Ambivalent Sexism in the Twenty-First Century

Rachel A. Connor, P. Glick, S. Fiske
{"title":"Ambivalent Sexism in the Twenty-First Century","authors":"Rachel A. Connor, P. Glick, S. Fiske","doi":"10.1017/9781316161579.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gender-based inequality is pervasive. Historically and cross-culturally, men have held more resources, power, and status than women. Despite general trends toward gender equality, male dominance remains a global reality. As of 2014, the global gender gap in economic participation and opportunity, which includes gender gaps in income, labor force participation, and professional advancement, stood at 60% (Hausmann, Tyson, Bekhouche, & Zahidi, 2014). If progress toward gender equality continues at the same pace, it will take until 2095 to completely close this gap. Yet in contrast to characterizations of intergroup relations as hostile and competitive, gender relations are predominantly cooperative – individual men and women consistently engage in and sustain close relationships with members of the other sex, whether friends, parents, siblings, or significant others. Herein lies the gender relationship paradox. How is the tension between male hegemony and male-female intimacy reconciled? Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) recognizes that sexism entails a mixture of antipathy and subjective benevolence: • Hostile sexism corresponds to classic definitions of prejudice as antipathy (Allport, 1954) and reflects the hostile derogation of women who pose a threat to the gender hierarchy (e.g., feminists). • Benevolent sexism is “a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling (for the perceiver)” (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491). Benevolent sexism bestows affection on women who embrace limited but traditional gender roles (e.g., housewives). Hence, although benevolent sexism may appear positive, it presumes and reinforces women's subordinate status. Ambivalent sexism theory argues that hostile and benevolent sexism are, in fact, not conflicting but complementary ideologies that present a resolution to the gender relationship paradox. By offering male protection and provision to women in exchange for their compliance, benevolent sexism recruits women as unwitting participants in their own subjugation, thereby obviating overt coercion. Hostile sexism serves to safeguard the status quo by punishing those who deviate from traditional gender roles. This chapter discusses ambivalent sexism as a coordinated system of control that serves male dominance and limits women's power across personal, economic, and political domains. First, we review ambivalent sexism theory, focusing on ambivalent sexism's system-justifying functions. The second section addresses how ambivalent sexism polices women's bodies through the threat of rape, sexual harassment, and violence, as well as oppressive beauty ideals.","PeriodicalId":355478,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"45","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45

Abstract

Gender-based inequality is pervasive. Historically and cross-culturally, men have held more resources, power, and status than women. Despite general trends toward gender equality, male dominance remains a global reality. As of 2014, the global gender gap in economic participation and opportunity, which includes gender gaps in income, labor force participation, and professional advancement, stood at 60% (Hausmann, Tyson, Bekhouche, & Zahidi, 2014). If progress toward gender equality continues at the same pace, it will take until 2095 to completely close this gap. Yet in contrast to characterizations of intergroup relations as hostile and competitive, gender relations are predominantly cooperative – individual men and women consistently engage in and sustain close relationships with members of the other sex, whether friends, parents, siblings, or significant others. Herein lies the gender relationship paradox. How is the tension between male hegemony and male-female intimacy reconciled? Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) recognizes that sexism entails a mixture of antipathy and subjective benevolence: • Hostile sexism corresponds to classic definitions of prejudice as antipathy (Allport, 1954) and reflects the hostile derogation of women who pose a threat to the gender hierarchy (e.g., feminists). • Benevolent sexism is “a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling (for the perceiver)” (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491). Benevolent sexism bestows affection on women who embrace limited but traditional gender roles (e.g., housewives). Hence, although benevolent sexism may appear positive, it presumes and reinforces women's subordinate status. Ambivalent sexism theory argues that hostile and benevolent sexism are, in fact, not conflicting but complementary ideologies that present a resolution to the gender relationship paradox. By offering male protection and provision to women in exchange for their compliance, benevolent sexism recruits women as unwitting participants in their own subjugation, thereby obviating overt coercion. Hostile sexism serves to safeguard the status quo by punishing those who deviate from traditional gender roles. This chapter discusses ambivalent sexism as a coordinated system of control that serves male dominance and limits women's power across personal, economic, and political domains. First, we review ambivalent sexism theory, focusing on ambivalent sexism's system-justifying functions. The second section addresses how ambivalent sexism polices women's bodies through the threat of rape, sexual harassment, and violence, as well as oppressive beauty ideals.
二十一世纪的矛盾性别歧视
性别不平等现象普遍存在。从历史和跨文化的角度来看,男性比女性拥有更多的资源、权力和地位。尽管总体趋势是性别平等,但男性占主导地位仍然是全球现实。截至2014年,全球在经济参与和机会方面的性别差距,包括收入、劳动力参与和职业发展方面的性别差距,为60% (Hausmann, Tyson, Bekhouche, & Zahidi, 2014)。如果在性别平等方面继续以同样的速度进步,要到2095年才能完全消除这一差距。然而,与群体间关系被描述为敌对和竞争的特征相反,性别关系主要是合作的——男性和女性个体始终与异性成员保持密切关系,无论是朋友、父母、兄弟姐妹还是重要的其他人。这就是性别关系的悖论。男性霸权和男女亲密关系之间的紧张关系是如何调和的?矛盾性别歧视理论(Glick & Fiske, 1996)认为性别歧视包含反感和主观仁慈的混合:•敌意性别歧视与偏见的经典定义相对应(Allport, 1954),反映了对性别等级构成威胁的女性(例如女权主义者)的敌意贬义。•善意的性别歧视是“对女性的一系列相互关联的态度,这些态度在刻板印象和受限制的角色中是性别歧视的,但在主观感受上(对感知者来说)是积极的”(Glick & Fiske, 1996,第491页)。善意的性别歧视给予那些接受有限但传统的性别角色的女性(例如,家庭主妇)感情。因此,尽管善意的性别歧视看起来是积极的,但它假定并强化了女性的从属地位。矛盾性别歧视理论认为,敌意和善意的性别歧视实际上不是相互冲突的,而是互补的意识形态,它们为性别关系悖论提供了解决方案。通过向女性提供男性保护和供给,以换取她们的顺从,善意的性别歧视招募了女性,让她们在不知情的情况下参与对自己的征服,从而避免了公开的强迫。敌对的性别歧视通过惩罚那些偏离传统性别角色的人来维护现状。这一章讨论了矛盾的性别歧视作为一种协调的控制系统,它服务于男性的统治地位,并限制女性在个人、经济和政治领域的权力。首先,我们回顾了矛盾性别主义理论,重点讨论了矛盾性别主义的系统辩护功能。第二部分阐述了矛盾的性别歧视如何通过强奸、性骚扰和暴力的威胁以及压迫性的美丽理想来管理女性的身体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信