essay over sexism

• The University Of Chicago

• Visitors & Fellows
• BFI Employment Opportunities
• Big Data Initiative
• Chicago Experiments Initiative
• Health Economics Initiative
• Industrial Organization Initiative
• International Economics and Economic Geography Initiative
• Macroeconomic Research Initiative
• Political Economics Initiative
• Price Theory Initiative
• Ronzetti Initiative for the Study of Labor Markets
• Becker Friedman Institute China
• Becker Friedman Institute Latin America
• Macro Finance Research Program
• Program in Behavioral Economics Research
• Development Innovation Lab
• Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago
• TMW Center for Early Learning + Public Health
• UChicago Scholars
• Visiting Scholars
• Saieh Family Fellows

Rational inattention models characterize optimal decision-making in data-rich environments. In such environments, it can be costly to look carefully at all of the information. Some information is much more salient for the decision at hand and merits closer scrutiny. The...

This paper characterizes the transition dynamics of a continuous-time neoclassical production economy with capital accumulation in which households face idiosyncratic income risk and cannot commit to repay their debt. Therefore, even though a full set of contingent claims that pay...

Interest in market power has recently surged among economists in many fields, well beyond its traditional home in industrial organization. This has focused empirical attention on markups, the ratios of price to marginal cost in product markets, and markdowns, the...

• View All caret-right

Upcoming Events

2024 ai in social science conference, economic theory conference honoring phil reny, 2024 women in empirical microeconomics conference, past events, bfi student lunch series – the impact of incarceration on employment, earnings, and tax filing, macro financial modeling meeting spring 2012, modeling financial sector linkages to the macroeconomy, research briefs.

Interactive Research Briefs

• Media Mentions
• Press Releases
• Search Search
• The Effects of Sexism on American Women: The Role of Norms vs. Discrimination
• Sexism experienced during formative years stays with girls into adulthood
• These background norms can influence choices that women make and affect their life outcomes
• In addition, women face different levels of sexism and discrimination in the states where they live as adults
• Sexism varies across states and can have a significant impact on a woman’s wages and labor market participation, and can also influence her marriage and fertility rates

What type of life experiences will these women have in terms of the work they do and the wages they earn? Will they get married and, if so, how young? If they have children, when will they start to raise a family? How many children will they have? According to the authors of the new BFI working paper, “The Effects of Sexism on American Women: The Role of Norms vs. Discrimination,” the answers to those questions depend crucially on where women are born and where they choose to live their adult lives.

Kerwin Kofi Charles, professor at the Harris School of Public Policy, and his colleagues employ a novel approach that examines how prevailing sexist beliefs shape life outcomes for women. Essentially, they find that sexism affects women through two channels: one is their own preferences that are shaped by where they grow up, and the other is the sexism they experience in the place they choose to live as adults.

On average, not all states are average The average American woman’s socioeconomic outcomes have improved dramatically over the past 50 years. Her wages and probability of employment, relative to the average man’s, have risen steadily over that time. She is also marrying later and bearing children later, as well as having fewer total children. However, these are national averages and these phenomena do not hold in all states across America. Indeed, the gap between men and women that existed in a particular state 50 years ago is largely the same size today. In other words, if a state exhibited less gender discrimination 50 years ago, it retains that narrower gap today; a state that exhibited more discrimination in 1970 has a similarly wide gap today. Much research over the years has focused on broad national trends when measuring sexism and its effect on women’s lives. A primary contribution of this paper is that it documents cross-state differences in women’s outcomes and incorporates non-market factors, like cultural norms. The focus of the authors’ analysis are the four outcomes described above: wages, employment, marriage, and fertility. Of the many forms sexism might take, the authors focus on negative or stereotypical beliefs about whether women should enter the workplace or remain at home. Specifically, sexism prevails in a market when residents believe that:

• women’s capacities are inferior to men;

• families are hurt when women work;

• and men and women should adhere to strict roles in society.

These cultural norms are not only forces that occur to women from external sources, but they are forces that also exist within women, and are strongly affected by where a woman is raised. For example, a girl may grow up within a culture that prizes stay-at-home mothers over working moms, as well as early marriages and large families. These are what the authors describe as background norms, and they are able to estimate the influence of these background norms throughout adulthood by comparing women who were born in one place and moved to different places, and those who were born in different places and moved to the same place. Once a woman reaches adulthood and chooses a place to live, she is then influenced by discrimination in the labor market and by what the authors term residential sexism, or those current norms that they experience in their new hometown. On the question of who engages in sexist behavior, men and/ or women, the authors are clear: men are the purveyors of discrimination in the market (whether women are hired for or promoted to certain jobs), and women determine norms (or residential sexism) that influence such outcomes as marriage and fertility.

The authors conduct a number of rigorous tests based on a broad array of data to reach their conclusions about women’s wages, their labor force participation relative to men, and the ages at which women aged 20-40 married and had their first child. For example, their information on sexism comes from the General Social Survey (GSS), which is a nationally representative survey that asks respondents various questions, among others, about their attitudes or beliefs about women’s place in society.

Sexism affects women through two channels: one is their own preferences that are shaped by where they grow up, and the other is the sexism they experience in the place they choose to live as adults.

The authors reveal how prevailing sexist beliefs about women’s abilities and appropriate roles affect US women’s socioeconomic outcomes. Studying adults who live in one state but who were born in another, they show that sexism in a woman’s state of birth and in her current state of residence both lower her wages and likelihood of labor force participation, and lead her to marry and bear her first child sooner. The sexism a woman experiences where she was raised, or background sexism, affects a woman’s outcomes even after she is an adult living in another place through the influence of norms that she internalized during her formative years. Further, the sexism present where a woman lives (residential sexism) affects her non-labor market outcomes through the influence of prevailing sexist beliefs of other women where she lives. By contrast, residential sexism’s effects on her labor market outcomes seem to operate chiefly through the mechanism of market discrimination by sexist men. Finally, and importantly, the authors find sound evidence that prejudice-based discrimination, undergirded by prevailing sexist beliefs that vary across space, may be an important driver of women’s outcomes in the US.

CLOSING TAKEAWAY By studying adults who were born in one place but live in another, the authors reveal the effects of sexism on women’s outcomes in the market through discrimination (wages and jobs), as well as in non-market settings through cultural norms (marriage and fertility).

• Kerwin Kofi Charles
• Harris Professor Kerwin Charles draws connections between workplace and birthplace among American women
• New economic research from Harris School of Public Policy’s Kerwin Kofi Charles, an affiliated scholar of BFI’s Ronzetti Initiative for the Study of Labor Markets, looks at “How Sexism Follows Women from the Cradle to the Workplace”
• Research from Harris School of Public Policy’s Kerwin Kofi Charles, an affiliated scholar of BFI’s Ronzetti Initiative for the Study of Labor Markets, cited in discussion on the growing wage gap between white and black men

• Share full article

Advertisement

This Is How Everyday Sexism Could Stop You From Getting That Promotion

By Jessica Nordell and Yaryna Serkez Oct. 14, 2021

By Jessica Nordell Graphics by Yaryna Serkez

Jessica Nordell is a science and culture journalist. Yaryna Serkez is a writer and a graphics editor for Opinion.

When the computer scientist and mathematician Lenore Blum announced her resignation from Carnegie Mellon University in 2018, the community was jolted. A distinguished professor, she’d helped found the Association for Women in Mathematics, and made seminal contributions to the field. But she said she found herself steadily marginalized from a center she’d help create — blocked from important decisions, dismissed and ignored. She explained at the time : “Subtle biases and microaggressions pile up, few of which on their own rise to the level of ‘let’s take action,’ but are insidious nonetheless.”

It’s an experience many women can relate to. But how much does everyday sexism at work matter? Most would agree that outright discrimination when it comes to hiring and advancement is a bad thing, but what about the small indignities that women experience day after day? The expectation that they be unfailingly helpful ; the golf rounds and networking opportunities they’re not invited to ; the siphoning off of credit for their work by others; unfair performance reviews that penalize them for the same behavior that’s applauded in men; the “ manterrupting ”?

When I was researching my book “The End of Bias: A Beginning” I wanted to understand the collective impact of these less visible forms of bias, but data were hard to come by. Bias doesn’t happen once or twice; it happens day after day, week after week. To explore the aggregate impact of routine gender bias over time, I teamed up with Kenny Joseph, a computer science professor at the University at Buffalo, and a graduate student there, Yuhao Du, to create a computer simulation of a workplace. We call our simulated workplace “NormCorp.” Here’s how it works.

NormCorp is a simple company. Employees do projects, either alone or in pairs. These succeed or fail, which affects a score we call “promotability.” Twice a year, employees go through performance reviews, and the top scorers at each level are promoted to the next level.

NormCorp employees are affected by the kinds of gender bias that are endemic in the workplace. Women’s successful solo projects are valued slightly less than men’s , and their successful joint projects with men accrue them less credit . They are also penalized slightly more when they fail . Occasional “stretch” projects have outsize rewards, but as in the real world, women’s potential is underrecognized compared with men’s, so they must have a greater record of past successes to be assigned these projects. A fraction of women point out the unfairness and are then penalized for the perception that they are “self-promoting.” And as the proportion of women decreases, those that are left face more stereotyping .

We simulated 10 years of promotion cycles happening at NormCorp based on these rules, and here is how women’s representation changed over time.

Simulation of Normcorp promotions over 10 years, with female performance undervalued by 3 percent

Simulation results over time

These biases have all been demonstrated across various professional fields. One working paper study of over 500,000 physician referrals showed that women surgeons receive fewer referrals after successful outcomes than male surgeons. Women economists are less likely to receive tenure the more they co-author papers with men. An analysis at a large company found that women’s, as well as minority men’s, performance was effectively “discounted” compared with that of white men.

And women are penalized for straying from “feminine” personality traits. An analysis of real-world workplace performance evaluations found that more than three-quarters of women’s critical evaluations contained negative comments about their personalities, compared with 2 percent of men’s. If a woman whose contributions are overlooked speaks up, she may be labeled a self-promoter, and consequently face further obstacles to success . She may also become less motivated and committed to the organization . The American Bar Association found that 70 percent of women lawyers of color considered leaving or had left the legal profession entirely, citing being undervalued at work and facing barriers to advancement.

Our model does not take into account women, such as Lenore Blum, who quit their jobs after experiencing an unmanageable amount of bias. But it visualizes how these penalties add up over time for women who stay, so that by the time you reach more senior levels of management, there are fewer women left to promote. These factors not only prevent women from reaching the top ranks in their company but for those who do, it also makes the career path longer and more demanding.

Small change, big difference

Even a tiny increase in the amount of gender bias could lead to dramatic underrepresentation of women in leadership roles over time..

Women’s performance is valued 3 percent less

Women’s performance is valued 5 percent less

Half as many women at level 7 and

only 2 percent of women at C-suite.

Half as many women at level 7 and only 2 percent of women at C-suite.

Women’s performance is valued 3% less

Women’s performance is valued 5% less

When we dig into the trajectory of individual people in our simulation, stories begin to emerge. With just 3 percent bias, one employee — let’s call her Jenelle — starts in an entry-level position, and makes it to the executive level, but it takes her 17 performance review cycles (eight and a half years) to get there, and she needs 208 successful projects to make it. “William” starts at the same level but he gets to executive level much faster — after only eight performance reviews and half Jenelle’s successes at the time she becomes an executive.

Our model shows how large organizational disparities can emerge from many small, even unintentional biases happening frequently over a long period of time. Laws are often designed to address large events that happen infrequently and can be easily attributed to a single actor—for example, overt sexual harassment by a manager — or “pattern and practice” problems, such as discriminatory policies. But women’s progress is hindered even without one egregious incident, or an official policy that is discriminatory.

Women’s path to success might be longer and more demanding

Career paths for employees that reached level 7 by the end of the simulation..

successful projects

“William”

started at the entry-level and reached level 7 in 4 years.

It took “Jenelle”

8.5 years to get

to the same level.

Entry level

1 year of promotions

started at the entry-

level and reached level 7 in 4 years.

8.5 years to get to the same level.

It took “Jenelle” 8.5 years to get to the same level.

Gender bias takes on different dimensions depending on other intersecting aspects of a person’s identity, such as race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and more. Another American Bar Association study found that white women and men of color face similar hurdles to being seen as competent, but women of color face more than either group.

Backlash, too, plays out differently for women of different racial groups, points out Erika Hall, an Emory University management professor. A survey of hundreds of women scientists she helped conduct found that Asian American women reported the highest amount of backlash for self-promotion and assertive behavior. An experimental study by the social psychologist Robert Livingston and colleagues, meanwhile, found that white women are more penalized for demonstrating dominant behavior than Black women. Our model does not account for the important variations in bias that women of different races experience.

So what’s to be done? Diversity trainings are common in companies, educational institutions and health care settings, but these may not have much effect when it comes to employees’ career advancement. The sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev found that after mandatory diversity trainings, the likelihood that women and men of color became managers either stayed the same or decreased , possibly because of backlash. Some anti-bias trainings have been shown to change behavior, but any approach needs to be evaluated, as psychologist Betsy Levy Paluck has said, “on the level of rigorous testing of medical interventions.”

We also explored a paradox. Research shows that in many fields, a greater proportion of men correlates with more bias against women . At the same time, in fields or organizations where women make up the majority, men can still experience a “glass escalator,” being fast-tracked to senior leadership roles. School superintendents, who work in the women-dominated field of education but are more likely to be men, are one example. To make sense of this, we conceptualized bias at work as a combination of both organizational biases that can be influenced by organizational makeup and larger societal biases.

What we found was that if societal biases are strong compared with those in the organization, a powerful but brief intervention may have only a short-term impact. In our simulation, we tested this by introducing quotas — requiring that the majority of promotions go to women — in the context of low, moderate, or no societal bias. We made the quotas time-limited, as real world efforts to combat bias often take the form of short-term interventions.

Our quotas changed the number of women at upper levels of the corporate hierarchy in the short term, and in turn decreased the gender biases against women rising through the company ranks. But when societal biases were still a persistent force, disparities eventually returned, and the impact of the intervention was short-lived.

Quotas may not be enough

In the presence of societal biases, the effect of a short-term program of quotas disappears over time..

Societal bias has moderate effect

100% of executives

Quotas are introduced. 70% of all promotions go to women.

Majority of executives are men

YEARS OF PROMOTIONS

Societal bias has no effect

Equal representation

representation

What works? Having managers directly mentor and sponsor women improves their chance to rise. Insisting on fair, transparent and objective criteria for promotions and assignments is essential, so that decisions are not ambiguous and subjective, and goal posts aren’t shifting and unwritten. But the effect of standardizing criteria, too, can be limited, because decision-makers can always override these decisions and choose their favored candidates.

Ultimately, I found in my research for the book, the mindset of leaders plays an enormous role. Interventions make a difference, but only if leaders commit to them. One law firm I profiled achieved 50 percent women equity partners through a series of dramatic moves, from overhauling and standardizing promotion criteria, to active sponsorship of women, to a zero-tolerance policy for biased behavior. In this case, the chief executive understood that bias was blocking the company from capturing all the available talent. Leaders who believe that the elimination of bias is essential to the functioning of the organization are more likely to take the kind of active, aggressive, and long-term steps needed to root out bias wherever it may creep into decision making.

Sexism: Gender, Class and Power Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Sexism is one of the challenges that most societies in the contemporary world have struggled to address without any meaningful progress. It refers to discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex. Although anybody is vulnerable to sexism, it is majorly documented as a problem faced by women and girls. According to psychologists, the challenge of sexism is necessitated by factors such as gender roles and stereotypes across various societies (Dawson, 2018).

