ARE FEMINISTS MAN HATERS? FEMINISTS' AND NONFEMINISTS' ATTITUDES TOWARD MEN

Despite the popular belief that feminists dislike men, few studies have actually examined the empirical accuracy of this stereotype. The present study examined self-identified feminists' and nonfeminists' attitudes toward men. An ethnically diverse sample ( N  = 488) of college students responded to statements from the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999 ). Contrary to popular beliefs, feminists reported lower levels of hostility toward men than did nonfeminists. The persistence of the myth of the man-hating feminist is explored.     

Education and Catholic Religiosity as Predictors of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Toward Women and Men

The relationships of education and religiosity to hostile and benevolently sexist attitudes toward women and men, as assessed by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) and the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999), was explored in a random sample of 1,003 adults (508 women, 495 men) from Galicia, Spain. For both men and women (a) level of educational attainment negatively correlated with hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes, and (b) Catholic religiosity uniquely predicted more benevolent, but not more hostile, sexist attitudes. Although correlational, these data are consistent with the notion that active participation in the Catholic Church may reinforce benevolently sexist ideologies that legitimate gender inequality, whereas education may be effective in diminishing sexist beliefs.     

Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations

A 16-nation study involving 8,360 participants revealed that hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men, assessed by the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (P. Click & S.T. Fiske, 1999), were (a) reliably measured across cultures, (b) positively correlated (for men and women, within samples and across nations) with each other and with hostile and benevolent sexism toward women (Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, P. Click & S.T. Fiske, 1996), and (c) negatively correlated with gender equality in cross-national comparisons. Stereotype measures indicated that men were viewed as having less positively valenced but more powerful traits than women. The authors argue that hostile as well as benevolent attitudes toward men reflect and support gender inequality by characterizing men as being designed for dominance.     

Ambivalent Classism: The Importance of Assessing Hostile and Benevolent Ideologies about Poor People

Abstract

We present a model of ambivalent classism in which hostile (overtly negative and insulting) and benevolent (subjectively positive but condescending) attitudes about poor people co-exist and independently predict endorsement of restrictive and poverty-perpetuating welfare policies. Whereas existing classism scales predominantly measure antipathy toward poor people, we developed and validated the Ambivalent Classism Inventory (ACI), a 20-item scale that captures both hostile and benevolent attitudes toward poor people. The ACI has one hostile factor (hostile classism) and two benevolent factors (protective paternalism and complementary class differentiation). Data from four samples (total n?=?1,543) indicate that the ACI has good reliability and validity. Findings underscore the role of benevolent beliefs in classist attitudes. Item generation, analytical methods, and implications are discussed.     

Beliefs About Gender Discrimination in the Workplace in the Context of Affirmative Action: Effects of Gender and Ambivalent Attitudes in an Australian Sample

This study investigated beliefs about gender discrimination in opportunities for promotion in organisations and their relation to gender and gender-focused ambivalent beliefs as measured, respectively, by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI) (Glick and Fiske, Ambivalent sexism. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 33: pp. 115-188, San Diego, CA: Academic, 2001a). These two inventories were administered to 225 students at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia along with discrimination items concerning advantage, responsibility, guilt, and resentment about the advancement of men and women in the workplace. Results showed gender differences in discrimination beliefs and in the hostile and benevolent scales from the ASI and AMI. Gender differences and relations between these scales and the discrimination variables were interpreted in terms of system-justification, self and group interests, and the effects of values and beliefs about deservingness and entitlement. This study was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council.     

CONTEMPORARY SEXISM

Previous research has examined the relationship between the Modern Sexism Scale (Swim, Aikin, Hall & Hunter, 1995) and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) or the relationship between the Modern Sexism Scale and the Neosexism Scale (Campbell, Schellenberg, & Senn, 1997; Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, 1995). The present study examined the relationship between the ASI and the Neosexism Scale. Across three samples ( N = 907), neosexism was found to be associated primarily with the hostile rather than the benevolent component of ambivalent sexism. Hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, and neosexism were all significantly associated with attitudes toward lesbians' and gay men's rights, and both hostile sexism and neosexism were significantly associated with attitudes toward women's rights. Neosexism and hostile sexism were negatively associated with a humanitarian-egalitarian orientation, whereas benevolent sexism was positively associated with a Protestant-ethic orientation. It is concluded that, although both the Neosexism Scale and ASI measure contemporary sexism, only the Benevolent Sexism subscale of the ASI taps the subjectively positive side of contemporary sexism.     

