Sexism

Modern Sexism and Subtle Discrimination

Rather than overt sexism, it’s now much more likely that girls and women will experience modern sexism, or gender bias that is communicated in subtle or indirect ways (Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995). Modern sexism often leads to more subtle discrimination. For example, a woman might not get a job offer but not actually know that her gender played a role in the hiring decision. As we’ll discuss in Chapter 10, it’s not always easy to prove discrimination when this happens. One reason why modern sexism is so hard to notice and, therefore, change is that much of it is implicit. Explicit bias is conscious and deliberate. In contrast, implicit bias occurs outside of conscious awareness and can be unintentionally directed toward specific groups.

Because most people aren’t aware of their implicit biases, psychologists have devised tests, such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT), to assess them. The IAT records the time it takes for a person to associate certain words or images with other words or images associated with different social groups. For example, participants might be asked to pair pictures of women and men with words relating to either career or family. If participants respond more quickly when pairing women with family and men with career (the stereotypical pairing) than when pairing women with career and men with family (the non-stereotypical paring), that is considered to be evidence of an implicit bias associating women with family and men with careers. Many studies using the IAT find that well-intentioned people may not know they have biased associations related to girls and women (Ebert, Steffens, & Kroth, 2014; Latu et al., 2011; Mascret & Cury, 2015; Simon & O’Brien, 2015). However, other researchers have qualified these findings because results can be different, especially for first-time users, if a test is taken multiple times, and IAT results don’t consistently predict discriminatory behavior (Fiedler, Messner, & Bluemke, 2006; Mitchell & Tetlock, 2017; Rezaei, 2011).

Because modern sexist attitudes are often implicit, it can be hard to notice them. A central feature of modern sexism is the denial of discrimination (Ellemers & Barreto, 2009; Swim & Campbell, 2001). That is, if people assume that gender equality has been achieved, they’re likely to see any failure of women to succeed as a result of women’s own shortcomings rather than systematic disadvantage (Swim et al., 1995). People who hold modern sexist views are often resentful of demands for equality; they see these as coming from women who expect special treatment. As we mentioned earlier, some of the criticism directed at participants in the Women’s March included many of these sentiments. However, denial of discrimination is considered sexist because it justifies not addressing gender inequalities and maintains the status quo while also blaming women for their lack of equality and social mobility (Becker & Swim, 2012; Hayes & Swim, 2013).

Modern sexism is viewed as harmful because it prevents social change and can have negative consequences. Women who experience modern sexism have been found to report greater anxiety and insecurity than women who don’t report experiencing modern sexism, and they’re also more likely to engage in self-defeating behaviors (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005; Ellemers & Barreto, 2009). Interestingly, some women also engage in denial of personal discrimination (Crosby, Iyer, Clayton, & Downing, 2003). They acknowledge that sexism exists, but they feel they don’t personally experience it—at least, not often. Psychologists suggest that this may be a form of self-protection because it’s difficult to accept that one is disadvantaged due to being a woman (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005; Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997). Such denial makes it less likely that women will engage in collective social action, which in turn maintains the status quo (Ellemers & Barreto, 2009; Wright, 2001).

Microaggressions

Modern sexism and the resulting subtle gender discrimination can be so unobtrusive that they begin to seem like normal parts of life (Swim & Cohen, 1997), so there is often guesswork involved in deciding whether one is experiencing it. Let’s consider a male boss telling a female employee, “You look nice today.” Does he avoid making the same type of comment to male employees? He might be paying her a compliment, but he might also be cultivating a work environment in which female employees, but not male employees, are noticed for their appearance. Gender microaggressions are brief, everyday acts of sexism, whether intentional or unintentional, that demean and insult a person based on that individual’s gender (Sue, 2010). These everyday acts are frequently perpetrated by people with good intentions who most likely don’t see themselves as prejudiced (Sue, 2010; Swim & Cohen, 1997), an idea we’ll revisit later in this chapter.