Over the years, various human rights groups have made an effort to create awareness about sexism and the probable dangers the victims might be exposed to if effective management strategies are not put in place. Research has established that in societies where sexism is highly rooted, victims are often vulnerable to rape and sexual harassment (Brewington, 2013). Cases of sexism against women are very common in the workplace.

Women are very vulnerable to sexual harassment in the workplace as their male colleagues and bosses often ask for sexual favors in exchange for promotions and salary reviews (Tulshyan, 2016). Women also argue that they are often overlooked in leadership positions because men are considered to have a better chance of succeeding. Sexism is a deep-rooted societal vice that ought to be eliminated in order to promote the value of humanity.

Since the turn of the century, people are more vocal with regard to the danger of sexism. Social networking sites are one of the platforms that people have used to highlight the challenges faced by victims of sexism and offer solutions to the problem. In 2012, the infamous Everyday Sexism project was launched with an aim to expose the numerous acts of sexism across the United Kingdom. The project quickly got the attention of the world as people gave shocking reactions to the degree to which the vice was rampant, especially in the streets (Brewington, 2013).

According to research, social media, as well as print and electronic media, have contributed greatly to the advancement of sexism regardless of the fact that they are also being used to fight the vice. For example, the contemporary hip-hop music industry in the United States has been accused of promoting sexism through their music videos. The genre has led to women being viewed more from a sexual angle because of the way they appear in the music videos.

These videos are aired across major television channels and readily available for consumption by the global audience through YouTube. Fashion magazines have also contributed to the growing challenge of sexism, especially towards women, because the artistic presentation of the female body is angled in a sexual manner (Brewington, 2013).

Apart from the inappropriate portrayal of human bodies by media, sexism is highly prevalent in modern society in several other ways. In the workplace, women often complain of the general assumption that men are more qualified and knowledgeable compared to women (Tulshyan, 2016). It is frustrating for women when a colleague seeks advice or clarification from a male peer when they know that they are in a better position to do the same. Women also consider the inability of an employer to allocate a certain task to them simply because they are physically demanding as an act of sexism (Dawson, 2018).

Women go to the gym and participate in various sports just as men do. Thus, it is wrong to assume they cannot meet the physical demands of a task. Psychologists argue that sexism is a relative concept with regard to the way various societies explain and comprehend it. This is evidenced in the different actions or elements that are considered as being sexist. In some societies, the fact that women are made to change their surname when they get married is considered sexism. Women feel that it is not necessary for them to give up their last name because of a process that even men undergo, yet they get to retain theirs (Brewington, 2013).

Another common form of sexism is sexist language. Studies have established that men are less vulnerable compared to women when it comes to sexual objectification when being addressed. It is important for people to use gender-sensitive language, especially in situations where both men and women are involved. For example, it is wrong to use masculine generics such as “Chairman” when referring to a female leader. Instead, one should use a gender-sensitive term such as chairperson (Lipman, 2018).

It is also an act of sexism to refer to a group of people with both men and women as “Guys” because it creates an impression that women are a category below men as human beings. It is also a common occurrence to hear men referring to adult women as girls. This often infantilizes a woman because it makes one feel like the person addressing her is giving an indication that they are not mature.

The most unfortunate thing about sexist language is the casual manner in which it has been used over the years, to the extent that it has become part of the conventional glossary. This is one of the major challenges facing the fight against sexism. Objectification of women through sexist language is rooted in the stereotypes the society develops from the way girls are raised and theories about their beauty (Evans, 2016). Over the years, women have been used to market products through various forms of advertisements. This has influenced girls to believe that they are as valuable as they look. Therefore, any woman whose beauty fails to meet societal standards tends to feel less valuable.

Sexism has robbed women of their safety, comfort, and voice. Many women who have been a victim of street harassment from men argue that such experiences act as an affirmation that their bodies are owned by the society (Brewington, 2013). Due to laxity within the society, women are made to unwillingly take street harassment as intended compliments rather than abuse. Domestic violence is a form of sexism that has taken away the voice of women.

In many societies, many cases of domestic violence against men and women end up unreported because the victims know they will not get any help with ease. It’s a human rights violation that often demeans the victim because the violator perceives the victim as being weak (Evans, 2016). Unfortunately, domestic violence is legal in places such as the United Arab Emirates, where husbands are allowed to discipline their wives as long as they do not inflict visible injuries.

South Asia is common for practicing a form of sexism called Gendercide. It involves the killing of children of a specific gender. It is close to gender-selective-abortion, where women are forced to terminate their pregnancies depending on the sex of the unborn child. In these practices, girls are targeted more than boys. The same case applies to female genital mutilation, which human rights groups consider as the gravest form of sexism (Evans, 2016).

In contemporary society, technology is widely abused to advance sexist agendas. Women always complain of suffering rape anxiety because people use phone calls and social media posts to deliver threats. No one chooses to be a victim of sexism; thus, avoiding walking in the streets unaccompanied or with people of the same gender is not enough. Cyberbullying is a strategy widely used by sexist people to harass their targets. The internet has turned the world into a global village.

Thus cultural interaction has been greatly heightened (Brewington, 2013). This effect is manifested a lot in the fashion industry, where the dres’ codes for men and women have undergone a huge transformation. Psychologists argue that dres’ codes are sexist in nature. They often limit the power and confidence of women, depending on the societal perception of a certain trend. The style of women wearing pants started in the developed countries as a way of helping women address the threat of rape. Several decades later, it has become a global trend. Some women argue that their lies in wearing dresses, but they are often forced to wear pants for safety purposes (Evans, 2016).

The concept of sexism is very broad and cannot be explained exhaustively. However, it is common knowledge that there is an urgent need to address this global challenge in order to achieve the common good. Gender equality and sensitivity is a right of every human being, thus the need to ensure that we create a more inclusive society. In order to achieve this feat, a change in attitude with regard to the way different genders perceive each other is very important. Men need to understand that they are not biologically programmed to harass women or objectify them.

Brewington, C. (2013). The sacred place of exile: Pioneering women and the need for a new women’s missionary movement . New York, NY: Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Dawson, T. (2018). Gender, class and power: An analysis of pay inequalities in the workplace . New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Evans, M. (2016). The persistence of gender inequality . New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Lipman, J. (2018). That’s what she said: What men need to know and women need to tell them about working together . New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Tulshyan, R. (2016). The diversity advantage: Fixing gender inequality in the workplace . New York, NY: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.

• Diversity Organizations and Gender Issues in the US
• Gender Inequality: "Caliban and the Witch" by Federici
• Misogyny and Sexism in Policing
• The Sexism Behind HB16 Bill
• Everyday Sexism in Relation to Everyday Disablism
• Gender Inequality Index 2013 in the Gulf Countries
• Feminist Perspective: “The Gender Pay Gap Explained”
• Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality
• Gender Stereotypes: Interview with Dalal Al Rabah
• Women's Work Advantages and Disadvantages Essay
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, May 7). Sexism: Gender, Class and Power. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sexism-gender-class-and-power/

"Sexism: Gender, Class and Power." IvyPanda , 7 May 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/sexism-gender-class-and-power/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Sexism: Gender, Class and Power'. 7 May.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Sexism: Gender, Class and Power." May 7, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sexism-gender-class-and-power/.

1. IvyPanda . "Sexism: Gender, Class and Power." May 7, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sexism-gender-class-and-power/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Sexism: Gender, Class and Power." May 7, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/sexism-gender-class-and-power/.

What Is Sexism? Defining a Key Feminist Term

Compassionate Eye Foundation / Monashee Frantz / Getty Images

• History Of Feminism
• Important Figures
• Women's Suffrage
• Women & War
• Laws & Womens Rights
• Feminist Texts
• American History
• African American History
• African History
• Ancient History and Culture
• Asian History
• European History
• Latin American History
• Medieval & Renaissance History
• Military History
• The 20th Century
• J.D., Hofstra University
• B.A., English and Print Journalism, University of Southern California

Sexism means discrimination based on sex or gender, or the belief that because men are superior to women, discrimination is justified. Such a belief can be conscious or unconscious . In sexism, as in racism, the differences between two (or more) groups are viewed as indications that one group is superior or inferior. Sexist discrimination against girls and women is a means of maintaining male domination and power. The oppression or discrimination can be economic, political, social, or cultural.

Elements of Sexism

• Sexism includes attitudes or ideology, including beliefs, theories, and ideas that hold one group (usually male) as deservedly superior to the other (usually female), and that justify oppressing members of the other group on the basis of their sex or gender.
• Sexism involves practices and institutions and the ways in which oppression is carried out. These need not be done with a conscious sexist attitude but may be unconscious cooperation in a system that has been in place already in which one sex (usually female) has less power and fewer goods in the society.

Oppression and Domination

Sexism is a form of oppression and domination. As author Octavia Butler put it:

"Simple peck-order bullying is only the beginning of the kind of hierarchical behavior that can lead to racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, classism, and all the other 'isms' that cause so much suffering in the world."

Some feminists have argued that sexism is the primal, or first, form of oppression in humanity and that other oppressions are built on the foundation of oppression of women. Feminist Andrea Dworkin holds that position, stating:

"Sexism is the foundation on which all tyranny is built. Every social form of hierarchy and abuse is modeled on male-over-female domination."

Feminist Origins of the Word

The word "sexism" became widely known during the women's liberation movement of the 1960s. At that time, feminist theorists explained that the oppression of women was widespread in nearly all human society, and they began to speak of sexism instead of male chauvinism. Whereas male chauvinists were usually individual men who expressed the belief that they were superior to women, sexism referred to collective behavior that reflected society as a whole.

Australian writer Dale Spender noted that she was:

"...old enough to have lived in a world without sexism and sexual harassment. Not because they weren’t everyday occurrences in my life but because THESE WORDS DIDN’T EXIST. It was not until the feminist writers of the 1970s made them up, and used them publicly and defined their meanings—an opportunity that men had enjoyed for centuries—that women could name these experiences of their daily life."

Many women in the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s (the so-called second wave of feminism) came to their consciousness of sexism via their work in social justice movements. Social philosopher  Bell Hooks  argues:

"Individual heterosexual women came to the movement from relationships where men were cruel, unkind, violent, unfaithful. Many of these men were radical thinkers who participated in movements for social justice, speaking out on behalf of the workers, the poor, speaking out on behalf of racial justice. However, when it came to the issue of gender they were as sexist as their conservative cohorts."

How Sexism Works

Systemic sexism, like systemic racism, is the perpetuation of the oppression and discrimination without necessarily any conscious intention. The disparities between men and women are simply taken as givens and are reinforced by practices, rules, policies, and laws that often seem neutral on the surface but in fact disadvantage women.

Sexism interacts with racism, classism, heterosexism, and other oppressions to shape the experience of individuals. This is called  intersectionality .  Compulsory heterosexuality  is the prevailing belief that heterosexuality is the only "normal" relationship between the sexes, which, in a sexist society, benefits men.

Women as Sexists

Women can be conscious or unconscious collaborators in their own oppression if they accept the basic premises of sexism: that men have more power than women because they deserve more power than women. Sexism by women against men would only be possible in a system in which the balance of social, political, cultural, and economic power was measurably in the hands of women, a situation which does not exist today.

Men May Be Oppressed by Sexism

Some feminists have argued that men should be allies in the fight against sexism because men, too, are not whole in a system of enforced male hierarchies. In a patriarchal society , men are themselves in a hierarchical relationship to each other, with more benefits to the males at the top of the power pyramid.

Others have argued that the benefit males derive from sexism—even if that benefit is not consciously experienced or sought—is more weighty than whatever negative effects those with more power may experience. Feminist Robin Morgan put it this way:

"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism—the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group—skin color or sex or age, etc."

Quotes on Sexism

Bell Hooks : "Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression... I liked this definition because it did not imply that men were the enemy. By naming sexism as the problem it went directly to the heart of the matter. Practically, it is a definition that implies that all sexist thinking and action is the problem, whether those who perpetuate it are female or male, child, or adult. It is also broad enough to include an understanding of systemic institutionalized sexism. As a definition it is open-ended. To understand feminism it implies one has to necessarily understand sexism."

Caitlin Moran : “I have a rule for working out if the root problem of something is, in fact, sexism. And it is this: asking 'Are the boys doing it? Are the boys having to worry about this stuff? Are the boys the center of a gigantic global debate on this subject?”

Erica Jong : "Sexism kind of predisposes us to see men's work as more important than women's, and it is a problem, I guess, as writers, we have to change."

Kate Millett : "It is interesting that many women do not recognize themselves as discriminated against; no better proof could be found of the totality of their conditioning."

• Womanist: Definition and Examples
• Feminist Quotes from Famous Women
• 24 Andrea Dworkin Quotes
• Feminist Poetry Movement of the 1960s
• Lorna Dee Cervantes
• Biography of bell hooks, Feminist and Anti-Racist Theorist and Writer
• Combahee River Collective in the 1970s
• An Overview of Third-Wave Feminism
• Patriarchal Society According to Feminism
• Simone de Beauvoir and Second-Wave Feminism
• Quotes From Women in Black History
• 42 Must-Read Feminist Female Authors
• The Core Ideas and Beliefs of Feminism
• Top 20 Influential Modern Feminist Theorists
• Biography of Aileen Hernandez
• The Personal Is Political

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Sexism and feminism

Sexism and the men’s movement, examples of sexism.

• Who were some early feminist thinkers and activists?
• What is intersectional feminism?
• How have feminist politics changed the world?

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Pressbooks @ Howard Community College - Feminism and Sexism
• Social Sciences LibreTexts - Feminism and Sexism
• Healthline - How to Recognize and Address Sexism — and When to Get Support
• Boston University - Sexism
• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - Insights into Sexism: Male Status and Performance Moderates Female-Directed Hostile and Amicable Behaviour
• European Institute for Gender Equality - Sexism at work: how can we stop it?
• Table Of Contents

A feminist study of gender in society needs concepts to differentiate and analyze social inequalities between girls and boys and between women and men that do not reduce differences to the notion of biology as destiny. The concept of sexism explains that prejudice and discrimination based on sex or gender, not biological inferiority, are the social barriers to women’s and girls’ success in various arenas. To overcome patriarchy in society is, then, to dismantle sexism in society. The study of sexism has suggested that the solution to gender inequity is in changing sexist culture and institutions.

Recent News

The disentanglement of gender (and thus gender roles and gender identities) from biological sex was an accomplishment in large part of feminism, which claimed that one’s sex does not predict anything about one’s ability, intelligence, or personality. Extracting social behaviour from biological determinism allowed greater freedom for women and girls from stereotypical gender roles and expectations. Feminist scholarship was able to focus study on ways in which the social world subordinated women by discriminating against and limiting them on the basis of their biological sex or of sociocultural gender-role expectations. The feminist movement fought for the abolishment of sexism and the establishment of women’s rights as equal under the law. By the remediation of sexism in institutions and culture, women would gain equality in political representation, employment, education, domestic disputes, and reproductive rights.

As the term sexism gained vernacular popularity, its usage evolved to include men as victims of discrimination and social gender expectations. In a cultural backlash, the term reverse sexism emerged to refocus on men and boys, especially on any disadvantages they might experience under affirmative action . Opponents of affirmative action argued that men and boys had become the ones discriminated against for jobs and school admission because of their sex. The appropriation of the term sexism was frustrating to many feminists, who stressed the systemic nature of women’s oppression through structural and historical inequalities. Proponents of men’s rights conjured the notion of misandry, or hatred of men, as they warned against a hypothesized approach of a female-dominated society.

As the academic discipline of women’s studies helped document women’s oppression and resilience , the men’s movement reasoned that it was time to document men’s oppression. Proponents called for research to address the limitations of gender roles on both sexes. Critical work on men began to examine how gender-role expectations differentially affect men and women and has since begun to focus on the concepts of hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity to address the oppressive aspect as well as the agency aspect of gender conformity and resistance.