Ambivalence Toward Men: Comparing Sexism Among Polish, South African and British University Students

This study extends the literature on attitudes toward gender roles by exploring whether the nature of sexism (i.e., benevolence and hostility directed at men) differs among university students from two under-researched countries, Poland (n?=?190) and South Africa (n?=?188), in a comparison with students in the United Kingdom (n?=?166). Based on empirical literature applying Ambivalent Sexism Theory, and in the light of the socio-political context, it was hypothesized that: (1) both hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men in Poland would be more liberal than in South Africa and more conservative than in the United Kingdom, and (2), women would exhibit more hostile but less benevolent attitudes than men in relatively more conservative South Africa. The Ambivalence to Men Inventory was used to measure the two types of sexist attitudes about men. Findings supported the first hypothesis for hostile attitudes and partially for benevolent attitudes. South African and Polish students were more benevolent and hostile to men than British students, and students from South Africa were more hostile than those from Poland. Moreover, as predicted, a significant country-by-gender interaction revealed that South African women had more hostile and less benevolent attitudes to men than South African men. No such gender gap was present in the case of hostile attitudes in Poland and benevolent attitudes in the United Kingdom. Findings are discussed in terms of Ambivalent Sexism Theory and the countries’ socio-cultural context.     

EQUAL WORTH AND GRACIOUS SUBMISSION

The relationship between Judeo-Christian beliefs and attitudes toward employed women was examined. Participants ( N = 9,742) responded to the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey (Davis & Smith, 1996a). Attitudes toward employed women varied by strength of religiosity, gender, religious affiliation, and year; as strength of religiosity increased, attitudes became more traditional. Men had more traditional attitudes than women. The women who are more religious had attitudes that were more conservative than less religious women. Christians had more traditional attitudes than Jews and the nonreligious. Between 1985 and 1996, attitudes became less traditional. These findings suggest that attitudes toward working women are changing in a gradual manner, but that men and women hold very different attitudes about working women, even within the same religious affiliation.     

Ambivalent Sexism and the Sexual Double Standard

The sexual double standard is the notion that women are evaluated negatively and men positively for engaging in similar sexual behaviors. Because traditional, gender-based stereotypes are reflected in the attitudes that people hold towards men and women, it is likely that sexism plays a part in the manifestation of the double standard. The goal of the present study is to investigate the relationship between sexism (prejudice against individuals based on their gender) and the sexual double standard. There are two types of sexism: hostile (negative prejudice) and benevolent (positive prejudice). We hypothesized that participants displaying high levels of either type of sexism would be most likely to exhibit the sexual double standard. A US-sample of 232 undergraduates from a Southwestern university completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and the Ambivalence Towards Men Inventory (AMI) and then evaluated a hypothetical target individual who reported having zero, one or 12 sexual partners. Results show that participants’ sexist attitudes towards men and women were related to their exhibition of the sexual double standard. Specifically, men and women’s hostile attitudes towards targets of their own gender were related to negative evaluations of highly sexually active targets of the same gender, while men and women’s benevolent attitudes towards the opposite gender were related to positive evaluation of highly sexually active targets of the opposite gender. Implications of the present results and directions for future research are discussed.     

