPHA) for the Livonia Public Schools in Michigan. Barbara Mullally is an associate with Organizational Leadership, Inc., of East Lansing, Michigan.     

The New Sexism: A Response to DeVoe

DeVoe's (1990) presentation of women as powerless and men as having power is an example of what Farrell (1986) called “the new sexism.” Rather than viewing power as a commodity, the concept of personal empowerment is recommended. DeVoe's recommendations are also challenged.     

Sexism in Research:

No abstract available for this article.     

Sexism: A tri-dimensional phenomenon

A review of the existing sex-role scales indicated the need for a relatively short multidimensional scale with established validity and reliability. The scale reported herein, consisting of 20 self-administered items in Likert format with Guttman scoring option, measures attitudes toward sex roles in three broad areas: internal familial division of labor, external (economic) division of labor, and perceived sex differences. One hundred and ninety-seven carefully selected and worded items were pretested by administration to a diverse group of 154 respondents. The results were submitted to factor analytic procedures leading to one dimension comprising two sets of items — those measuring attitudes toward internal division of labor, and those measuring attitudes toward external division of labor — and another dimension comprising items measuring attitudes toward perceived sex differences. These sets of items were treated as three subscales and submitted to Guttman procedures. The coefficients of reproducibility and scalability for each subscale were deemed satisfactory. Furthermore, 17 of the 20 items on the scale were able to distinguish females' responses from those of males. The alpha coefficient of reliability for the 20 items was .94.Social Science Verification SystemsAdapted from a paper presented at the meeting of the Southwestern Sociological Association, Houston, Texas, April 12–15, 1978. The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments of their colleagues, Professor Raymond A. Eve, of the Department of Sociology, and Professor Richard Gorsuch, of the Graduate School of Social Work, The University of Texas at Arlington. The authors take full responsibility for the results and interpretations of the analyses.     

Homophobia and Sexism: The Pros and Cons to an Integrative Approach

Madureira's (Integr Psych Behav, 42(23), 2007) article on the cultural barriers of homophobia articulates the need for an integrative approach to the study of homophobia and sexism. This comment focuses on critically examining the similarities and differences between homophobia and sexism. Sexism and homophobia are related concepts--both likely stem from a patriarchic social structure with specific expectations for the proper roles of men and women--but they are also distinct in important ways. The potential benefits of integrated research on racism and homophobia are also discussed.     

Dismantling institutional racism: theory and action

Despite a strong commitment to promoting social change and liberation, there are few community psychology models for creating systems change to address oppression. Given how embedded racism is in institutions such as healthcare, a significant shift in the system's policies, practices, and procedures is required to address institutional racism and create organizational and institutional change. This paper describes a systemic intervention to address racial inequities in healthcare quality called dismantling racism. The dismantling racism approach assumes healthcare disparities are the result of the intersection of a complex system (healthcare) and a complex problem (racism). Thus, dismantling racism is a systemic and systematic intervention designed to illuminate where and how to intervene in a given healthcare system to address proximal and distal factors associated with healthcare disparities. This paper describes the theory behind dismantling racism, the elements of the intervention strategy, and the strengths and limitations of this systems change approach.     

The Danger in Sexism: The Links Among Fear of Crime, Benevolent Sexism, and Well-being

In two studies utilizing undergraduate students at a large public university in the Northeastern U.S., we examined how fear of crime negatively impacts psychological well-being and gender relations. In Study 1, students (N?=?216, 105 female) who indicated higher levels of fear of crime also indicated greater endorsement of benevolent sexism (but not hostile sexism) as well as higher levels of behavioral inhibition and lower self-esteem. In Study 2, fear of crime was manipulated and participants (N?=?115, 73 female) in the crime condition indicated greater endorsement of benevolent sexism, greater behavioral inhibition and lower self-esteem, as compared to participants in a control condition. The implications of the findings for gender relations and psychological well-being are discussed.     