According to some, sexism can be found in many aspects of daily life. Education, for example, has often attracted particular attention. Sexual harassment and gender-biased treatment—male students are often encouraged to take classes in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics ( STEM ), while females are not—are seen as widespread problems. Furthermore, in many parts of the world, women are barred or discouraged from attending school. It is estimated that two-thirds of illiterate people worldwide are females. This inequality in education contributes to gender disparities in the workplace, which has also drawn claims of sexism. Activists often note discrepancies in salaries and occupations between genders. For example, in the early 21st century in the United States , women typically earned about 84 percent of what men received. Moreover, women were often excluded from certain jobs, especially those of leadership; as of 2019 less than 10 percent of CEOs of S&P 500 companies were female.

In addition, sexism has been seen as contributing to violence against women. Such violence, whether sexual or otherwise physical, is widely viewed as a global problem; indeed, an estimated one in three women experiences it at some point during her lifetime. It is often the product of societal norms based on sexist beliefs, including the idea that males have the right to discipline females and the idea that women often encourage the violence, which is frequently blamed on their wearing so-called provocative clothing.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

11.2 Feminism and Sexism

Learning objectives.

• Define feminism, sexism, and patriarchy.
• Discuss evidence for a decline in sexism.
• Understand some correlates of feminism.

Recall that more than one-third of the public (as measured in the General Social Survey) agrees with the statement, “It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? If you are like the majority of college students, you disagree.

Today a lot of women, and some men, will say, “I’m not a feminist, but…,” and then go on to add that they hold certain beliefs about women’s equality and traditional gender roles that actually fall into a feminist framework. Their reluctance to self-identify as feminists underscores the negative image that feminists and feminism hold but also suggests that the actual meaning of feminism may be unclear.

Feminism and sexism are generally two sides of the same coin. Feminism refers to the belief that women and men should have equal opportunities in economic, political, and social life, while sexism refers to a belief in traditional gender role stereotypes and in the inherent inequality between men and women. Sexism thus parallels the concept of racial and ethnic prejudice discussed in Chapter 7 “Deviance, Crime, and Social Control” . Both women and people of color are said, for biological and/or cultural reasons, to lack certain qualities for success in today’s world.

Feminism as a social movement began in the United States during the abolitionist period before the Civil War. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were outspoken abolitionists who made connections between slavery and the oppression of women.

The US Library of Congress – public domain; The US Library of Congress – public domain.

In the United States, feminism as a social movement began during the abolitionist period preceding the Civil War, as such women as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, both active abolitionists, began to see similarities between slavery and the oppression of women. This new women’s movement focused on many issues but especially on the right to vote. As it quickly grew, critics charged that it would ruin the family and wreak havoc on society in other ways. They added that women were not smart enough to vote and should just concentrate on being good wives and mothers (Behling, 2001).

One of the most dramatic events in the women’s suffrage movement occurred in 1872, when Susan B. Anthony was arrested because she voted. At her trial a year later in Canandaigua, New York, the judge refused to let her say anything in her defense and ordered the jury to convict her. Anthony’s statement at sentencing won wide acclaim and ended with words that ring to this day: “I shall earnestly and persistently continue to urge all women to the practical recognition of the old revolutionary maxim, ‘Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God’” (Barry, 1988).

After women won the right to vote in 1920, the women’s movement became less active but began anew in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as women active in the Southern civil rights movement turned their attention to women’s rights, and it is still active today. To a profound degree, it has changed public thinking and social and economic institutions, but, as we will see coming up, much gender inequality remains. Because the women’s movement challenged strongly held traditional views about gender, it has prompted the same kind of controversy that its 19th-century predecessor did. Feminists quickly acquired a bra-burning image, even though there is no documented instance of a bra being burned in a public protest, and the movement led to a backlash as conservative elements echoed the concerns heard a century earlier (Faludi, 1991).

Several varieties of feminism exist. Although they all share the basic idea that women and men should be equal in their opportunities in all spheres of life, they differ in other ways (Lindsey, 2011). Liberal feminism believes that the equality of women can be achieved within our existing society by passing laws and reforming social, economic, and political institutions. In contrast, socialist feminism blames capitalism for women’s inequality and says that true gender equality can result only if fundamental changes in social institutions, and even a socialist revolution, are achieved. Radical feminism , on the other hand, says that patriarchy (male domination) lies at the root of women’s oppression and that women are oppressed even in noncapitalist societies. Patriarchy itself must be abolished, they say, if women are to become equal to men. Finally, an emerging multicultural feminism emphasizes that women of color are oppressed not only because of their gender but also because of their race and class (Andersen & Collins, 2010). They thus face a triple burden that goes beyond their gender. By focusing their attention on women of color in the United States and other nations, multicultural feminists remind us that the lives of these women differ in many ways from those of the middle-class women who historically have led U.S. feminist movements.

The Growth of Feminism and the Decline of Sexism

What evidence is there for the impact of the women’s movement on public thinking? The General Social Survey, the Gallup Poll, and other national surveys show that the public has moved away from traditional views of gender toward more modern ones. Another way of saying this is that the public has moved toward feminism.

To illustrate this, let’s return to the General Social Survey statement that it is much better for the man to achieve outside the home and for the woman to take care of home and family. Figure 11.4 “Change in Acceptance of Traditional Gender Roles in the Family, 1977–2008” shows that agreement with this statement dropped sharply during the 1970s and 1980s before leveling off afterward to slightly more than one-third of the public.

Figure 11.4 Change in Acceptance of Traditional Gender Roles in the Family, 1977–2008

Percentage agreeing that “it is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.”

Source: Data from General Social Survey.

Another General Social Survey question over the years has asked whether respondents would be willing to vote for a qualified woman for president of the United States. As Figure 11.5 “Change in Willingness to Vote for a Qualified Woman for President” illustrates, this percentage rose from 74% in the early 1970s to a high of 94.1% in 2008. Although we have not yet had a woman president, despite Hillary Rodham Clinton’s historic presidential primary campaign in 2007 and 2008 and Sarah Palin’s presence on the Republican ticket in 2008, the survey evidence indicates the public is willing to vote for one. As demonstrated by the responses to the survey questions on women’s home roles and on a woman president, traditional gender views have indeed declined.

Figure 11.5 Change in Willingness to Vote for a Qualified Woman for President

Correlates of Feminism

Because of the feminist movement’s importance, scholars have investigated why some people are more likely than others to support feminist beliefs. Their research uncovers several correlates of feminism (Dauphinais, Barkan, & Cohn, 1992). We have already seen one of these when we noted that religiosity is associated with support for traditional gender roles. To turn that around, lower levels of religiosity are associated with feminist beliefs and are thus a correlate of feminism.

Several other such correlates exist. One of the strongest is education: the lower the education, the lower the support for feminist beliefs. Figure 11.6 “Education and Acceptance of Traditional Gender Roles in the Family” shows the strength of this correlation by using our familiar General Social Survey statement that men should achieve outside the home and women should take care of home and family. People without a high school degree are almost 5 times as likely as those with a graduate degree to agree with this statement.

Figure 11.6 Education and Acceptance of Traditional Gender Roles in the Family

Source: Data from General Social Survey, 2008.

Age is another correlate, as older people are more likely than younger people to believe in traditional gender roles. Again using our familiar statement about traditional gender roles, we see an example of this relationship in Figure 11.7 “Age and Acceptance of Traditional Gender Roles in the Family” , which shows that older people are more likely than younger people to accept traditional gender roles as measured by this statement.

Figure 11.7 Age and Acceptance of Traditional Gender Roles in the Family

Key Takeaways

• Feminism refers to the belief that women and men should have equal opportunities in economic, political, and social life, while sexism refers to a belief in traditional gender role stereotypes and in the inherent inequality between men and women.
• Sexist beliefs have declined in the United States since the early 1970s.
• Several correlates of feminist beliefs exist. In particular, people with higher levels of education are more likely to hold beliefs consistent with feminism.

For Your Review

• Do you consider yourself a feminist? Why or why not?
• Think about one of your parents or of another adult much older than you. Does this person hold more traditional views about gender than you do? Explain your answer.

Andersen, M. L., & Collins, P. H. (Eds.). (2010). Race, class, and gender: An anthology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Barry, K. L. (1988). Susan B. Anthony: Biography of a singular feminist . New York, NY: New York University Press.

Behling, L. L. (2001). The masculine woman in America, 1890–1935 . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Dauphinais, P. D., Barkan, S. E., & Cohn, S. F. (1992). Predictors of rank-and-file feminist activism: Evidence from the 1983 General Social Survey. Social Problems, 39 , 332–344.

Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women . New York, NY: Crown.

Lindsey, L. L. (2011). Gender roles: A sociological perspective (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Choose language
• Azərbaycanca
• Nedersassisch

Sexism is any expression (act, word, image, gesture) based on the idea that some persons, most often women, are inferior because of their sex.

Sexism is harmful . It produces feelings of worthlessness, self-censorship, changes in behaviour, and a deterioration in health. Sexism lies at the root of gender inequality. It affects women and girls disproportionately.

Sexism is present in all areas of life.

63% of women journalists have been confronted with verbal abuse

Women spend almost twice as much time as men on unpaid housework (OECD countries)

80% of women stated that they have been confronted with the phenomenon of “mansplaining” and “manterrupting” at work

Men represent 75% of news sources and subjects in Europe

In the UK, 66% of 16-18-year-old girls surveyed experienced or witnessed the use of sexist language at school

59% of women in Amsterdam reported some form of street harassment

In France, 50% of young women surveyed recently experienced injustice or humiliation because they are women

In Serbia, research indicates that 76% of women in business are not taken as seriously as men

Violence sometimes starts with a joke

Individual acts of sexism may seem benign, but they create a climate of intimidation, fear and insecurity. this leads to the acceptance of violence , mostly against women and girls..

This is why the Council of Europe has decided to act by adopting a Recommendation to prevent and combat sexism .

Sexism affects mostly women. It can also affect men and boys when they don’t conform to stereotyped gender roles.

The harmful impact of sexism can be worse for some women and men due to their ethnicity, age, disability, social origin, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or other factors.

Some groups of women, for example young women, politicians, journalists or public figures, are particular targets of sexism

of women elected to Parliament have been the target of sexist attacks on social networks

See it. Name it. Stop it.

Language and communication.

Examples of sexism in language and communications:

The generic use of the masculine gender by a speaker (“he/his/him” to refer to an unspecific person). The cover of a publication depicting men only . The naming of a woman by the masculine term for her profession. A communication campaign including gratuitous nudity . An advertisement with a man showing a woman how to use a washing machine.

Why should it be addressed?

Language and communication matter because they make people visible or invisible and recognise or demean their contribution to society. Our language shapes our thought , and the way we think influences our actions. Gender-blind or discriminatory language reinforces sexist attitudes and behaviour.

How to prevent it?

Use both the feminine and the masculine when addressing a mixed audience. Review public communication to make sure it uses gender-sensitive language and imagery. Produce manuals on gender-sensitive communication for different audiences. Promote research in this area.

Media, Internet and social media

Examples of sexism in the media:

A sexualised depiction of women in the media. An all-male TV show. Media reporting on violence against women which blames the victim . Journalists, most often women, receiving comments on social media based on their appearance instead of the issues they discuss. Internet applications sending some job adverts to men only because algorithms are built in a discriminatory way.

Children and others are bombarded with sexist media messages and influenced by them. Such messages limit their own choices in life. They give the impression that men are the keepers of knowledge and power and that women are objects and it’s ok to comment freely on their appearance. Online sexism pushes women out of online spaces . Online sexism can cause very real harm. Abusing or mocking someone online creates a permanent digital record that can be further disseminated and is difficult to erase.

Implement legislation on gender equality in media . Train media and communication professionals on gender equality. Ensure that women and men are represented in a balanced way and in diverse, non-stereotypical roles in the media . Promote advertisements that play with, and raise awareness of, gender stereotypes rather than reinforce them. Provide digital literacy training especially for young people and children. Legally define and criminalise (online) sexist hate speech . Put in place specialised services to provide advice on how to deal with online sexism .

Examples of sexism at the workplace:

The practice of unofficially excluding women who have children from career opportunities. In meetings, ignoring women , appropriating their contributions or silencing them. Favouring a man rather than a woman for a managerial position by presuming her lack of authority . Gratuitous comments about physical appearance or dress (which undermine women as professionals). Derogatory comments to men taking on caring roles. “ Mansplaining ”.

Workplace sexism undermines the efficiency of victims and their sense of belonging. Silencing through sexism means that ideas or talents are ignored or under-used. Belittling comments create an intimidating/oppressive atmosphere for those confronted with them and can degenerate in violence/harassment . Victims may develop higher anxiety levels , be more prone to outbursts and depression. More generally, sexism leads to lower salaries and fewer opportunities for those confronted with it.

Adopt and implement codes of conduct defining sexist behaviour and prevent it through training. Put in place complaint mechanisms , disciplinary measures and support services. Managers must state and show their commitment to act against sexism .

Public sector

Examples of sexism in the public sector:

Sexualised comments or comments about the appearance or family situation of politicians, most often women, including within parliaments. Comments about the sexual orientation or appearance of users by staff of public services. Sexist representations / posting of images of naked women in public workplaces (e.g. hospital staff rooms). Comments on women’s appearance in public spaces, including public transport.

The public sector has a duty to lead by example . Sexism in parliaments is very common but it limits the opportunities and freedom of women in parliaments, be they elected or staff. Sexism undermines equal access to public services . Sexism in public spaces limits women’s freedom of movement. Sexism can lead to violence and creates an oppressive environment preventing mostly women from fully participating in public life.

Training of staff. Put in place codes of conduct , complaint mechanisms, disciplinary measures and support services.  Implement awareness raising campaigns , such as toolkits or posters in public space explaining what sexism is. Promote gender balance in decision-making . Promote research and the gathering of data on the issue.

Examples of sexism in the justice system:

A judge implying to a victim of sexual violence that she was ‘asking for it’ . A law professional commenting on the appearance of a woman who is a colleague. A police officer not taking an allegation of violence against women seriously or trivialising it.

Such behaviour can lead to victims dropping cases . They create distrust in the justice system. They can lead to misinformed judgments . They demean women and can push them out of legal professions .

Implement policies on women’s equal access to justice . Train legal and law enforcement professionals. Deconstruct judicial stereotyping through awareness-raising campaigns. Ensure professionals base their judgments on facts , on the behaviour of the perpetrator and the context of the case rather than the victim’s clothing, for example.

Examples of sexism in education:

Textbooks containing stereotypical images of women/men, boys/girls. The absence of women as writers, historical or cultural figures in textbooks . Career and education counselling discouraging non-stereotypical career or study choices . Teachers making comments about the appearance of pupils/students/fellow teachers. Sexualised comments to girls. Bullying of non-conforming pupils /students by fellow pupils /students or education professionals. The absence of awareness /procedures / reactions to address such sexist behaviour.

The content of education and behaviour of education professionals heavily influences perceptions and behaviour . A climate of sexism in learning establishments negatively affects the achievements of pupils/students. Sexism in education can limit future individual career and lifestyle choices .

Implement policies and legislation on gender equality in education . Review textbooks to ensure that they are free of sexism and that they depict women as well as men in non-stereotypical roles. Ensure the representation of women as scientists, artists, athletes, leaders, politicians in textbooks and programmes . Teach women’s history . Ensure the availability of complaint mechanisms. Teach gender equality issues as well as sexuality education (including consent and personal boundaries). Train education professionals on unconscious bias .

Culture and sport

Examples of sexism in culture and sport:

Sportswomen depicted in the media according to their family role and not their skills and strengths. Trivialising women’s sporting achievements . Demeaning men who play “feminine” sports. Women in sexy outfits as “decoration” in cultural or sporting events. Absence of women’s work in art exhibitions. Scarcity of meaningful roles for women in cinema and the virtual absence of roles for older actresses. Scarcity of funding for film production in which women have a leadership role. Under-resourcing of women’s art.