WOMEN'S ATTITUDES TOWARD MEN An Integrated Threat Theory Approach

Three studies were conducted to measure the antecedents of women's attitudes toward men using the integrated threat model. Four types of threats were hypothesized to produce negative attitudes toward men: (1) realistic threat based on threats to women's political and economic power, (2) symbolic threat based on value differences, (3) intergroup anxiety experienced during social interaction with outgroup members, and (4) negative stereotypes of men. Negative contact was hypothesized to increase the perception of all four threats as well as to affect attitudes directly. The findings suggest that symbolic threat, intergroup anxiety, and negative contact are the strongest predictors of negative attitudes toward men. Contrary to expectation, realistic threat may not be important to women's attitudes toward men.     

Value correlates of ambivalent attitudes toward gender relations

This study related measures of hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, hostility toward men, and benevolence toward men to value priorities. It was predicted that these variables would be positively related to the importance of power values for self and negatively related to universalism and benevolence values and that measures of benevolent sexism and benevolence toward men would be positively related to tradition values and negatively related to self-direction values. These predictions were supported in a study in which student participants in Adelaide, South Australia, completed the Glick and Fiske Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory, and the Schwartz Value Survey. The results demonstrate how values influence attitudes toward gender relations and provide an additional perspective on current discussions of prejudice.     

Work and Family Commitment and Decision-Making Status Among Emerging Adults

This study was designed to investigate work–family attitudes among emerging adults. Participants were 46 male and 49 female college juniors and seniors. Men and women had similar levels of work and family commitment. For women there was a negative correlation between work and family commitment. Exploratory analyses indicated different relationships between work decision-making status and commitment and family decision-making status and commitment. In addition, whereas men were more likely than women not yet to have thought about family roles, women were more likely than men to have decided about family roles. Implications of these findings for our understanding of the processes and meanings of emerging adult men's and women's decisions about entry into and commitment toward work and family roles are discussed. Although earlier literature employs the term “young adults” to refer to individuals in the emerging adult stage of development, for the sake of consistency we use the term “emerging adults” throughout this article.     

Psychological correlates of attitudes toward men

The relation between attitudes toward men and a number of personality, attitude, and health factors was studied. The 379 respondents (176 men, 203 women) completed the Attitudes Toward Men Scale (A. N. lazzo, 1983) and measures of the Big Five personality factors, conservatism, male bashing, attitudes toward women, sex role, locus of control, and health (including depression, anxiety, and self-esteem). A regression analysis using correlates of attitudes toward men indicated that, among women, femininity and self-esteem were important in predicting attitudes toward men. Among men, masculinity, self-esteem, and age were most important in predicting attitudes toward men.     

Ambivalent Sexism and Attitudes Toward Wife Abuse in Turkey and Brazil

Men and women in Turkey and Brazil completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) and measures of attitudes about wife abuse. In both nations hostile sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS) positively correlated with attitudes that legitimize abuse. Regression analyses revealed that HS accounted for unique variance, but BS (once HS was controlled) was unrelated to wife abuse attitudes. These results: (a) add to the evidence for the cross–cultural validity of ambivalent sexism, (b) suggest that HS supports the justification of violence against wives, and (c) imply that the ostensible protectiveness of BS is contingent, failing to shield women from abuse if they are deemed to have challenged a husband's authority or violated conventional gender roles.     

HOSTILE AND BENEVOLENT SEXISM

A theory of sexism as ambivalence , not just hostility, toward women is presented. Ambivalent Sexism Theory distinguishes between hostile and "benevolent" sexism (each addresses issues of power, gender differentiation, and sexuality). Benevolent sexism encompasses subjectively positive (for the sexist) attitudes toward women in traditional roles: protective paternalism, idealization of women, and desire for intimate relations. Hostile sexism encompasses the negative equivalents on each dimension: dominative paternalism, derogatory beliefs, and heterosexual hostility. Both forms of sexism serve to justify and maintain patriarchy and traditional gender roles. The validity of a measure of these constructs, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), is reviewed. Comparisons are offered between the ASI and other measures of sexist attitudes (e.g., the AWS), with suggestions for the proper domains of different scales.     

