On gender chauvinism

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1997

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 AS1 and other measures of sexist attitudes (e.g., the AWS), with suggestions for the proper domains of different scales.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1999

Social Theory and Practice, 2003

Sexism consists of biases and discriminatory practices that position one sex or gender as inferior to another. While the targets of sexism are typically women, sexism may also affect people of various genders (men, transgender individuals). Like racism, sexism is both interpersonal and institutional in nature. Despite feminists’ historical and recent advances, sexism continues to permeate various aspects of contemporary culture, including language, politics and public policy, popular culture (including new media and virtual spaces), and institutions such as colleges and universities.

Social Indicators …, 1999

ABSTRACT. Working from the Principle of Beneficence we make the case that there is a need for adequate measures of sexism in men and women. Swim, Aikin, Hall and Hunter (1995) suggest that modern sexism represents a constellation of beliefs in which individuals: (a) disavow ...

Sociologia & Antropologia, 2020

Opposition to gender has become a central element in the discourses and initiatives of the "global right". Although the convergence between anti-gender movements and other manifestations of the new right takes distinct and sometimes contradictory forms 2 (Paternotte & Kuhar, 2018; Corrêa, Paternotte & Kuhar, 2018), the dismantling of a series of polices for social inclusion and reducing inequalities is at stake. Ideologues of the new right such as Steve Bannon 3 and Olavo de Carvalho have waged a "culture war" 4 on enemies like "gender ideology," "globalism" and "cultural Marxism." As Mirrlees (2018: 49) argues, these epithets act as full-blown "political instruments of intersectional hate" that are applied to values, practices, and identities of a progressive, liberal, or left-wing inclination. They are mobilized and combined in varying forms depending on the type of enemy to be attacked: organizations, parties or specific groups like "communists, blacks, gays, feminists and all those who do not share their mental universe" (Messenberg, 2017: 637). Much as they prove theoretically and empirically flimsy, many of these counter-narratives are based on the reinterpretation of empirical data, concepts and, more generally, theoretical perspectives developed by academics: "cultural Marxism" is a distortion of the tradition of Western Marxism, especially Gramsci and the first generation of the Frankfurt School; "globalism" is a distortion of the critiques of the economic dimension of globalization, considered an integral part of "cultural Marxism"; "gender ideology" and "gender theory" 1002 gender ideology: an analysis of its disputed meanings

Sex Roles, 2010

The special issue on Ambivalent Sexism (Glick and Fiske 1996, 1999, 2001) reflects the current landscape of ambivalent sexism research. This introduction reviews the theory, exploring the particularly insidious case of benevolent sexism. Next, it presents the included papers, which range broadly, but generally fit one of three research streams in the development of ambivalent sexism research. Some papers focus on converging correlations, exploring ambivalent sexism's relation to other ideologies and cultural dimensions. Other papers demonstrate causality in context, revealing impact on targets and the prescriptive power of ambivalent ideologies. A third line documents converse causality, illustrating impact on perceivers' self processes. Finally, we discuss possible future areas of research.

Sex Roles, 1985

This study was designed to investigate the nature and type of conceptions of femaleness and maleness that would be generated by blacks and whites m an open-ended questionnaire. Five hundred respondents from 13 vocational schools, community colleges, 4-year colleges, and universities generated 718 conceptions, which were then rated on degree of maleness and femaleness and social desirability by a sample of 297 respondents from that same population. Results indicated that females and males (races combined) and blacks and whites (genders combined) differed significantly #7 their male-female conceptions scores. Descriptions of the types of conceptions most frequently generated by the respondents are presented and discussed, This investigation was designed as an initial examination of spontaneously generated conceptions of femaleness and maleness among females and males and also among whites and blacks. Interest in this topic evolved out of recent sex-role research (cf. Mednick & Weissman, 1975; Hyde & Rosenberg, 1976; Orlofsky, 1981), in which considerable emphasis has been placed on the measurement of maleness and femaleness within individuals and upon measures of the degree of sex-role stereotyping within American society. Systematic attention to conceptions of femaleness and maleness first appeared at the turn of the century, with the advent of psychological studies of sex differences. In general, however, psychologists have worked with definitions that were handed down through tradition and folklore.

2017

Reflections of relationships, actions, interactions, beliefs, norms, values, etc. often reinforce popular notions concerning gender, that women differs from men and the very fact of this difference is a 'natural' part of our genetic makeup. Gender, according to sociologists, refers to the meanings a society gives to masculinity and femininity. Gender is not just an identity or status; it is a continual process of negotiation. Men are expected to maintain masculinity that includes toughness, bravado, strength, assurance, and confidence, all with little display of emotion. Women are expected to perform femininity that exudes beauty, caring, nurturance, neediness, compassion, and complete with every range of possible emotion. Grounded in the notion of gender differences are gender inequalities which discriminates females from males, and holds that masculinity means domination for they had the power or ability to carry out, in the Weberian word his (sic) will against another, while femininity means subjugation for being powerless. This paper aims to study the everyday life accounts of individuals, be it male or female, usually explains the expected roles and lifestyles of the gendered groups; and how they should acquire the said norms leading to the different forms of inequality that remains underneath sometimes ignorantly, but many a times more consciously and profoundly, for everyday life is organized in ways that constantly distinguish women from men.

2012

The goal of this study was to determine how ambivalent sexism toward women and men are both associated with rape myth acceptance. The Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance scale, Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, and Ambivalence toward Men Inventory were completed by 409 participants. Hostile sexism toward women positively correlated with rape myth acceptance. For benevolent sexism toward women, complementary gender differentiation was positively associated with rape myth acceptance whereas protective paternalism was negatively associated. Benevolent sexism toward men, but not hostile sexism, positively correlated with rape myth acceptance. Further, for female participants higher maternalism toward men corresponded with higher rape myth acceptance. These findings suggest that sexist beliefs toward both women and men are important for understanding the support of rape myths.