Both culture and sport are shapers of attitudes . If women and men are depicted in stereotyped ways, this will feed into gender stereotyping. When mostly men are visible in these areas, this influences the way women are seen as potential artists or athletes and narrows the range of role models for children and young people. Gender stereotypes limit the choice of women/men girls/boys to practice sports that are not considered “feminine” or “masculine” ; this leads to self-censorship . In both areas, sexism leads to lower salaries and fewer opportunities for those confronted with it.

Measures to encourage creative work by women and gender mainstreaming in cultural and sport policies (scholarships, exhibitions, training, provision of space/workshops). Ensure better and more media coverage of women’s sports and art. Encourage sponsors to support women’s arts and sports. Adopt codes of conduct to prevent sexist behaviour, including provision for disciplinary action in sports federations. Encourage leading sport and cultural figures to speak up against sexism and implement campaigns to denounce violence in sport and sexist hate speech.

Private sphere

Examples of sexism in the private sphere:

Women performing more unpaid (care and household) work than men, for example only women helping to wash dishes at a dinner party. Sexist jokes between friends. Systematically offering “feminine” or “masculine” toys to girls/boys. Boys being encouraged to run and take risks and girls to be docile and compliant. The use of expressions like “running like a girl” or “boys will be boys”.

Unpaid work weighs on women’s participation in the labour market, on their economic independence as well as on their participation in sport and leisure activities. Toys (e.g. a mini kitchen or a construction game) influence gender roles, but also future study or career choices. Sexist jokes can intimidate and silence people and they trivialise sexist behaviour.

Awareness-raising measures and research on the impact and the sharing of unpaid work between women and men. Measures for reconciling private and working life for all . Promotion of non-gendered toys . Encouraging boys as well as girls to participate in household tasks. Giving girls , too, the space and freedom to play, explore and be themselves.

D iscover Society

Measured – factual – critical.

• Covid-19 Chronicles
• Policy & Politics

Sexism in language: A problem that hasn’t gone away

• By discoversociety
• March 01, 2016
• 2016 , Articles , Issue 30

Deborah Cameron

2016 marks the 40 th anniversary of the publication of Casey Miller and Kate Swift’s Words and Women . Described on its cover as a ‘landmark work that reveals the sexual biases present in our everyday speech and writing’, this second-wave feminist classic drew attention to the pervasiveness of what feminists dubbed ‘ he-man language ’ (the conventional use of ‘he’ and ‘man’ in generic references to mixed groups, as in ‘man has always adapted to his environment’), and to the routine occurrence in journalism of formulas that either defined women by their familial roles (‘mother-of-two breaks speed record’), or else objectified, sexualised and demeaned them (‘vice-girl arrested’; ‘gentlemen prefer blondes’). In feminist circles these complaints were already familiar; but books like Words and Women, accessibly written for a general audience, helped to bring the issue of sexist language into the mainstream.

In those days the mainstream was not unreceptive. Changes in conventional usage always provoke resistance, and the reforms proposed by feminists were no exception. But many influential gatekeepers were sympathetic to the feminist argument. Advice on avoiding sexist language began to appear routinely in publishers’ and newspapers’ style guides, college writing handbooks and standard reference works on usage. By the end of the 1980s it seemed the battle had largely been won—all feminists and their supporters had to do was wait for the remaining dinosaurs to become extinct.

But as it turned out, it wasn’t quite that simple.

One problem which arose early on was a tendency to water down the original feminist analysis by equating ‘non-sexist’ language with what is now often called ‘ gender fair’ or ‘inclusive’ terminology. What feminists had originally coined the term ‘sexism’ to describe was a systemic structural inequality between men and women; but as the concept entered mainstream thinking it came to be understood in more liberal terms, as meaning any kind of unequal or differential treatment on the grounds of sex. This understanding, which presupposes that sexism affects both sexes equally, was reflected in legislation, such as the Sex Discrimination Act which was passed in Britain in 1975 . The Act had a linguistic dimension, in that it required job advertisements to make clear in their wording that positions were open to applicants of both sexes. The result was to favour the use of neutral or inclusive terms over other strategies which feminists had developed (such as the ‘visibility strategy’ of using language that deliberately calls attention to the presence of women, or treats women rather than men as the norm). Over time, this preference has become entrenched: any attempt to counter sexism by departing from the inclusiveness principle is liable to attract the criticism that it treats men unfairly and is therefore sexist itself.

In some contexts (including job advertisements), inclusive language is a reasonable strategy for countering sexism. In others, however, it tends to obscure the structural inequalities that were foregrounded in feminist analysis. An example is the proliferation of inclusive terms like ‘ gender-based violence ’ and ‘intimate partner killing’, which are now part of the official language used by government agencies, NGOs and transnational bodies like the UN.  These terms can imply that women are as likely to harm or kill men as vice-versa, when in reality virtually all ‘gender-based violence’, especially where it involves repeated and/or serious offences, is in fact male violence against women . Also ubiquitous nowadays are references to ‘parents’ and ‘parenting’: though this is an area where inclusive terminology can be useful, the automatic use of neutral terms obscures the fact that childcare continues to be disproportionately the responsibility of mothers .

Since it was first taken up as an issue, the progress of non-sexist language reform has also been affected by various changes in the political weather. In the 1970s and 1980s feminism was a significant political and cultural force, but its influence weakened during the 1990s. Younger women were repudiating the ‘F-word’, a new ‘lad culture’ was on the rise, and pundits proclaimed the onset of a ‘post-feminist’ era. At the same time, there was a concerted attack on so-called ‘political correctness’, and the alleged policing of language by a motley crew of feminists, LGBT activists, anti-racists and multiculturalists promoting extreme and restrictive speech-codes. Though non-sexist language policies had been around for two decades, and had not been considered ‘extreme’ by the many mainstream organizations which had adopted them, in this new climate they became suspect by association.

This change in mood was reflected not only in attitudes to the project of language reform, but also in everyday language-use. Some quantitative analyses of corpus data from the late 20 th century (a ‘corpus’ is a large, computer-searchable sample of authentic usage, selected to be representative of the language in question) suggest that trends which were noticeable in the 1970s and 80s, such as a rise in the use of ‘he or she’ rather than ‘he’ in formal written texts, were starting to be reversed by the turn of the millennium. Evidently the cultural pressure to avoid sexism was not maintained for long enough for new conventions to become naturalized: as the pressure decreased, the old habits of usage crept back. Of course, there were parts of the culture where they had never really gone away; but it is noticeable that ‘he-man’ language has returned to some of the areas which most decisively rejected it in the past.

Universities are one example: research suggests that the shift away from ‘he’ in the 1970s and 80s was most pronounced in academic writing, but as a university teacher today, I rarely encounter a student who does not use the generic masculine. Similarly, few of my colleagues raise an eyebrow when faced with references to the ‘chairman’ of a committee, even when the person in question is female. The mass media are another domain where there seems to be less awareness of the issue now than there was at some points in the past. Again, it is true that there was never much awareness of it in some parts of the media (especially the press): it was no surprise when, in 2014, the Daily Mail reported the choice of Rev. Libby Lane as England’s first female Anglican bishop under the headline ‘ Saxophone playing vicar’s wife is C of E’s first woman bishop ’. But broadcast news outlets which do not share the Mail’s conservatism can also display a surprisingly old-fashioned turn of phrase. As I write, one of the day’s main news stories concerns a clinical trial in which several volunteers suffered brain-damage after taking an experimental drug: the news bulletin I watched explained that it was not the first time the drug had been tested ‘in man’. (In fairness, I heard another which used the phrase ‘on humans’, but the point is that ‘man’ has not withered away as feminists 40 years ago imagined it would.)

In the 21 st century there has been a notable resurgence of feminist political activism.  But the form in which feminism has returned is, inevitably, different from the form it took in the past.  One development that has affected attitudes to language is the rise of a new kind of gender identity politics.  Today the most vocal demands for linguistic reform come from trans, non-binary and genderqueer activists; and when they call for ‘inclusive’ language, what they mean is not language that includes women as well as men, but language that includes people of all genders and none.

This new version of the inclusiveness principle can be in severe tension with the older feminist aim of using language to raise women’s status and visibility. Recently, the desire to avoid language deemed ‘trans exclusionary’ has led a number of women’s organizations, from Britain’s National Union of Students Women’s Campaign to the Midwives’ Association of North America , to move away from female-specific language, abandoning expressions like ‘sister(hood)’ in favour of the more ‘inclusive’ ‘siblinghood’, and substituting ‘people’ or ‘individuals’ for ‘women’ in the phrase ‘pregnant ____’.   There have also been proposals to redesign official documents such as UK passports, drivers’ licenses and university application forms so that an individual’s gender no longer has to specified—though some feminists have expressed concern that this change would make it harder to access full and accurate information relating to areas where we know there are continuing problems of sex inequality and discrimination.

On the other hand, some non-sex-specific terms originally proposed by feminists have been successfully revived by supporters of the new gender identity politics. For instance, it was 1970s feminists who first argued for ‘they’ to be accepted in its (historically well-established) use as a singular third person pronoun ; the non-sex-specific courtesy title ‘Mx’ was also created in the 1970s as a more radical non-sexist alternative than ‘Ms’ to ‘Mr/Mrs/Miss’ (the first known use of it appeared in a 1977 magazine for single parents). Though both proposals met with strong resistance at the time, they have now won the support of influential gatekeepers. In 2015 the Washington Post accepted singular ‘they’ as a legitimate usage , while the title ‘Mx’ is now offered as an option by mainstream institutions including universities, banks, the UK’s Department of Work and Pensions and the Royal Mail.

But in their new guise these linguistic forms have a different function from the one feminists originally envisaged for them. Rather than replacing the alternatives and so eliminating gender distinctions, they have become additional options on an expanded menu, marking the newer distinction between ‘cis’ and other gender identities. That may be why they have proved more acceptable to the gatekeepers this time around: they don’t require everyone to abandon traditional pronouns or titles, they only require acknowledgment of the alternative choices made by certain individuals.

Concerns about the way women are represented may figure less prominently in public debates on language than they did 40 years ago, but it would not be true to say that feminists have stopped criticizing sexist language, or that they are no longer making organized efforts to change it. Today, though, their efforts are more likely to be incorporated into campaigns on other issues. For instance, anti-rape activists have targeted the use of victim-blaming and otherwise inappropriate language in rape reporting , and campaigners on the issue of child sex abuse have put pressure on the media to stop describing children as ‘having sex with’ (rather than ‘being raped by’) adult men, and to end the use of the term ‘child prostitute’ . There has also been renewed criticism of sexist language in the context of campaigns against the marketing of sex-stereotyped toys, books and clothing to children.

So, this is a story of continuity as well as change, and of successes as well as setbacks. But an important reason for telling it is to counter the view (in my experience quite a common one outside activist circles) that sexism in language is yesterday’s problem: that we no longer need to think about it, or do anything about it, because it was all settled decades ago. I think that’s a mistake—and not only because, as I’ve already pointed out, the battle wasn’t won decisively in the 1980s. Since language changes continuously, along with the larger social context in which it is used, questions about it can never be considered definitively settled. Every generation of feminists will need both to revisit old arguments and to engage with new debates—and of course, to develop their own ideas about why and how language matters.

Further reading and references: Anne Curzan, Fixing English : Prescriptivism and Language History (Cambridge University Press, 2014) Casey Miller and Kate Swift, Words and Women: New Language in New Times (Anchor Press, 1976, 2001) Casey Miller and Kate Swift, The Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing: A Practical Guide for Writers and Editors (Women’s Press, 1980) Sara Mills, Language and Sexism (Cambridge University Press, 2008) Anne Pauwels, Women Changing Language (Longman, 1998)

Deborah Cameron is Professor of Language and Communication at Oxford University. She is the author of several books about language, gender and feminism, including The Myth of Mars and Venus and On Language and Sexual Politics , and she blogs at Language: a feminist guide .

Share this:

The opinions expressed in the items published here are those of the authors and not Discover Society.

• Editorial Board
• Author Index
• Topic Index

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Perceiving and Confronting Sexism: The Causal Role of Gender Identity Salience

1 Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

John F. Dovidio

2 Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

Associated Data

Although many researchers have explored the relations among gender identification, discriminatory attributions, and intentions to challenge discrimination, few have examined the causal impact of gender identity salience on women’s actual responses to a sexist encounter. In the current study, we addressed this question by experimentally manipulating the salience of gender identity and assessing its impact on women’s decision to confront a sexist comment in a simulated online interaction. Female participants ( N = 114) were randomly assigned to complete a short measure of either personal or collective self-esteem, which was designed to increase the salience of personal versus gender identity. They were then given the opportunity to confront a male interaction partner who expressed sexist views. Compared to those who were primed to focus on their personal identity, participants who were primed to focus on their gender identity perceived the interaction partner’s remarks as more sexist and were more likely to engage in confrontation. By highlighting the powerful role of subtle contextual cues in shaping women’s perceptions of, and responses to, sexism, our findings have important implications for the understanding of gender identity salience as an antecedent of prejudice confrontation. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ’s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/page/pwq/suppl/index .

Despite egalitarian social norms in the contemporary United States, women are exposed to prejudiced attitudes and sexist treatment across a wide range of settings ( Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001 ). However, many women do not confront such sexist treatment in their environment ( Kaiser & Miller, 2004 ; Swim & Hyers, 1999 ; Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001 ). This reluctance to challenge discrimination has important psychological and social consequences. Confrontation has not only been linked to a sense of empowerment among women ( Gervais, Hillard, & Vescio, 2010 ), but also can serve as an effective means for social change ( Mallett & Wagner, 2011 ). To this end, researchers have worked to understand the various factors that affect how women and other stigmatized individuals weigh the potential costs and benefits of confronting prejudice (for reviews, see Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, & Goodwin, 2008 ; Kaiser & Major, 2006 ). In the present research, we focused on the role of one such factor, the salience of personal versus gender (group) identity, and examined its causal impact on women’s confrontation of a sexist comment in the context of a computer-mediated interaction.

According to social identity theory ( Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ), because people self-identify as individual persons, as well as members of their social groups, the salience of their personal versus social identity can vary significantly across contexts. As further explained in self-categorization theory ( Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987 ), personal identity refers to “me” versus “not me” categorizations; when it is activated, individuals tend to describe themselves using personal attributes and to engage in interpersonal comparisons. By contrast, social identity refers to “us” versus “them” categorizations; it is activated when situations emphasize a particular social identity (e.g., by priming a person to invoke his or her identity as a man or a woman) or indirectly by virtue of other elements of the situation (e.g., when one is the only woman in a social setting with several other men). According to both theoretical perspectives, when social identity is activated, individuals tend to view the world primarily through the lens of their group membership and compare their own groups to other groups by accentuating intragroup similarities, perceiving in-group members as sharing characteristics that represent the prototype of the group, and emphasizing intergroup differences. Making one’s social identity salient tends to arouse motivations to defend and enhance the status of one’s group ( Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ), which in turn prompts collective action against incidents that threaten the esteem of their group.

In most of the existing work derived from social identity theory ( Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ) and self-categorization theory ( Turner et al., 1987 ), researchers have focused on ethnic and national identities (see Abrams & Hogg, 2010 , for a review). Some investigators have examined the role of gender identity salience (i.e., the extent to which women think of themselves as a member of their gender group rather than an individual person) in relation to women’s task performance when they are a numerical gender minority (e.g., Abrams, Thomas, & Hogg, 1990 ); however, researchers have rarely considered the impact of gender identity salience on women’s perceptions of and responses to subtly discriminatory situations.