Linking Sexism and Speciesism

Some feminists and animal advocates defend what I call the Linked Oppressions Thesis, according to which the oppression of women and the oppression of animals are linked causally, materially, normatively, and/or conceptually. Alasdair Cochrane offers objections to several versions of the Linked Oppressions Thesis and concludes that the Thesis should be rejected in all its forms. In this paper I defend the Thesis against Cochrane's objections as well as objections leveled by Beth Dixon, and argue that the failure of these objections illuminates the idea of linked oppressions as well as misunderstandings of the Linked Oppressions Thesis, and may provide guidance to philosophers theorizing animal rights from a feminist perspective.     

Ambivalent Sexism and Religion: Connected Through Values

Sexist attitudes do not exist in a limbo; they are embedded in larger belief systems associated with specific hierarchies of values. In particular, manifestations of benevolent sexism (Glick and Fiske 1996, 1997, 2001) can be perceived as a social boon, not a social ill, both because they are experienced as positive, and because they reward behaviors that maintain social stability. One of the strongest social institutions that create and justify specific hierarchies of values is religion. In this paper, we examine how the values inherent in religious beliefs (perhaps inadvertently) propagate an unequal status quo between men and women through endorsement of ideologies linked to benevolent sexism. In a survey with a convenience sample of train passengers in Southern and Eastern Poland (N?=?180), we investigated the relationship between Catholic religiosity and sexist attitudes. In line with previous findings (Gaunt 2012; Glick et al. 2002a; Ta?demir and Sakall?-U?urlu 2010), results suggest that religiosity can be linked to endorsement of benevolent sexism. This relationship was mediated in our study by the values of conservatism and openness to change (Schwartz 1992): religious individuals appear to value the societal status quo, tradition, and conformity, which leads them to perceive women through the lens of traditional social roles. Adhering to the teachings of a religion that promotes family values in general seems to have as its byproduct an espousal of prejudicial attitudes toward specific members of the family.     

Psychological Entitlement and Ambivalent Sexism: Understanding the Role of Entitlement in Predicting Two Forms of Sexism

Recent research has shown that narcissistic men in the United States express more ambivalent sexism than their non-narcissistic counterparts. The present study sought to extend these findings by hypothesizing that psychological entitlement would be a predictor of ambivalent sexism but that that this relationship may vary by gender. Given entitlement’s associations with hostility and aggression and the previously established link between narcissism and sexism in men, we hypothesized that entitlement would predict hostile sexism in men. Given that entitlement is characterized by a pervasive sense of deservingness for special treatment and goods, we expected that entitled women would endorse attitudes of benevolent sexism. These hypotheses were tested using two cross-sectional samples in the U.S.—a sample of undergraduates from a private university in the Midwest (N?=?333) and a web-based sample of adults across the U.S. (N?=?437). Results from regression analyses confirmed that psychological entitlement is a robust predictor of ambivalent sexism, above and beyond known predictors of sexism such as low openness and relevant covariates such as impression management. In addition, entitlement was a consistent predictor of benevolent sexism in women, but not in men, and a consistent predictor of hostile sexism in men, but not in women. These relationships were largely robust, persisting even when relevant covariates (e.g., socially desirable responding, trait openness) were controlled statistically, although in one sample the link between entitlement and hostile sexism in men was reduced to non-significance when benevolent sexism was controlled for statistically. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Ambivalent Sexism and the Dumb Blonde: Men's and Women's Reactions to Sexist Jokes

This article examines the relationship between gender, hostile sexism, benevolent sexism and reactions to a seemingly innocuous genre of sexist humor, the dumb blonde joke. After hearing an audiotaped conversation in which two students swapped dumb blonde jokes, participants high in hostile sexism rated the jokes as more amusing and less offensive than those low in hostile sexism. Among individuals low in hostile sexism, however, benevolent sexism interacted with gender. Specifically, men high in benevolent sexism found the jokes significantly more amusing and less offensive than either women in the same group or men low in both hostile and benevolent sexism. This study replicates and extends previous research examining the relationship between hostile sexism and the enjoyment of sexist humor, and underscores the possibility that benevolent sexism may represent qualitatively distinct attitudes for men and women.     

Anti-racism and inclusive racism

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice -