DISAVOWING SOCIAL IDENTITIES: WHAT IT MEANS WHEN WOMEN SAY, "I'M NOT A FEMINIST, BUT …"

Many women, even as they embrace feminist principles, are loath to be labeled feminists . This study presents a measure of feminist identity that accounts for beliefs and behaviors of self-identified feminists and nonfeminists, and for a third group, egalitarians, who endorse liberal feminist beliefs but reject the feminist label. In a sample of 272 college-educated women, a MANOVA showed egalitarians had levels of feminist consciousness between nonfeminists and feminists. Egalitarians did not differ from nonfeminists on favorable conditions for feminist identity or on feminist activism, but both groups scored lower on these measures than feminists. In a hierarchical multiple regression, feminist identity was a significant predictor of feminist activism, above and beyond favorable conditions and barriers. The importance of self-labeling for invisible and stigmatized social identities is discussed.     

WHAT IS A FEMINIST?

This article outlines the evaluation and stereotype of feminists, based on responses to closed-ended semantic differential traits as well as openended, projective responses to a hypothetical male or female feminist. Consistent across both methodologies, undergraduate respondents (Study 1: N = 210; Study 2: N = 135) viewed feminists as politically liberal, assertive/career oriented, and more likely to be heterosexual than lesbian. Most evaluations were neutral to slightly positive, with a few negative areas. However, feminists were seen in less positive terms than the typical woman and were described as much more assertive and politically liberal. Gender, race, birth cohort, gender of target, and feminist-attitude differences are presented. Despite the neutral to slightly positive evaluation, most respondents did not personally identify as feminists, possibly because they misperceive others' attitudes toward feminists as more negative than they actually are.     

Points and endpoints: a size/spacing constraint for dot grouping

One-dimensional arrangements of dots immediately group into contours. It is reported that, when these contours participate in certain larger arrangements, there is an abrupt point at which the percept changes as a function of dot spacing (or density along the contour). Closely spaced arrangements give rise to subjective effects involving apparent brightness and depth, whereas sparsely spaced ones do not. The effects are most clear in configurations that involve endpoints and possible occlusions. For these configurations, densely dotted contours are perceptually equivalent to solid ones, but sparse ones are not. This change in percept occurs abruptly and consistently at a dot to space ratio of 1:5, when the dot density is normalized by dot size, and this point is called the size/spacing constraint. It holds only for dots of the order of 1 min visual angle in diameter when small to modest contrast values are used. The subjective effects are not present for dotted contours (or even for solid ones) that are smaller (less than 0.5 min), and differ for contours that are larger (greater than 10 min). To demonstrate the significance of size/spacing constraints for early vision, a framework for grouping consisting of processes at many different levels is outlined, and the requirements for the earliest one (orientation selection) are sketched in greater detail. The size/spacing constraint follows directly from one of these requirements--receptive field structure--and seems to indicate a switch from early orientation-selection processes to later ones.