It is important to note that the strength and the salience of one’s social identity represent closely related yet conceptually distinct constructs ( Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999 ; see also Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994 ). Specifically, the strength of one’s social identity typically refers to the chronic accessibility (i.e., centrality or importance) of group membership in one’s self-concept. In contrast, the salience of one’s social identity is context dependent; one’s identity as a group member might become more or less subjectively meaningful relative to one’s identity as an individual person in response to subtle situational cues ( Haslam, Oakes, Reynolds, & Turner, 1999 ). Thus, although people who are strongly identified with a particular social group are, in general, more likely to find their group identity salient in any given situation, the salience of one’s group identity, when contextually activated, can independently shape people’s thoughts and actions ( Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999 ; Steele & Aronson, 1995 ) and may do so in ways over and above effects of individual differences in strength of identification ( Transue, 2007 ).

The literature on individual differences in group identification includes some important insights into how the salience of women’s gender identity can influence responses to sexism. In one study, for example, women higher in gender identification (those who endorse items such as “Being a woman is an important reflection of who I am”) were more likely to attribute a male evaluator’s negative feedback to prejudice when a confederate mentioned that the evaluator “tends to grade guys and girls differently,” compared with those who scored lower on gender identification ( Major, Quinton, & Schmader, 2003 ). This general inclination to recognize discrimination when it occurs can promote actions to challenge its perpetrators. Indeed, research on collective action has demonstrated that, relative to individuals with weaker group identification, those who identify more with their disadvantaged group express stronger intentions to participate in organized social movements with other members of their group (e.g., initiating a petition or collective protest) to address their group-based disadvantage (see van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008 , for a review). Consistent with these findings, women who endorsed higher levels of gender identification also reported greater involvement in feminism-related activities than those who endorsed lower gender identification ( Liss, Crawford, & Popp, 2004 ).

A separate line of research has also linked the strength of gender identification, often considered as a stable individual difference ( Leach et al., 2008 ), to inclination to confront sexist behaviors. Two retrospective studies showed that women who were strongly identified with their gender group ( Good, Moss-Racusin, & Sanchez, 2012 ), or who identified themselves as feminists ( Ayres, Friedman, & Leaper, 2009 ), were more likely to report confronting past instances of sexism than their more weakly identified counterparts, regardless of the perceived efficacy of their actions and even when confrontation was perceived as relatively costly. However, retrospective report paradigms have some inherent limitations ( Wheeler & Reis, 1991 ). Specifically, participants’ recollections of their past experiences and behaviors may not be entirely accurate; furthermore, women who are high in gender identification may selectively recall instances in which they confronted the perpetrators of discrimination.

In the present research, we extended previous work by examining the contextual antecedents of perceiving and confronting gender discrimination. According to both social identity theory and self-categorization theory, subtle, incidental cues within a social context can spontaneously prime and activate social or personal identity. Priming social identity, compared to personal identity, is more likely to increase sensitivity to incidents that threaten the esteem of one’s group and to motivate action against these threats. Drawing from these perspectives, the current study complements previous research on the relation between individual differences in gender identification and confrontation (e.g., Major et al., 2003 ); specifically, we considered how contextual cues that temporarily prime social or personal identity might influence women’s confrontation of a sexist incident.

To examine this possibility, we experimentally manipulated the salience of women’s gender versus personal identity, with the goal of assessing the independent causal impact of social identity salience on women’s prejudice perception and subsequent confrontation of gender bias in the context of a simulated online interaction. We operationalized confrontation as the extent to which participants expressed opposition to the views of their male interaction partner in their written responses (see Lee, Soto, Swim, & Bernstein, 2012 , for a similar operationalization). Given that individuals’ perceptions of their own behaviors often differ from those of third-party observers ( Pronin, 2009 ), we examined our hypotheses with respect to both participants’ perceptions of their own responses to the sexist comment (i.e., self-reported confrontation) and independent coders’ ratings of these responses (i.e., coded confrontation).

As noted earlier, according to social identity theory ( Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ; see also Abrams & Hogg, 2010 ), individuals whose social identity is made salient are more inclined to attribute unfair treatment to group-based injustice (i.e., prejudice and discrimination) and more willing to take actions to defend and enhance the status of their in-groups ( van Zomeren et al., 2008 ). Building on this line of research as well as existing work on individual differences in the strength of gender identification (e.g., Good et al., 2012 ; Major et al., 2003 ), we hypothesized that participants who were primed to focus on their gender identity would be more likely to confront their interaction partner about making a sexist comment (in terms of both self-report and coders’ ratings) than those who were primed to focus on their personal identity (Hypothesis 1). Furthermore, consistent with the idea that individuals must first recognize discrimination before they can actively address it ( Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2008 ; Ellemers & Barreto, 2009 ), we hypothesized that the effect of gender identity salience on both self-reported and coded confrontation would be mediated by prejudice perceptions: Women whose gender identity was made salient would perceive the comment from their interaction partner as more prejudiced (Hypothesis 2A) and would in turn be more likely to respond by engaging in confrontation (Hypothesis 2B).

Participants

A total of 119 participants living in the United States were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (Mturk.com). Mechanical Turk is an Internet-based platform that permits members of the general public to complete tasks anonymously in exchange for monetary compensation. In order to facilitate the collection of high-quality data, MTurk allows researchers to reject participants’ work if they do not follow instructions, and thus it serves as an inexpensive yet valid source of data for behavioral science researchers ( Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011 ; Mason & Sufi, 2010 ). In the current study, five participants, who started the survey but did not complete it, were excluded from analyses and the final sample consisted of 114 women. These participants ranged in ages from 18 to 65 years ( M = 36.70, SD = 12.57). Most of the sample was White ( n = 85), but 29 indicated other racial and ethnic identities (15 African American, 5 Latina, 4 Asian, and 5 other). Each participant was paid US$.75 upon completion of the study.

Participants were told that the study was designed to examine factors shaping patterns of asynchronous communication on the Internet. At the beginning of the study, participants completed the gender or the personal identity salience manipulation adapted from Verkuyten and Hagendoorn (1998) .

Experimental manipulation

We manipulated identity salience by randomly assigning participants to one of the two experimental conditions designed to activate the salience of either personal or gender identity. Specifically, participants were randomly assigned to complete a short measure of either personal or collective self-esteem. Although this manipulation may seem subtle, the stereotype threat literature has consistently shown that answering simple questions about one’s membership in a particular group can increase the salience of one’s identity in relation to that group, which can in turn lead to significant cognitive and behavioral consequences (e.g., Shih et al., 1999 ; Steele & Aronson, 1995 ; Wang & Dovidio, 2011 ).

Participants assigned to the personal identity condition were instructed to reflect on their general feelings about themselves as unique individuals and indicated their agreement with 7 items taken from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (e.g., “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”; Rosenberg, 1965 ). Each item was rated on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ); the internal consistency for this sample was adequate, α = .88. Participants assigned to the gender identity condition were asked to reflect on their general feelings about themselves as members of their gender group and to indicate their agreement with 7 items taken from the Collective Self-Esteem Scale (e.g., “My gender identity is an important reflection of who I am”; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992 ). Each item was also rated on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ); the internal consistency for this sample was adequate, α = .78. The specific instructions and items used in the gender identity salience manipulation are included in the Online Supplemental Materials .

Pilot testing of the experimental manipulation

To avoid sensitizing participants to the nature of the experimental manipulation, we did not include any explicit validity checks of the gender identity salience manipulation in the current study. However, to establish the validity of the manipulation of gender identity salience and to ensure that the manipulation would work as intended, we conducted a pilot study with an independent sample of women. Participants ( N = 40) for the pilot study were also drawn from a national online participant pool. They ranged in ages from 19 to 65 ( M = 39.80, SD = 15.21); most of the sample was White ( n = 32), but eight indicated other racial/ethnic identities (two African American, two Latina, three Asian, and one other).

Based on previous research using the accessibility of words as a measure of salience (e.g., Gilbert & Hixon, 1991 ; Monteith, Sherman, & Devine, 1998 ) and specifically the paradigm of Hass and Eisenstadt (1990) , we informed participants that they would be presented with a word subliminally and then instructed to identify what they saw by choosing between a pair of words. In reality, no stimuli were presented subliminally; rather, after viewing a blank mask, participants were asked to choose between a gender-related and a nongender-related word. A total of six word pairs were used: men versus mine, woman versus human, she versus self, he versus me, boy versus body, and her versus our. The number of gender-related words selected was calculated for each participant and served as a measure of gender identity salience. Participants also completed a 4-item measure of individual differences in gender identification adapted from Leach et al. (2008 ; e.g., “Being a woman is an important part of my self-image.”). All items were rated on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ); the Cronbach’s α in this sample was .83. As intended, the manipulation affected the salience of gender identity, operationalized as the accessibility of gender-related words, but not the strength of women’s gender identification, as measured by the adapted Leach et al. (2008) measure. Specifically, women who completed the gender Collective Self-Esteem Scale reported seeing more gender-related words than those who completed the Personal Self-Esteem Scale, M s = 3.10 ( SD = 1.45) versus 2.30 ( SD = 0.91), t (38) = 2.07, p = .045, d = .66. Completing the collective versus the personal self-esteem scales did not affect the strength of gender identity, M s = 5.14 ( SD = 1.23) versus 5.61 ( SD = 0.43), t (38) = 0.53, p = .60, d = .051. These findings support the validity of our manipulation of gender identity salience in the current study.

Online interaction

Immediately following completion of the gender identity salience experimental manipulation, participants in the current study engaged in an online interaction in which they were given an opportunity to respond to a scripted paragraph expressing sexist views allegedly written by a male communication partner. The online communication partner, who was named Michael, was described as a 30-year-old software engineer seeking advice about a problem at work. In reality, there was no communication partner; all participants read the following paragraph:

I’m a software engineer and have been with my current company for five years. For the most part, I have really enjoyed my job: The work is challenging and interesting, my colleagues are friendly, and the pay is quite decent. However, I have noticed a change at work that has been bothering me for the past year or two. There seems to be more and more young women entering the company, and many of them strike me as not very well-qualified. I understand that this is supposed to contribute to the diversity of our industry, but frankly I think that favoring women in the hiring process may be problematic. Given that women have historically under-performed in math and science, it is only natural that there are fewer women than men in the technology industry. As I start taking on more management responsibilities, I’m concerned about these new trends in hiring practices and wonder what they will do to the future of my company and my industry more generally. I would be really interested in hearing your thoughts about this issue.

Participants then had an opportunity to provide a written response to Michael. We assessed the extent to which they engaged in confrontation in two ways: via participant self-report and by coding participants’ written responses (see Measures section for more information). Participants also subsequently completed measures of perceived prejudice.

Self-reported confrontation

We assessed self-reported confrontation using a single item specifically created for the purpose of the current study. Participants rated their responses to Michael’s comment about women in the industry using a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 ( expressed strong support for Michael’s comment ) to 7 ( expressed strong objections to Michael’s comment ). This bipolar scale was selected to capture both the valence of participants’ responses (i.e., whether they agree or disagree with Michael) and the intensity of their responses.

Coded confrontation

To assess how independent coders perceived the participants’ remarks in response to the male confederate’s comments, four independent judges unaware of the experimental conditions rated each of the written responses using the same 7-point scale that the participant used, that is, in terms of the degree to which the response expressed strong support for Michael’s comment (a rating of 1) to strong objections to Michael’s comment (a rating of 7). To help establish consensus in coding criteria, coders discussed their judgments for five practice trials. Following the procedure used by Lee, Soto, Swim, and Bernstein (2012) , the coders independently rated each sample statement and then discussed the criteria (e.g., types of verbs, favorability of adjectives, and emotions expressed) determining their ratings. The independent ratings from the four judges for the actual responses in the study demonstrated strong interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = .96, Krippendorff’s α = .86) and were averaged to form a single measure. Table 1 presents the criteria used by the coders and provides a paraphrased sample statement for each coding category (note that paraphrased statements are presented because we informed participants that we would not share their verbatim responses during debriefing).

Coding Criteria and Sample Statements.

Perceived prejudice

To assess whether the identity salience manipulation affected how participants viewed the comments made by the male confederate, we presented participants with a quote from the paragraph allegedly written by Michael (“given that women have historically under-performed in math and science, it is only natural that there are fewer women than men in the technology industry”) and asked them to indicate the extent to which they perceived Michael’s remarks as prejudiced using 2 items: (a) “to what extent do you find Michael’s comment to be sexist?” and (b) “to what extent do you find Michael’s comment to be rude?” Each item was rated on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 ( not at all ) to 7 ( very much ), r (112) = .64, p < .001.

Other measures

The current research was part of a larger study examining women’s emotional and behavioral responses to sexism. For the larger study, in addition to the dependent measures described above, participants completed a number of measures regarding their habitual use of different emotion regulation strategies, including the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire ( Gross & John, 2003 ) and the Ruminative Responses Scale ( Treynor, Gonzalez, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2003 ), at baseline. In addition, they were asked to indicate their emotional responses to Michael’s comment using a subset of items from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule ( Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988 ). Because these scales were irrelevant to the main purpose of the current study and were not systematically related to our outcomes of interest, they are not discussed further. All of the experimental conditions in the present research are reported. No other publications or manuscripts have resulted from this data set.

After completing all measures in the study, participants were asked directly what they believed was the true purpose of the current research. Then, we fully debriefed each participant when she completed her individual study session. Specifically, we informed participants that the study was designed “to better understand how women decide whether to confront gender discrimination in a web-based context.” Participants learned that “the communication partner does not exist in reality; all the information you read was generated by the investigators, and your written responses will not be shared with anyone outside the research team.”

Data Analytic Strategy

No participants were excluded because of suspicion; there was little spontaneous suspicion about Michael being an actual partner in the exchange or about the true purpose of the study. In response to the open-ended question about their reactions to Michael, only two participants mentioned the possibility that Michael might be “fabricated”; 85 made comments directly about Michael (e.g., “I told myself he was limited by his upbringing”), about how his comments affected them (e.g., “I told myself to stay calm in writing my response to Michael”), and/or about the strategy with which they formulated a response (e.g., “I thought this man is ignorant so tried to be nice in my response”). When asked directly what they thought the true purpose of the study was, 40 participants (13 in the personal identity condition and 27 in the gender identity condition) inferred that it was about sexism or gender discrimination. Even in response to this direct probe, which was administered after participants indicated the extent to which they found Michael’s comment to be prejudiced, no participant mentioned the experimental manipulation to make gender or personal identity salient nor did any identify the main research hypothesis. Nevertheless, given that a greater percentage of participants in the gender identity condition, relative to the personal identity condition, identified the general purpose of the study (i.e., sexism/gender discrimination), χ 2 (1, N = 114) = 4.85, p = .03, we repeated all subsequent analyses with general suspicion (dichotomized as 0 = did not identify study as related to sexism and 1 = identified study as related to sexism ) as a covariate. We reported these additional analyses, which replicated the results of the main analyses, in the Online Supplemental Materials .

In all analyses, we treated both self-reported and coded confrontation as continuous variables, given that they were rated, similar to other measures in the study, on a 7-point scale. To check for potential covariates, we first examined the bivariate associations between demographic characteristics and both self-report and coded confrontation. Specifically, we calculated the Pearson correlation between age and confrontation. Due to the small number of participants within each racial and ethnic minority group, we dichotomized the variable into White ( n = 85) and other racial and ethnic identities ( n = 29) and compared confrontation responses between these two groups using an independent samples t -test. To ensure that participants’ inclination to engage in confrontation did not vary systematically as a function of personal or collective self-esteem within each experimental condition, we further assessed the correlations between personal (collective) self-esteem and confrontation. Following these analyses, we conducted two separate univariate analyses of variance to examine the role of gender identity salience in predicting both self-report and coded confrontation (Hypothesis 1). Last, we utilized the indirect SPSS macro designed by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) to test the idea that perceived prejudice would mediate the effect of gender identity salience on confrontation (Hypothesis 2).

