29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality.

      1 ,
      The American psychologist

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The equation of prejudice with antipathy is challenged by recent research on sexism. Benevolent sexism (a subjectively favorable, chivalrous ideology that offers protection and affection to women who embrace conventional roles) coexists with hostile sexism (antipathy toward women who are viewed as usurping men's power). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, first validated in U.S. samples, has been administered to over 15,000 men and women in 19 nations. Hostile and benevolent sexism are complementary, cross-culturally prevalent ideologies, both of which predict gender inequality. Women, as compared with men, consistently reject hostile sexism but often endorse benevolent sexism (especially in the most sexist cultures). By rewarding women for conforming to a patriarchal status quo, benevolent sexism inhibits gender equality. More generally, affect toward minority groups is often ambivalent, but subjectively positive stereotypes are not necessarily benign.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Am Psychol
          The American psychologist
          0003-066X
          0003-066X
          Feb 2001
          : 56
          : 2
          Affiliations
          [1 ] Department of Psychology, Lawrence University, Appleton, WI 54912-0599, USA. peter.s.glick@lawrence.edu
          Article
          10.1037//0003-066X.56.2.109
          11279804
          9f1eec64-f1d3-4f4e-91a7-48ba1bc1cfd7
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article