Gendered Profiles of Classism Toward People in Poverty: Hostile and Paternalistic Manifestations

IF 3.7 2区 社会学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Mario Sainz,Sofía Schwartz-Salazar,Gloria Jiménez-Moya,Roberto M. Lobato
{"title":"Gendered Profiles of Classism Toward People in Poverty: Hostile and Paternalistic Manifestations","authors":"Mario Sainz,Sofía Schwartz-Salazar,Gloria Jiménez-Moya,Roberto M. Lobato","doi":"10.1007/s11199-026-01684-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ambivalent classist representations shape support for poverty eradication strategies, yet little is known about how these attitudes differ when directed toward women versus men. We address this gap by conducting latent profile analyses to examine the emergence and prevalence of gendered ambivalent classism profiles across five countries ( N = 4,116; Spain, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, and Mexico). Results revealed a consistent range of classism profiles based on hostile and protective paternalistic attitudes toward women and men, including three ambivalent classist profiles (low, moderate, and high), a high generalized classist profile, a low-classist profile, and a paternalist profile. Profile emergence and prevalence varied by country and by the gender of the target. General trends emerged whereby participants were more likely to belong to paternalistic profiles when evaluating women in poverty compared to men in poverty. Further, those perceiving greater gender and economic inequality, and those identifying as feminists, were more likely to be members of low-classist or paternalistic profiles. Paternalistic and low-classist profiles were also less likely to justify existing inequalities and more supportive of collective action to confront them. These findings suggest that anti-poverty policies and interventions should account for gendered perceptions of poverty, as public support and stigma differ depending on whether poverty is associated with women or men.","PeriodicalId":48425,"journal":{"name":"Sex Roles","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sex Roles","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-026-01684-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Ambivalent classist representations shape support for poverty eradication strategies, yet little is known about how these attitudes differ when directed toward women versus men. We address this gap by conducting latent profile analyses to examine the emergence and prevalence of gendered ambivalent classism profiles across five countries ( N = 4,116; Spain, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, and Mexico). Results revealed a consistent range of classism profiles based on hostile and protective paternalistic attitudes toward women and men, including three ambivalent classist profiles (low, moderate, and high), a high generalized classist profile, a low-classist profile, and a paternalist profile. Profile emergence and prevalence varied by country and by the gender of the target. General trends emerged whereby participants were more likely to belong to paternalistic profiles when evaluating women in poverty compared to men in poverty. Further, those perceiving greater gender and economic inequality, and those identifying as feminists, were more likely to be members of low-classist or paternalistic profiles. Paternalistic and low-classist profiles were also less likely to justify existing inequalities and more supportive of collective action to confront them. These findings suggest that anti-poverty policies and interventions should account for gendered perceptions of poverty, as public support and stigma differ depending on whether poverty is associated with women or men.
贫困阶层歧视的性别特征:敌意和家长式的表现
矛盾的阶级主义表征塑造了对消除贫困战略的支持,但很少有人知道这些态度在针对女性和男性时是如何不同的。我们通过对五个国家(N = 4,116;西班牙、阿根廷、哥伦比亚、智利和墨西哥)的性别矛盾阶级歧视的出现和流行进行潜在特征分析来解决这一差距。结果显示,基于对女性和男性的敌意和保护的家长式态度的阶级主义特征的范围是一致的,包括三种矛盾的阶级主义特征(低、中、高),一种高度概括的阶级主义特征,一种低阶级主义特征和一种家长式特征。概况、出现和流行情况因国家和目标性别而异。总的趋势是,在评价贫困妇女时,参与者比评价贫困男子时更有可能属于家长式作风。此外,那些认为性别和经济不平等更严重的人,以及那些认为自己是女权主义者的人,更有可能是低阶级或家长制的成员。家长式作风和低阶级形象也不太可能为现有的不平等辩护,而更支持采取集体行动来应对这些不平等。这些发现表明,反贫困政策和干预措施应该考虑到对贫困的性别看法,因为公众的支持和耻辱取决于贫困是与女性还是男性有关。
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
Sex Roles
Sex Roles Multiple-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Sex Roles: A Journal of Research is a global, multidisciplinary, scholarly, social and behavioral science journal with a feminist perspective. It publishes original research reports as well as original theoretical papers and conceptual review articles that explore how gender organizes people’s lives and their surrounding worlds, including gender identities, belief systems, representations, interactions, relations, organizations, institutions, and statuses. The range of topics covered is broad and dynamic, including but not limited to the study of gendered attitudes, stereotyping, and sexism; gendered contexts, culture, and power; the intersections of gender with race, class, sexual orientation, age, and other statuses and identities; body image; violence; gender (including masculinities) and feminist identities; human sexuality; communication studies; work and organizations; gendered development across the life span or life course; mental, physical, and reproductive health and health care; sports; interpersonal relationships and attraction; activism and social change; economic, political, and legal inequities; and methodological challenges and innovations in doing gender research.
×
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
小红书