In preliminary analyses, participant age was not significantly associated with either self-reported, r (112) =−.07, p = .47, or coded confrontation, r (112) = .06, p = .54. Similarly, there was no significant between-group difference across White participants and participants with other racial and ethnic identities with respect to self-reported, t (112) =−1.33, p = .19, and coded confrontation, t (112) = −.57, p = .57. Thus, these variables were not considered in all subsequent analyses. Furthermore, within each experimental condition, self-reported and coded confrontation did not systematically vary as a function of personal, r (51) = −.25, p = .07, or collective self-esteem, r (59) = .19, p = .16.

Effect of Gender Identity Salience Manipulation on Confrontation

We tested Hypothesis 1 by examining the effect of gender identity salience on both self-reported and coded confrontation, which were strongly correlated with each other, r (112) = .76, p < .001. As revealed by separate univariate analyses, the effect of identity condition was significant for self-reported confrontation, F (1, 112) = 5.31, p = .02, η p 2 = .05 , but not for coders’ ratings of confrontation, F (1, 112) = 3.49, p = .06, η p 2 = .03 . In light of these discrepant results, we conducted a profile analysis (also known as a test of parallelism; Bray & Maxwell, 1985 ), in which we treated the two confrontation measures as a two-level repeated measures factor. The Identity Condition × Measure interaction was not significant, F (1, 112) = 0.13, p = .72, indicating that self-reported and coded confrontation were commensurate (i.e., effect of the experimental manipulation did not significantly diverge across measures). Furthermore, supporting Hypothesis 1, the effect of the identity condition was significant across confrontation measures, F (1, 112) = 4.96, p = .03.

We then tested Hypothesis 2 by conducting two separate mediation analyses, with self-reported and coded confrontation as respective dependent variables. Participants’ perceived prejudice correlated significantly with both self-reported confrontation, r (112) = .61, p < .001, and coded confrontation, r (112) = .60, p < .001. As illustrated in the top panel of Figure 1 , consistent with the idea that priming women with their gender identity would elicit heightened vigilance for cues of bias (Hypothesis 2A), participants assigned to the gender identity condition perceived Michael’s comment as more prejudiced than those assigned to the personal identity condition, b = .69, SE = .28, t (112) = 2.45, p = .02. With respect to self-reported confrontation ratings, consistent with Hypothesis 2B, perceived prejudice was significantly associated with confrontation, b = .60, SE = .08, t (112) = 7.64, p < .001. Furthermore, the effect of gender identity salience on confrontation was significantly mediated by participants’ perceived level of prejudice: The 95% confidence interval for the indirect path from the gender identity condition to self-reported confrontation through perceived prejudice ranged from 0.09 to 0.84 and did not include zero. A similar pattern of results, presented in the bottom panel of Figure 1 , was replicated with respect to coders’ ratings of confrontation behavior. Participants’ level of perceived prejudice was again associated with confrontation, b =.87, SE = .11, t (112) = 7.65, p < .001. In addition, perceived prejudice emerged as a significant mediator: The 95% confidence interval for the indirect path from the gender identity condition to coded confrontation through perceived prejudice ranged from 0.14 to 1.19 and did not include zero.

Effect of gender versus personal identity salience on confrontation through perceived prejudice.

We also examined the possibility that participants’ confrontation behavior would mediate the effect of gender identity salience on perceived prejudice. Given that coded confrontation did not significantly differ across experimental conditions ( p = .06), we only tested this alternative mediation model with respect to self-reported confrontation. Participants assigned to the gender identity condition were more likely to confront the sexist comment than those in the personal identity condition, b = .66, SE = .29, t (112) = 2.30, p = .02. Furthermore, self-reported confrontation was significantly associated with perceived prejudice, b = .58, SE = .08, t (112) = 6.64, p < .001. Self-reported confrontation emerged as a significant mediator: The 95% confidence interval, ranging from 0.07 to 0.81, did not include zero.

In the present research, we examined the effect of experimentally manipulated gender identity salience on women’s tendency to perceive and confront sexism. We found that, consistent with the basic tenets of social identity and self-categorization theory, women who were primed to focus on their gender identity perceived a subtly sexist comment from a male interaction partner as more prejudiced than those who were primed to focus on their personal identity and were more likely to respond by engaging in confrontation. While existing work has consistently linked dispositional individual differences in gender identification to both discriminatory attributions and confrontation behaviors ( Good et al., 2012 ; Major et al., 2003 ), in the current study, we extended previous research by demonstrating that even increasing the salience of women’s gender identity temporarily through subtle contextual cues can play a powerful role in shaping individuals’ perceptions of and responses to potentially discriminatory situations. In light of earlier retrospective, correlational studies, in which women who more strongly identified with their gender group ( Good et al., 2012 ), or who identified themselves as feminists ( Ayres et al., 2009 ), were more likely to report confronting past instances of sexism; the present study represents a significant contribution to the literature by demonstrating the causal impact of gender identity salience on women’s thoughts and behaviors in response to a specific sexist incident.

Although the indirect effect of identity salience on confrontation through perceptions of prejudice was significant for both participants’ and coders’ ratings, the size of the effects was modest (in the range of r = .20). Nevertheless, in the context of experiencing or addressing bias, even statistically small effects can have significant social consequences by cumulatively shaping the behaviors of a large number of individuals over time ( Greenwald, Banaji, & Nosek, 2015 ; Martell, Lane, & Emrich, 1996 ). In addition, we note that the direct effect of identity salience on confrontation was stronger for participants’ self-report assessments than for coders’ ratings. As noted by Pronin (2009) , people tend to rely more on introspective information (i.e., how they think and feel) when assessing their own behaviors but focus more on the actual actions being carried out when assessing others’ behaviors. Therefore, it is likely that participants, having access to their own goals and intentions, produced ratings that, compared to those of independent coders, were more reflective of their intentions to confront sexism than evident in their actual behavior.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

We acknowledge that certain characteristics specific to the current interaction paradigm might have facilitated our participants’ confrontation behavior. First, for the purpose of maintaining the flow of the interaction, participants were explicitly invited by their communication partner to comment on the issue being discussed (i.e., diversity initiatives designed to increase women’s representation in the technology industry). This invitation provided a clear indication to participants that it was their turn to communicate, which presented a well-defined opportunity for responding to the sexist comment rarely found in everyday interactions (see also Rattan & Dweck, 2010 , for the use of a similar paradigm). Second, because participants knew little about their interaction partner and did not expect to interact with him in the future, confrontation carried relatively low interpersonal costs. This interpretation is consistent with the observation that 67% of the participants engaged in confrontation to some extent, which is much greater than the rates observed in previous research documenting targets’ general reluctance to confront when they are placed in actual discriminatory situations ( Swim & Hyers, 1999 ; Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001 ). Third, whereas face-to-face interaction paradigms typically examine spontaneous responses to sexist statements, our asynchronous computer-mediated interaction allowed time for participants to reflect on the comment and prepare a response (see also Rasinski, Geers, & Czopp, 2013 ). As a result, the responses of our female participants were likely to be more deliberative and therefore may not directly reflect their spontaneous reactions to a similar sexist comment in more immediate interactive settings ( Fazio & Olson, 2014 ).

Although our findings may not generalize directly to confrontation that occurs spontaneously in face-to-face interactions, the current asynchronous written communication paradigm does have relevance to naturalistic forms of social behavior, given the popularity of blogs, tweets, and other forms of electronically mediated communication in which interactants may not be personally identifiable to one another. For example, blogs, which typically allow readers to submit comments anonymously, attract 300% more views and 233% more visitors than conventional online articles on the same topic ( Greenslade, 2012 ). Similarly, over 100 million people use Twitter ( Hatchman, 2011 ), which has become one of the most popular forms of communication among adolescents ( Greig, 2013 ). Thus, confrontation of sexism in the context of asynchronous, anonymous, electronically mediated communication merits study in its own right, not only because of its increasing social significance, but also because it may offer valuable theoretical insights into the dynamics of confronting sexism across different situations.

It is also worth noting that, in order to capture women’s confrontation behavior in a naturalistic way (and as in previous work on prejudice confrontation; see Lee et al., 2012 ), we collected participants’ written responses to the sexist comment before assessing their prejudice perceptions. This choice of measurement order was made primarily for practical considerations: Assessing how prejudiced the comment was perceived to be, before allowing participants to respond to the sexist comment, would likely make the purpose of the research entirely transparent and subject their responses to experimenter demand. Our current interpretation, that perceptions of prejudice mediated the impact of gender identity salience on confrontation, is grounded in previous work demonstrating the role of discriminatory attributions as an important antecedent of confrontation ( Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2008 ). However, it is also conceivable that, upon reflecting on a stronger confrontation response, participants might have rated the instigating remark as more prejudiced in order to justify their actions. Although this possibility appeared to be supported by our alternative mediation model, with respect to self-reported confrontation, inherent limitations of statistical mediation precluded us from determining the direction of causality between perceived prejudice and confrontation, given the current study design ( Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005 ). Thus, it will be important for future researchers to ascertain the causal links among gender identity salience, perceptions of sexism, and confrontation behavior by manipulating the extent people may perceive a comment as prejudiced (e.g., by introducing information that another person views the comment as biased or unbiased; Sechrist & Stangor, 2001 ).

We further note that, consistent with previous studies that utilized similar paradigms to study prejudice confrontation ( Lee et al., 2012 ; Rattan & Dweck, 2010 ), we used measures of both perceived prejudice and self-reported confrontation that were only 1 or 2 items; we wanted to minimize participants’ burden and obscure the study’s focus on confrontation. To improve the validity of our findings, we supplemented the single-item measure of self-reported confrontation with coders’ ratings of participants’ written responses. Nonetheless, future researchers might more reliably assess these constructs and use well-validated measures.

The present research also raises a number of other interesting questions worthy of future research. Given that the current study included only two experimental conditions in which participants were primed with either their personal or gender identity, and did not include a no-prime control group, we cannot be certain of the direction of the experimental manipulation’s effect. Although our interpretation that gender identity salience increased women’s willingness to confront gender discrimination is well grounded in the theoretical literature (e.g., Good et al., 2012 ; Major et al., 2003 ), it is also possible that priming women with their personal identity would reduce their willingness to confront sexist messages by increasing the sense of individuation and making women feel “singled out.” Indeed, people are more likely to conform to the expectations of others, and are more sensitive to the social costs for deviating from those expectations, when they feel more personally identifiable; by contrast, when social identity is salient, people conform more strongly to the norms and expectations of members of that social group ( Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004 ; Postmes & Spears, 1998 ). Future researchers could disentangle the facilitating effect of salient gender identity or the inhibiting influence of salient personal identity by adding a control condition in which female participants do not answer any identity-related questions prior to the simulated online interaction.

Although previous research has linked the strength of gender identification to women’s inclination to confront sexist behaviors ( Ayres et al., 2009 ; Good et al., 2012 ), in the current study, collective self-esteem was positively, though not significantly, associated with confrontation. This discrepancy might be attributable to our lack of statistical power, given that only those participants who were assigned to the gender identity condition ( n = 61) completed the collective self-esteem measure. Furthermore, it is possible that the collective self-esteem items used in the current study, which assessed the importance of gender identity to one’s self-concept, did not capture components of gender identification that are most closely related to prejudice confrontation. Indeed, previous research linking gender identification to confrontation has utilized measures that assessed constructs such as solidarity ( Good et al., 2012 ) and feminist ideology ( Ayres et al., 2009 ), which represent activist orientations. Given the multifaceted nature of in-group identification ( Leach et al., 2008 ), future researchers could further investigate how various components of gender identification might differentially facilitate confrontation of sexism.

Future research might also directly investigate how the influence of gender identity salience may be moderated by contextual factors, such as nature of the sexist event itself. In the present research, we presented participants with a sexist but subtle comment, with the goal of eliciting significant individual variations in confrontation. Because exposure to blatant sexism, relative to subtle sexism, tends to produce more uniform recognition of unfair bias and relatively high levels of collective action tendencies with more limited variability of response ( Wang, Stroebe, & Dovidio, 2012 ), presenting participants with a more blatantly sexist comment would likely induce high levels of confrontation in both the personal identity and gender identity conditions, thereby reducing the difference between these conditions.

Last, while the present research considered perceived prejudice as a mediator underlying the impact of gender identity salience on confrontation, the collective action literature has identified a number of other potential mechanisms, such as feelings of solidarity with other group members and perceived efficacy of one’s actions (see van Zomeren et al., 2008 , for a review). Indeed, it is likely that activating a woman’s gender identity would increase her sense of connectedness with other women (i.e., sisterhood) and therefore prompt her to confront a sexist remark that threatens her gender group. Consideration of these mediators in future research could help further clarify the paths through which gender identity salience operates to influence confrontation.

Practice Implications

The current study highlights the role of gender identity salience in the context of responding to subtle forms of sexism. While previous research on stereotype threat has shown that priming women with their gender identity can lead to a wide range of negative outcomes, such as decreased performance in stereotyped academic domains ( Quinn, Kallen, & Spencer, 2010 ; Shih et al., 1999 ; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999 ), our results showed that doing so might have adaptive consequences under certain circumstances. Specifically, when women are placed in relatively “safe” situations where asserting their rights comes with few social costs, the salience of their gender identity might prompt the recognition of subtle sexist comments, thereby facilitating interpersonal confrontation and social change ( Mallett & Wagner, 2011 ). In addition, confrontation under these circumstances represents an active coping strategy that increases a sense of personal and collective empowerment and control ( Gervais et al., 2010 ), with benefits to both psychological and physical health ( Greenaway et al., 2015 ). These effects are especially relevant in contemporary society, in which many instances of sexism are subtle and therefore difficult to recognize and actively address ( Ellemers & Barreto, 2009 ).

Our findings have important implications for professionals designing diversity training initiatives in both higher education and workplace settings. Whereas many current interventions focus on enhancing a sense of belongingness in socially disadvantaged group members by encouraging them to find common ground with their majority peers ( Dovidio, Gaertner, Ufkes, Saguy, & Pearson, 2016 ; Walton & Cohen, 2007 ; Yeager & Walton, 2011 ), programs that instead emphasize the acknowledgment of potential discrimination and active ways of coping with bias can represent a complementary approach. Rather than directly attempting to change the extent to which women personally identify with their gender group, programs could help women activate their gender (rather than personal) identity in the context of subtle bias and equip them with the necessary tools to evaluate the social costs and benefits associated with active confrontation in these situations. Such interventions would enable women to make context-sensitive decisions in terms of the best way to respond to subtle discrimination directed toward them or other women. In sum, given the value of confrontation as an active coping strategy with psychological benefits and an effective means to promote social change, our results suggest that gender identity salience can be an important motivator for women who continue to navigate instances of subtle sexism in their everyday lives.

Conclusions

In the present research, we examined the causal impact of gender identity salience on prejudice confrontation by using an experimental manipulation derived from self-categorization theory. While the salience of one’s personal versus social identity has received much attention in the collective action literature, especially as it relates to individuals’ affective responses to group-based injustice and the perceived efficacy of their attempts to address such disadvantage ( van Zomeren et al., 2008 ), much less work has addressed the effects of social identity in the context of interpersonal prejudice confrontation. By investigating the impact of identity salience on confrontation in the context of a novel paradigm, the current study significantly contributed to the existing literature on the dynamics of perceiving and responding to gender discrimination.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental, acknowledgments.

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Preparation of this manuscript was supported by U.S. Public Health Services grants T32MH020031 and 3R01MH109413-S1 awarded to Katie Wang.