Microagressions are often the result of stereotyping. For example, one study showed that Black women at predominantly White institutions experienced gendered racial microaggresions based on stereotypes such as those discussed above, including the Jezebel or the angry Black woman (Lewis, Mendenhall, Harwood, & Browne Huntt, 2016). In another study, researchers found that, compared to Latinx men, Latinx women experienced more microaggressions that were based on racialized gender stereotypes (Nadal, Mazzula, Rivera, & Fujii-Doe, 2014). Other microaggressions reported by women of color include feeling as though they were sexual objects and being treated as if they were a nanny instead of a mother (Nadal et al., 2015). Researchers have also found that people with disabilities frequently experienced microaggressions (Keller & Galgay, 2010). They were often infantilized (i.e., treated as children), patronized (e.g., praised for doing mundane tasks), and de-sexualized (e.g., punished for displaying sexual interest).

Other research shows that microaggressions may appear ambiguous or neutral (Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Magley, & Nelson, 2017). An example is selective incivility—the tendency to make rude, condescending, and ostracizing acts that violate norms of respect toward women and people of color (Cortina, 2008). Because acts of selective incivility (e.g., using a condescending tone, ignoring or interrupting a colleague) appear neutral, they aren’t identified as sexist or racist acts (Cortina et al., 2017). They’re attributed to the personality or carelessness of an individual instigator rather than seen as indicating a hostile climate. However, incivility is actually a covert manifestation of bias.

Identifying and Addressing Microaggressions Although the idea of subtle, unintended slights toward members of socially disempowered groups isn’t new, this is a relatively new area of research. As a result, there are still inconsistencies in how microaggressions are operationalized, which make it hard to draw clear conclusions about outcomes and impacts (Lilienfeld, 2017). When we leave the lab and look to the real world, then, it’s no surprise that microaggressions are hard to document and many people don’t notice when they’re taking place. The Everyday Sexism Project created #everydaysexism in order to more regularly document and promote awareness of gender microaggressions. With over 250,000 Twitter followers, there are postings made every day showing women’s experiences with microaggressions. For example, one mother posted a picture of a sign in her son’s classroom that listed all the children’s names under the category of either Gorgeous Girls or Brilliant Boys. A waitress in her forties posted that while waiting on a table of businessmen she was referred to as a “good girl” for clearing the table. A college student explained that she was groped in a bar by a man who later apologized to her two male friends while simultaneously ignoring her.

Microaggressions can also be difficult to address. For example, if someone calls a woman “a girl” or inappropriately stares at her body, she has to decide whether it’s better to ignore or confront it. This process can be stressful. First, she simultaneously has to discern the truth, protect herself from additional insults, and make a decision about whether to take action (Cadinu, Maass, Rosabianca, & Kiesner, 2005; Salvatore & Shelton, 2007; Sue, 2010). For a woman of color, the process can be more complex because she also has to take into account negative racialized stereotypes. For example, one Black woman described how a man at a club told her to “shake her booty.” She wanted to tell him that he was being inappropriate but censored herself because she feared being labeled as an angry Black woman (Lewis, Mendenhall, Harwood, & Browne Huntt, 2016, p. 769).

Women can have a hard time deciding whether to directly address microaggressions or if other strategies are more appropriate. Research shows that women are concerned about the consequences associated with responding to microaggressions, and it can be difficult to know what to say (Kahn, 2015; Sue & Capodilupo, 2008). For example, in one study, researchers found that Black women used a variety of strategies to deal with microaggressions based on their power in the situation (Lewis et al., 2016). If the perpetrator was a boss or professor, participants reported withdrawing in order to be self-protective. They deliberately did not address the incident because the power difference made it likely that they couldn’t safely predict the outcome of the situation.