Ambivalent Sexism, Gender, and Major as Predictors of Turkish College Students’ Attitudes Toward Women and Men’s Atypical Educational Choices

The aim of the study was to investigate how ambivalent gender attitudes (hostile/benevolent sexism; hostility/benevolence toward men), plus gender and major predict attitudes toward men studying social sciences and women studying natural sciences in Turkey, where gender attitudes are relatively traditional. Undergraduates (N?=?215, mean age?=?21.16) completed scales of Ambivalent Sexism, Ambivalence toward Men, Attitudes toward Men in Social Sciences (AMSS), and Attitudes toward Women in Natural Sciences (AWNS). Although AMSS and AWNS were positive, men and natural-science majors had less positive AMSS and AWNS. Men in social sciences were perceived more negatively than women in natural sciences. Gender and hostile sexism predicted AWNS; gender, major, and benevolence toward men predicted AMSS. Implications for status relations are discussed.     

Physical fitness, body image, and locus of control in college freshman men and women

This study examined the relations among physical fitness, body image, and locus of control. The Hall-Physical Fitness Test Profile, the Winstead and Cash Body Self-relations Questionnaire (BSRQ) and the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale were administered to 243 freshmen. Women were significantly more positive about their physical appearance than men. Men were more positive about their physical fitness than women. Men were more physically fit than women. Men and women scoring in the internal direction viewed the physical fitness domain of their body image positively. Unlike men, internally oriented women had more positive perceptions of the health aspect of their body image. Physically fit men and women had positive attitudes toward the physical fitness component of their body image. Physically fit men differed from physically fit women in that men were more internal and held more positive attitudes toward the physical health dimension of their body images.     

The Effect of Victims' Social Support on Attributions of Blame in Female and Male Rape

The effects of perceived social support of the victim, victim gender, and participant gender on attributions of blame in rape were examined. The impact of attitudes toward gender roles was also investigated for their mediational role between participant gender and blame. Participants ( N= 121) read a report of an incident of rape and evaluated the victim and the perpetrator. Two ANOVAs showed that social support and participant gender influenced blame attributed to the victim, while victim gender influenced blame attributed to the perpetrator. Socially supported victims were blamed less than were unsupported victims. Men were more blaming of rape victims than were women, but further analyses showed this was mediated by attitudes toward gender roles. Men held significantly more traditional attitudes toward gender roles than did women, and this accounted for the effect of participant gender on victim perceptions. The perpetrator of male rape was blamed less than the perpetrator of female rape. Findings are discussed in terms of the differential attributional mechanisms that may underpin men's and women's reasoning about different types of rape.     

Feminist Consciousness Among Russians and Americans

Most empirical research on feminist consciousness has been conducted with North American women. In this study we examined feminist consciousness and attitudes toward women's issues among Russian and American women and men. Survey data from undergraduate students provide evidence of both cross-cultural and gender-related differences. Women scored higher than men on 4 of the 5 aspects of feminist consciousness measured in this study. American students scored higher on three aspects of feminist consciousness; however, Russian students were higher on sensitivity to sexism. Data concerning attitudes toward specific women's issues are also presented. Findings suggest that judgments about feminist consciousness based solely on these attitudes could lead to misconceptions about levels of feminist consciousness across cultures.     

WOMEN'S BENEVOLENT SEXISM AS REACTION TO HOSTILITY

Grounded in the theory of ambivalent sexism, this study tested the speculation that women's benevolent sexist attitudes may be, in part, a self-protective response to environments they perceive as hostile to women. Data that have indirectly supported this conjecture thus far have been correlational. The current study involved a more powerful, experimental test of the hypothesis. Women ( N = 105) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions, which differed only in what participants were told about research findings on men's attitudes toward women (negative or positive attitudes, or no information). As predicted, benevolent sexist attitudes—but not hostile sexist attitudes—were strongest for women told that men hold negative attitudes toward women. This effect is consistent with a benevolent sexism-as-protest explanation and was statistically significant even while controlling for attitudes toward feminism. The differential effect of beliefs about men's attitudes on these two types of sexism lends further support to the idea that, although hostile and benevolent sexism are related, they may serve different functions.