Authors’ Note

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Health. Any underlying research materials for this study, including the data on which the current analyses were based, can be obtained by e-mailing the corresponding author.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

• Abrams D, Hogg MA. Social identity and self-categorization. In: Dovidio JF, Hewstone M, Glick P, Esses VM, editors. Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. London, England: Sage; 2010. pp. 179–193. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abrams D, Thomas J, Hogg MA. Numerical distinctiveness, social identity and gender salience. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1990; 29 :87–92. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00889.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashburn-Nardo L, Morris KA, Goodwin SA. The Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) model: Applying CPR in organizations. Academy of Management. 2008; 7 :332–342. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251671. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayres MM, Friedman CK, Leaper C. Individual and situational factors related to young women’s likelihood of confronting sexism in their everyday lives. Sex Roles. 2009; 61 :449–460. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9635-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bray JH, Maxwell SE. Multivariate analysis of variance. Vol. 54. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2011; 6 :3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology. 2004; 55 :591–621. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL, Ufkes EG, Saguy T, Pearson AR. Included but invisible? Subtle bias, common identity, and the darker side of “we. Social Issues and Policy Review. 2016; 10 :4–44. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellemers N, Barreto M. Collective action in modern times: How modern expressions of prejudice prevent collective action. Journal of Social Issues. 2009; 65 :749–768. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01621.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B, editors. Social identity. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fazio RH, Olson MA. The MODE model: Attitude-behavior processes as a function of motivation and opportunity. In: Sherman JW, Gawronski B, Trope Y, editors. Dual-process theories of the social mind. New York, NY: Guilford; 2014. pp. 155–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gervais SJ, Hillard AL, Vescio TK. Confronting sexism: The role of relationship orientation and gender. Sex Roles. 2010; 63 :463–474. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9838-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert DT, Hixon JG. The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1991; 60 :509–517. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.509. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Good JJ, Moss-Racusin CA, Sanchez DT. When do we confront? Perceptions of costs and benefits predict confronting discrimination on behalf of the self and others. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2012; 36 :210–226. doi: 10.1177/0361684312440958. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenaway KH, Haslam SA, Cruwys T, Branscombe NR, Ysseldyk R, Heldreth C. From “we” to “me”: Group identification enhances perceived personal control with consequences for health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2015; 109 :53–74. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000019. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenslade R. Research reveals popularity of life blogging. The Guardian. 2012 Nov 20; Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/nov/20/blogging-cityuniversity .
• Greenwald AG, Banaji MR, Nosek BA. Statistically small effects of the implicit Association Test can have societally large effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2015; 108 :553–561. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000016. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greig A. Twitter overtakes Facebook as the most popular social network for teens, according to study. Daily Mail Online. 2013 Oct 24; Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2475591/Twitter-overtakes-Facebook-popular-social-network-teens-according-study.html .
• Gross JJ, John OP. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 85 :348–362. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haslam SA, Oakes PJ, Reynolds KJ, Turner JC. Social identity salience and the emergence of stereotype consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1999; 25 :809–818. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025007004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hass RG, Eisenstadt D. The effects of self-focused attention on perspective-taking and anxiety. Anxiety Research. 1990; 2 :165–176. doi: 10.1080/08917779008249334. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatchman M. Twitter continues to soar in popularity, site’s numbers reveal. PC Magazine. 2011 Sep 8; Retrieved from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392658,00.asp .
• Kaiser CR, Major B. A social psychological perspective on perceiving and reporting discrimination. Law and Social Inquiry. 2006; 31 :801–830. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2006.00036.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaiser CR, Miller CT. A stress and coping perspective on confronting sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2004; 28 :168–178. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00133.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leach CW, van Zomeren M, Zebel S, Viek MLW, Pennekamp SF, Doosje B, … Spears R. Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multi-component) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008; 95 :144–165. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee EA, Soto JA, Swim JK, Bernstein MJ. Bitter reproach or sweet revenge: Cultural differences in response to racism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2012; 38 :920–932. doi: 10.1177/0146167212440292. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liss M, Crawford M, Popp D. Predictors and correlates of collective action. Sex Roles. 2004; 50 :771–779. doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000029096.90835.3f. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luhtanen R, Crocker J. A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1992; 18 :302–318. doi: 10.1177/0146167292183006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Major B, Quinton WJ, Schmader T. Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2003; 39 :220–231. doi: 10.1016/50022-1031(02)00547-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mallett RK, Wagner DE. The unexpectedly positive consequences of confronting sexism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2011; 47 :215–220. doi: 10.1016/jjesp.2010.10.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martell RF, Lane DM, Emrich CE. Male-female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist. 1996; 51 :157–158. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.157. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mason W, Sufi S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods. 2010; 5 :411–419. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Monteith MJ, Sherman JW, Devine PG. Suppression as a stereotype control strategy. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 1998; 2 :63–82. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oakes PJ, Haslam SA, Turner JC. Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford, England: Blackwell; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Postmes T, Spears R. Deindividuation and anti-normative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1998; 123 :238–259. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.123.3.238. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2007; 42 :185–227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pronin E. The introspection illusion. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 41. Burlington, MA: Academic Press; 2009. pp. 1–67. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quinn DM, Kallen RW, Spencer SJ. Stereotype threat. In: Dovidio JF, Hewstone M, Glick P, Esses VM, editors. Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. London, England: Sage; 2010. pp. 379–409. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rasinski HM, Geers AL, Czopp AM. “I guess what he said wasn’t that bad”: Dissonance in non-confronting targets of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2013; 39 :856–869. doi: 10.1177/0146167213484769. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rattan A, Dweck CS. Who confronts prejudice? The role of implicit theories in the motivation to confront prejudice. Psychological Science. 2010; 21 :952–959. doi: 10.1177/0956797610374740. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1965. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sechrist GB, Stangor C. Perceived consensus influences intergroup behavior and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 80 :645–654. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.645. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shih M, Pittinsky TL, Ambady N. Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science. 1999; 10 :80–83. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00111. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spencer SJ, Steele CM, Quinn DM. Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1999; 35 :4–28. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1373. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spencer SJ, Zanna MP, Fong GT. Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005; 89 :845–851. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steele CM, Aronson J. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995; 69 :797–811. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swim JK, Hyers LL. Excuse me—What did you just say?!: Women’s public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1999; 35 :68–88. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1370. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swim JK, Hyers LL, Cohen LL, Ferguson MJ. Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three diary studies. Journal of Social Issues. 2001; 57 :31–53. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00200. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tajfel H, Turner JC. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S, editors. The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1979. pp. 33–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Transue JE. Identity salience, identity acceptance, and racial policy attitudes: American national identity as an uniting force. American Journal of Political Science. 2007; 51 :78–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00238.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Treynor W, Gonzalez R, Nolen-Hoeksema S. Rumination reconsidered: A psychometric analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2003; 27 :247–259. doi: 10.1023/A:1023910315561. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD, Wetherell MS. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell; 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Zomeren M, Postmes T, Spears R. Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin. 2008; 4 :504–535. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Verkuyten M, Hagendoorn L. Prejudice and self-categorization: The variable role of authoritarianism and in-group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1998; 24 :99–110. doi: 10.1177/0146167298241008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walton GM, Cohen GL. A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007; 92 :82–96. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang K, Dovidio JF. Disability and autonomy: Priming alternative identities. Rehabilitation Psychology. 2011; 56 :123–127. doi: 10.1037/a0023039. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang K, Stroebe K, Dovidio JF. Stigma consciousness and prejudice ambiguity: Can it be adaptive to perceive the world as biased? Personality and Individual Differences. 2012; 53 :241–245. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson D, Clark L, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988; 54 :1063–1070. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wheeler L, Reis HT. Self-recording of everyday life events: Origins, types, and uses. Journal of Personality. 1991; 59 :339–354. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00252.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodzicka JA, LaFrance M. Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues. 2001; 57 :15–30. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00199. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeager DS, Walton GM. Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research. 2011; 81 :267–301. doi: 10.3102/0034654311405999. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Advertisement

The origins of sexism: How men came to rule 12,000 years ago

Human societies weren’t always male-dominated. The switch came when we became farmers – and that suggests ways to roll back towards a more equal system

By Anil Ananthaswamy and Kate Douglas

18 April 2018

Harriet Lee Merrion

THE vast majority of cultures are patriarchies, where men are more likely than women to hold positions of social, economic and political power. So it is tempting to assume that this is the natural state of affairs, perhaps because men are, on average, stronger than women. But a study of humanity’s roots suggests this answer is too simple.

Chimpanzees are not a proxy for our ancestors – they have been evolving since our two family trees split between 7 and 10 million years ago – but their social structures can tell us something about the conditions that male dominance thrives in. Common chimpanzee groups are manifestly patriarchal. Males are vicious towards females, they take their food, forcibly copulate with females that are ovulating and even kill them merely for spending time away from the group.

Special report: The origins of sexism

The imbalance of power between men and women is being hotly debated. but no one benefits from a patriarchal society, so how did we get here, and where should we go next.

Males also spend their lives in the group they were born into, whereas females leave at adolescence. As a result, males in a group are more closely related to each other than the females. And because relatives tend to help one another, they have an advantage.

The same is true in human societies: in places where women move to live with their husband’s family, men tend to have more power and privilege. Patrilocal residence, as it is called, is associated with patriarchy, says anthropologist and primatologist Sarah Hrdy at the University of California at Davis.

For most of our history, we have been hunter-gatherers, and patrilocal residence is not the norm among modern hunter-gatherer societies. Instead, either partner may move to live with the “in-laws”, or a couple may relocate away from both their families. According to Hrdy, a degree of egalitarianism is built into these systems. If they reflect what prehistoric hunter-gatherers did, women in those early societies would have had the choice of support from the group they grew up with, or the option to move away from oppression.

According to one school of thought, things changed around 12,000 years ago. With the advent of agriculture and homesteading, people began settling down . They acquired resources to defend, and power shifted to the physically stronger males. Fathers, sons, uncles and grandfathers began living near each other, property was passed down the male line, and female autonomy was eroded. As a result, the argument goes, patriarchy emerged.

This origin story is supported by a study published in 2004. Researchers at the Sapienza University of Rome, Italy, studied mitochondrial DNA (inherited from mothers) and genetic markers on the Y chromosome (inherited from fathers) in 40 populations from sub-Saharan Africa. This suggested that women in hunter-gatherer populations, such as the !Kung and Hadza, were more likely to remain with their mothers after marriage than women from food-producing populations. It was the reverse for men, suggesting that agriculture is indeed correlated with patrilocal societies.

“It’s tempting to assume male dominance is the natural state of human society. It isn’t”

In righting things, solidarity is crucial, says Amy Parish at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. She studies bonobo societies, which are patrilocal but female-dominated. Females weigh 15 per cent less than males – similarly to humans and chimps – yet Parish says they have the upper hand because they cooperate and form alliances. She sees a parallel with feminist movements: “The goal is to behave with unrelated females as if they are your sisters.”

It’s not as easy as it seems (see “ Why the patriarchy isn’t good for men and how to fix it ”). “The #MeToo movement is about female cooperation,” says Hrdy, “but getting cooperation among non-kin is difficult.” Competitive instincts can prevail, or events can cause cooperation to fall apart – for instance in times of war, Hrdy says. “Women start to look out for the safety of their own children and their husbands.” She worries that conflict could erode gains from recent decades. “None of this stuff is certain,” she says. “It’s what I tell my daughters: don’t take any of this that you have now for granted.”

Restoring and strengthening equality will require effort on multiple fronts, she says. If patriarchy originated in sedentary social structures that formalised male ownership and inheritance, then laws that give women the right to own property in their own name, for instance, can help.

But such laws exist in many 21st century societies – so why does the patriarchy persist? Ultimately, real change will only come when societies embody the values espoused by the laws, argues Lise Eliot, a neuroscientist at the Rosalind Franklin University in Chicago: “The laws are the first step, the internalised values come later.”

This article appeared in print under the headline “The Origins of the Patriarchy”

• anthropology

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox! We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

More from New Scientist

Explore the latest news, articles and features

Ancient artefacts suggest Australian ritual endured for 12,000 years

Ancient Maya burned their dead rulers to mark a new dynasty

Why so many prehistoric monuments were painted red

Subscriber-only

Early humans made jewellery from giant sloth bones

Popular articles.

Trending New Scientist articles

What does gender equality look like today?

Date: Wednesday, 6 October 2021

Progress towards gender equality is looking bleak. But it doesn’t need to.

A new global analysis of progress on gender equality and women’s rights shows women and girls remain disproportionately affected by the socioeconomic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, struggling with disproportionately high job and livelihood losses, education disruptions and increased burdens of unpaid care work. Women’s health services, poorly funded even before the pandemic, faced major disruptions, undermining women’s sexual and reproductive health. And despite women’s central role in responding to COVID-19, including as front-line health workers, they are still largely bypassed for leadership positions they deserve.

UN Women’s latest report, together with UN DESA, Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The Gender Snapshot 2021 presents the latest data on gender equality across all 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The report highlights the progress made since 2015 but also the continued alarm over the COVID-19 pandemic, its immediate effect on women’s well-being and the threat it poses to future generations.

We’re breaking down some of the findings from the report, and calling for the action needed to accelerate progress.

The pandemic is making matters worse

One and a half years since the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, the toll on the poorest and most vulnerable people remains devastating and disproportionate. The combined impact of conflict, extreme weather events and COVID-19 has deprived women and girls of even basic needs such as food security. Without urgent action to stem rising poverty, hunger and inequality, especially in countries affected by conflict and other acute forms of crisis, millions will continue to suffer.

A global goal by global goal reality check:

Goal 1. Poverty

In 2021, extreme poverty is on the rise and progress towards its elimination has reversed. An estimated 435 million women and girls globally are living in extreme poverty.

And yet we can change this .

Over 150 million women and girls could emerge from poverty by 2030 if governments implement a comprehensive strategy to improve access to education and family planning, achieve equal wages and extend social transfers.

Goal 2. Zero hunger

The global gender gap in food security has risen dramatically during the pandemic, with more women and girls going hungry. Women’s food insecurity levels were 10 per cent higher than men’s in 2020, compared with 6 per cent higher in 2019.

This trend can be reversed , including by supporting women small-scale producers, who typically earn far less than men, through increased funding, training and land rights reforms.

Goal 3. Good health and well-being

Disruptions in essential health services due to COVID-19 are taking a tragic toll on women and girls. In the first year of the pandemic, there were an estimated 1.4 million additional unintended pregnancies in lower and middle-income countries.

We need to do better .

Response to the pandemic must include prioritizing sexual and reproductive health services, ensuring they continue to operate safely now and after the pandemic is long over. In addition, more support is needed to ensure life-saving personal protection equipment, tests, oxygen and especially vaccines are available in rich and poor countries alike as well as to vulnerable population within countries.

Goal 4. Quality education

A year and a half into the pandemic, schools remain partially or fully closed in 42 per cent of the world’s countries and territories. School closures spell lost opportunities for girls and an increased risk of violence, exploitation and early marriage .

Governments can do more to protect girls education .

Measures focused specifically on supporting girls returning to school are urgently needed, including measures focused on girls from marginalized communities who are most at risk.

Goal 5. Gender equality

The pandemic has tested and even reversed progress in expanding women’s rights and opportunities. Reports of violence against women and girls, a “shadow” pandemic to COVID-19, are increasing in many parts of the world. COVID-19 is also intensifying women’s workload at home, forcing many to leave the labour force altogether.

Building forward differently and better will hinge on placing women and girls at the centre of all aspects of response and recovery, including through gender-responsive laws, policies and budgeting.

Goal 6. Clean water and sanitation

In 2018, nearly 2.3 billion people lived in water-stressed countries. Without safe drinking water, adequate sanitation and menstrual hygiene facilities, women and girls find it harder to lead safe, productive and healthy lives.