However, when microaggressions go unaddressed, there can be psychological costs, including decreased self-esteem and increased anger and frustration (Sue, 2010). In one study, researchers found that Asian American women who were exposed to microaggressions reported more negative mental and physical outcomes than their male counterparts who were more likely to be affected when they were exposed to more overt forms of discrimination (Hahm, Ozonoff, Gaumond, & Sue, 2010). This finding suggests that microaggresions motivated by both racism and sexism are likely to be particularly problematic because the person being targeted has to do additional work to determine if the attack is motivated by race, gender, or some combination of both. We’ll return to this topic in Chapter 13.

Ambivalent Sexism: Hostility and Benevolence

What are hostile and benevolent sexism, and how do they work together to maintain gender hierarchies?

Another reason that it’s often hard to see sexism is that it can be cloaked in a positive context. As we’ve discussed, stereotypes can include both positive and negative components, and the positive aspects can cloak the negative ones. For example, people don’t usually go around saying, “I hate women. They’re horrible.” In fact, many sexist beliefs arise from the assumption that women (at least women who conform to traditional gender roles) are wonderful, virtuous, and warm. Ambivalent sexism is a term that describes the ways in which contemporary sexism includes two related but complementary components: hostility and benevolence (Glick & Fiske, 1997). Hostile sexism consists of negative and derogatory beliefs about girls and women. Examples of hostile sexist beliefs are that women are incompetent, unintelligent, or sexually manipulative. In contrast, benevolent sexism takes a positive spin, suggesting that girls and women should be treated differently than men because they are special and worthy of being cherished and in need of protection. Examples of benevolent sexist beliefs are that women are pure, maternal, or intuitive. One can say that benevolent sexism puts women on a pedestal and hostile sexism puts women in the gutter (Begun & Walls, 2015).

Hostile and benevolent sexism work together to create sexist environments (Glick & Fiske, 1997; Wood & Eagly, 2010). Hostile sexism operates by punishing women for challenging traditional gender expectations; benevolent sexism rewards women for maintaining the gender status quo. One tool for assessing people’s endorsement of hostile and benevolent sexism is the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1997), and sample items for each type of sexism are shown in Table 2.4. Research with 15,000 women and men from 19 countries using the ASI showed that levels of hostile and benevolent sexism can reliably predict the status of girls and women (Glick et al., 2000). In countries with high levels of both hostile and benevolent sexism, women were found to be less likely than men to hold high-ranking government positions, receive pay equity, or have equivalent levels of education to their male counterparts.

TABLE 2.4 Sample Items from the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory

Note. The entire Ambivalent Sexism Inventory is provided in Glick and Fiske (1997). Respondents are instructed to rate the extent to which they agree with each item using a 6-point scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.

Benevolent sexism is based in paternalistic chivalry, the idea that women should be protected and cherished—at least, as long as they conform to traditional gender roles. It can be appealing for many women to be put on a pedestal, and the appeal of benevolent sexism is what makes it so insidious and hard to change. However, a pedestal is a tight place to stand, and being there traps women within a narrow range of what’s acceptable. Also, hostile and benevolent sexism go hand in hand. In fact, people who hold negative beliefs about women (as evidenced by hostile sexism) tend to hold positive beliefs about women who conform to traditional gender expectations (as evidenced by benevolent sexism; Glick & Fiske, 2001). Given this relationship, it can be easy to switch between hostile and benevolent sexism. This occurs, for example, when a man who cherishes his girlfriend calls her a slut after they break up. It also occurs in the cases of men who worship their mothers but are very hostile to sexual women—a phenomenon known as the Madonna/whore complex (Tanzer, 1985; Tavris & Wade, 1984). This phenomenon stems from the fact that some men see the women they care for and respect and the women they desire as being in mutually exclusive categories, so men will engage in both benevolent and hostile sexism—but toward different women (Tavris & Wade, 1984).

Although women are likely to reject hostile sexism, they often do endorse benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 2001). In fact, one study has found that, in countries where men endorse high levels of hostile sexism, women are more likely to endorse benevolent sexism (Glick et al., 2000). This may, in part, be a self-protective response (Fischer, 2006). If a woman is in danger of being persecuted because she deviates from gender norms, it would be to her advantage to internalize the importance of staying within gender norms.

People appear to differentially apply benevolent sexism across groups of women. In one online study, researchers found that primarily White participants expressed more benevolent sexism toward White women than toward Black women (McMahon & Kahn, 2016). However, when Black women were described as chaste, the participants expressed more benevolent sexism toward them. As a result, the researchers concluded that when Black women conform to traditional expectations of femininity, a possible outcome would be experiencing benevolent sexism.

Negative Outcomes of Sexism It probably seems obvious how hostile sexism is detrimental. Studies show that those who more strongly endorse hostile sexism make less favorable attributions about career women and are less likely to believe a woman’s claim about sexual harassment in the workplace (Carli, 2001; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004). Among men, hostile sexist attitudes are also associated with finding sexist jokes amusing rather than offensive, being more likely to minimize the seriousness of rape, and thinking that a woman is to blame for being raped if she was wearing revealing clothing or had too much to drink (Chapleau, Oawald, & Russell, 2007; Greenwood & Isbell, 2002; Yamawaki, 2007). In one study, hostile sexism was significantly associated with more negative evaluations of a female job candidate and with lower recommendations that she be employed as a manager (Masser & Abrams, 2004). Women and men high on hostile sexism were also likely to evaluate male candidates more favorably than female candidates.

It’s often harder to see why benevolent sexism is detrimental, but it can impede women’s advancement. Benevolent sexism assumes that women are in need of men’s protection, an attitude that places women in a “less than” position in relation to men. Because many people see male protection as natural, and even beneficial, benevolent sexism is often not considered sexist. In fact, during the 1970s, the justification for not ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was based on benevolent sexist principles. Opponents of the ERA claimed that equality would actually disadvantage women because it would eliminate protections that had been put in place for women (Sue, 2010). More recently, politicians have used benevolent sexism to justify limiting military women’s participation in active combat by suggesting that women are weaker than or not as capable as their male counterparts, which subsequently prevents advancement of women in the military (Choma, 2016).

Also, when women are exposed to benevolent sexism, they may show increased levels of stress. In one study, a racially diverse group of women was asked to complete a challenging problem-solving task prior to being exposed to a male researcher who made either a hostile, a benevolent, or a non-sexist comment (Salomon, Burgess, & Bosson, 2015). In the benevolent condition, he said, “Girls don’t like the hard section, so I’m going to go ahead and get rid of it for you. I’m willing to sacrifice a little data, so I don’t make another girl upset about how hard the last section is” (p. 472). Compared to women who weren’t exposed to benevolent sexism, the women who were had increased cardiovascular activity that took longer to return to baseline. This outcome indicates that the women who were exposed to benevolent sexism experienced the stress of the problem-solving task for a longer period than was true for the women who were exposed to either the hostile sexist or the non-sexist comment. In another study, women who simply witnessed a benevolent sexist act (a man offering to pick up a box for another woman) felt more self-conscious about their bodies than those who didn’t witness such an act (Shepherd et al., 2011). On the basis of these findings, one can say that even witnessing benevolent sexist acts has detrimental effects.

Benevolent sexism can even interfere with women’s thinking. In one study researchers examined women’s brains while completing a memory task after hearing a male researcher make a benevolent sexist statement, a hostile sexist statement, or a neutral statement (Dardenne et al., 2013). When the women were exposed to the benevolent sexist statement, the brain regions associated with stopping intrusive thoughts (e.g., bilateral, dorsolateral, prefrontal, and anterior cingulate cortex) reacted. This finding indicates that those in the benevolent sexism condition shifted attention from the task to block out intrusive thoughts. Since this wasn’t true for those exposed to the hostile sexist statement or the neutral statement, benevolent sexism may well be particularly detrimental to women’s performance.