Change is possible .

Involve those most impacted in water management processes, including women. Women’s voices are often missing in water management processes. 

Goal 7. Affordable and clean energy

Increased demand for clean energy and low-carbon solutions is driving an unprecedented transformation of the energy sector. But women are being left out. Women hold only 32 per cent of renewable energy jobs.

We can do better .

Expose girls early on to STEM education, provide training and support to women entering the energy field, close the pay gap and increase women’s leadership in the energy sector.

Goal 8. Decent work and economic growth

The number of employed women declined by 54 million in 2020 and 45 million women left the labour market altogether. Women have suffered steeper job losses than men, along with increased unpaid care burdens at home.

We must do more to support women in the workforce .

Guarantee decent work for all, introduce labour laws/reforms, removing legal barriers for married women entering the workforce, support access to affordable/quality childcare.

Goal 9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure

The COVID-19 crisis has spurred striking achievements in medical research and innovation. Women’s contribution has been profound. But still only a little over a third of graduates in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics field are female.

We can take action today.

 Quotas mandating that a proportion of research grants are awarded to women-led teams or teams that include women is one concrete way to support women researchers. 

Goal 10. Reduced inequalities

Limited progress for women is being eroded by the pandemic. Women facing multiple forms of discrimination, including women and girls with disabilities, migrant women, women discriminated against because of their race/ethnicity are especially affected.

Commit to end racism and discrimination in all its forms, invest in inclusive, universal, gender responsive social protection systems that support all women. 

Goal 11. Sustainable cities and communities

Globally, more than 1 billion people live in informal settlements and slums. Women and girls, often overrepresented in these densely populated areas, suffer from lack of access to basic water and sanitation, health care and transportation.

The needs of urban poor women must be prioritized .

Increase the provision of durable and adequate housing and equitable access to land; included women in urban planning and development processes.

Goal 12. Sustainable consumption and production; Goal 13. Climate action; Goal 14. Life below water; and Goal 15. Life on land

Women activists, scientists and researchers are working hard to solve the climate crisis but often without the same platforms as men to share their knowledge and skills. Only 29 per cent of featured speakers at international ocean science conferences are women.

 And yet we can change this .

Ensure women activists, scientists and researchers have equal voice, representation and access to forums where these issues are being discussed and debated. 

Goal 16. Peace, justice and strong institutions

The lack of women in decision-making limits the reach and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and other emergency recovery efforts. In conflict-affected countries, 18.9 per cent of parliamentary seats are held by women, much lower than the global average of 25.6 per cent.

This is unacceptable .

It's time for women to have an equal share of power and decision-making at all levels.

Goal 17. Global partnerships for the goals

There are just 9 years left to achieve the Global Goals by 2030, and gender equality cuts across all 17 of them. With COVID-19 slowing progress on women's rights, the time to act is now.

Looking ahead

As it stands today, only one indicator under the global goal for gender equality (SDG5) is ‘close to target’: proportion of seats held by women in local government. In other areas critical to women’s empowerment, equality in time spent on unpaid care and domestic work and decision making regarding sexual and reproductive health the world is far from target. Without a bold commitment to accelerate progress, the global community will fail to achieve gender equality. Building forward differently and better will require placing women and girls at the centre of all aspects of response and recovery, including through gender-responsive laws, policies and budgeting.

• ‘One Woman’ – The UN Women song
• UN Under-Secretary-General and UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous
• Kirsi Madi, Deputy Executive Director for Resource Management, Sustainability and Partnerships
• Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda, Deputy Executive Director for Normative Support, UN System Coordination and Programme Results
• Guiding documents
• Report wrongdoing
• Programme implementation
• Career opportunities
• Application and recruitment process
• Meet our people
• Internship programme
• Procurement principles
• Gender-responsive procurement
• Doing business with UN Women
• How to become a UN Women vendor
• Contract templates and general conditions of contract
• Vendor protest procedure
• Facts and Figures
• Global norms and standards
• Women’s movements
• Parliaments and local governance
• Constitutions and legal reform
• Preguntas frecuentes
• Global Norms and Standards
• Macroeconomic policies and social protection
• Sustainable Development and Climate Change
• Rural women
• Employment and migration
• Facts and figures
• Creating safe public spaces
• Spotlight Initiative
• Essential services
• Focusing on prevention
• Research and data
• Other areas of work
• UNiTE campaign
• Conflict prevention and resolution
• Building and sustaining peace
• Young women in peace and security
• Rule of law: Justice and security
• Women, peace, and security in the work of the UN Security Council
• Preventing violent extremism and countering terrorism
• Planning and monitoring
• Humanitarian coordination
• Crisis response and recovery
• Disaster risk reduction
• Inclusive National Planning
• Public Sector Reform
• Tracking Investments
• Strengthening young women's leadership
• Economic empowerment and skills development for young women
• Action on ending violence against young women and girls
• Engaging boys and young men in gender equality
• Leadership and Participation
• National Planning
• Violence against Women
• Access to Justice
• Regional and country offices
• Regional and Country Offices
• Liaison offices
• 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
• UN Women Global Innovation Coalition for Change
• Commission on the Status of Women
• Economic and Social Council
• General Assembly
• Security Council
• High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development
• Human Rights Council
• Climate change and the environment
• Other Intergovernmental Processes
• World Conferences on Women
• Global Coordination
• Regional and country coordination
• Promoting UN accountability
• Gender Mainstreaming
• Coordination resources
• System-wide strategy
• Focal Point for Women and Gender Focal Points
• Entity-specific implementation plans on gender parity
• Laws and policies
• Strategies and tools
• Reports and monitoring
• Training Centre services
• Publications
• Government partners
• National mechanisms
• Civil Society Advisory Groups
• Benefits of partnering with UN Women
• Business and philanthropic partners
• Goodwill Ambassadors
• National Committees
• UN Women Media Compact
• UN Women Alumni Association
• Editorial series
• Media contacts
• Annual report
• Progress of the world’s women
• SDG monitoring report
• World survey on the role of women in development
• Reprint permissions
• Secretariat
• 2023 sessions and other meetings
• 2022 sessions and other meetings
• 2021 sessions and other meetings
• 2020 sessions and other meetings
• 2019 sessions and other meetings
• 2018 sessions and other meetings
• 2017 sessions and other meetings
• 2016 sessions and other meetings
• 2015 sessions and other meetings
• Compendiums of decisions
• Reports of sessions
• Key Documents
• Brief history
• CSW snapshot
• Preparations
• Official Documents
• Official Meetings
• Side Events
• Session Outcomes
• CSW65 (2021)
• CSW64 / Beijing+25 (2020)
• CSW63 (2019)
• CSW62 (2018)
• CSW61 (2017)
• Member States
• Eligibility
• Registration
• Opportunities for NGOs to address the Commission
• Communications procedure
• Grant making
• Accompaniment and growth
• Results and impact
• Knowledge and learning
• Social innovation
• UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women
• About Generation Equality
• Generation Equality Forum
• Action packs

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — The Color Purple — Gender Roles and Sexism

The Theme of Sexism and Gender Roles in The Color Purple

• Categories: Alice Walker The Color Purple

About this sample

Words: 3620 |

19 min read

Published: Jun 29, 2018

Words: 3620 | Pages: 8 | 19 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1428 words

3 pages / 1393 words

3.5 pages / 1498 words

3 pages / 1362 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on The Color Purple

Alice Walker's "The Color Purple" is a poignant novel that explores the themes of racism, sexism, and misogyny prevalent in the early 20th century American South. Through the transformation of the central character, Celie, the [...]

Celie has been a victim of female oppression throughout her life, never believing in herself, and living in fear of men. However, when Shug Avery enters her life, Celie’s quality of life starts to improve on the whole, and her [...]

If asked, most people would say women are strong, passionate, loving, but not all of these positive traits truly define who they are. Their nature is deemed the most difficult to define because they have negative aspects that [...]

"It all I can do not to cry. I make myself wood. I say to myself, Celie, you a tree. That's how I know trees fear man," (23) uttered the protagonist of Alice Walker's The Color Purple. Such words of meekness were characteristic [...]

Slavery is a recurring theme in Alice Walker's novel, "The Color Purple." Through the experiences of the main characters, Celie and Nettie, Walker explores the various forms of slavery that existed during the early 20th century, [...]

In this essay the feminist theories of Virginia Woolf are examined and analysed, as well as connected to the famous novel The Color Purple by Alice Walker. Woolf introduces the theories of women’s economic and social freedom [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Sexism: Discrimination against women and girls

Every day in every country, women and girls are discriminated against because of their gender. 

Gender-specific discrimination and breaches of human rights have fatal consequences for the health, education, income and safety of women and children. In spite of numerous treaties and laws intended to help ensure equal rights and protection for women and girls, the part of the world’s population seen by others to be female still frequently experiences discrimination, abasement and violence.  

Sometimes discrimination is not immediately obvious. Examples are a lack of promotions for women, or an education for girls which leads them to believe they are no good at mathematics. In contrast, discrimination is sometimes very obvious and easily measurable: How high is the proportion of women in parliament? How many girls are completing secondary education? Further, women and girls are also frequently affected by several different forms of discrimination at the same time: due to their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, their age and/or their migration background, for example. 

Definition: What is discrimination? 

Discrimination is a breach of human rights. People are unjustly disadvantaged, abased and/or treated as inferior because they belong to a group that has particular characteristics or features. These characteristics could include, for example, gender, ethnicity or religion. Discrimination generally occurs because of particular value judgments, unreflected or even subconscious attitudes, and prejudices.  

Definition: What is sexism? 

Sexism is a synonym for gender-based discrimination. If a person’s biological sex or gender is the reason for someone else discriminating against them, then this is sexism. In general, sexism happens because of underlying attitudes that consider women to have less value than men, so this form of discrimination is usually directed against people who are seen as female or feminine. Of course, sexism can affect males as well. Closely connected to sexist discrimination are the notions of specific social activities and characteristics being more suitable for either males or females (‘gender roles’) and other stereotypes which are attributed to a person on the basis of sex or gender. Sexualised violence is one form of gender-based violence and is one way that sexist discrimination manifests. The term sexism was coined by the American women’s movement in the 1960s, combining the word ‘sex’, to refer to the biological sex, with the ending ‘-ism’ from another common form of discrimination: racism. 

What are the causes of sexism? 

Various studies show: The main causes for gender-specific discrimination are to be found in

• misogynist attitudes, values and role models, 
• norms shaped by patriarchy , and
• cultural and religious practices.

There is a systematic nature to the disadvantages put in the way of women and girls in their access to food, healthcare, education and income. It is anchored within societal structures. 

What is gender?

In English, the two terms gender and sex are sometimes used interchangeably, but sex often refers specifically to biological differences, while gender more often refers to cultural and social differences. Gender therefore refers to socially constructed norms, assignments and roles which can be different from one society to another. Where someone assumes a gender role which is visibly different from their biological sex, this can also trigger discrimination.

FAQ: What forms does this discrimination take?

Structural discrimination is a term used when the discrimination against individual groups is caused by the way that a society is organised. For example, a patriarchal society will have patriarchal gender structures that lead to discrimination against women. Structural discrimination frequently culminates in violence: for women and girls between 15 and 44, the risk of experiencing rape and violence within their family is higher than risk of becoming a victim of a traffic accident, war, cancer or malaria.  

Direct discrimination is generally easy to recognise, especially in the form of laws and regulations. One example was in 2015 in Sierra Leone, where a law was introduced which prohibited pregnant girls from attending school. 

Indirect discrimination is often more difficult to recognise. One example would be at a workplace where the company does not offer any chance of promotion to part-time employees: if part-time employees are overwhelmingly female, then this discriminates indirectly against women. 

Intersectional or multiple discrimination is present when a person is affected by different forms of discrimination at the same time. One form can impact on another and they can even amplify each other. For example, refugee women frequently suffer both sexism and racism. 

Discrimination is extremely closely related to both the abuse of power and the retention of power. This is often combined with humiliation, such as in the cases of bullying and mobbing. Another example is sexualised harassment, which is a consequence of structural discrimination in the context of patriarchal power relationships. Suggestive looks, undesired touches, or sexualised comments are used by one person in front of others to demonstrate their superiority and power over women or people who deviate from prevailing gender norms, to humiliate them, and to devalue them . Violence is also a means to preserve power. 

The term patriarchy is derived from Greek and literally translated it means “rule of the fathers”. 

Patriarchal power extends well beyond the immediate family. It includes a social order which gives men a privileged position of power in all spheres of life. From this position of power, men then determine the values and norms of the society and lay down the laws governing the behaviour of women and other marginalised groups, such as LGBTIQ*, people with disabilities, or people of colour.

From a feminist perspective, patriarchy refers to the totality of the exploitation and oppression of women. This oppression is systemic. At its core is the sexual control exercised by men over women. 

Efforts to adopt gender-neutral or gender-inclusive language include, for example, the avoidance of a generic masculine ‘he’ when referring to humans in general. In some languages, nouns and terms for professions, for example, have an inherent gender indicated by a particular word-ending. So efforts need to be made not to exclude women and non-binary people. One example could be using the term police officer instead of the term policeman. This is important because language influences how we think and feel. For example, references to “manned spaceflight” might lead to the subconscious association of astronauts as being typically male, whereas the conscious use of “crewed spaceflight” would be inclusive because the word “crew” covers all possible genders. 

Definition: Gender equality 

The equal rights of the genders is a fundamental human right. Equal rights means that all humans have the same rights. The term is based on Articles 1 and 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , which state that all humans are “born free and equal in dignity and rights”, so should not be discriminated against due to their gender or other reasons. Often, equal rights is talked about in connection with equal opportunities. Equal rights does not mean that all humans are the same or should be the same.  

What is the difference between equality and equal rights?

The principle of equal rights emphasises the same rights to be enjoyed by all people, regardless of their gender. In contrast, the principle of equality aims to overcome structural discrimination to such an extent that women and men not only receive the same rights and opportunities, but also achieve the same results from these. Examples here would include equal proportions of the genders among members of parliament or on the boards of leading companies. One way of achieving this could be setting quotas. 

”In order to finally achieve gender justice, there can no longer be any tolerance for sexualised violence against women and girls! This violence suggests that the female body is something anyone can do anything with, but this is not true. False attitudes and messages such as this are passed on to girls and boys, creating stereotypical gender images that persist from generation to generation. Society’s power relations will not change unless there is a fundamental shift in these attitudes, messages and images.“ Monika Hauser, founder of the international women’s rights organisation medica mondiale

How equal rights would benefit everyone

Gender justice is more than merely a question of human rights: the equal participation of women in all aspects of life is also a prerequisite for a peaceful, just and sustainable world. Some figures:

• An increase of 30% would be seen in agricultural yields if all women had fair access to the means of production.
• Where women are involved in peace negotiations , the chance of these agreements being upheld increases by 20 per cent.
• Violence against women and girls is widespread around the world in all cultures, religions and societies. It is rooted in the power imbalance between the genders. Actual equal rights and the dismantling of these power imbalances would take away the basis for this violence.
• Studies have shown that the nourishment, health and education of children all improve when their mothers have more income available.
• According to McKinsey management consultancy, companies with higher proportions of female staff are more likely to be successful.
• Data from 90 countries indicates that countries with higher female parliamentary representation are more likely to set aside protected land areas. Another study in 130 countries showed that women are more willing to ratify international environmental treaties . 

Equal rights – on the statute books or in practice?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 1 states that all people are equal. Article Two of this proclamation by the United Nations (UN) goes into more detail: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” However, the rights that the UN General Assembly agreed in 1948 are still being violated decades later, are still not enshrined in national laws, are still not being upheld by political means, and are therefore still not a lived experience for many.  

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 

In 1979, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Known as the Women’s Rights Convention, this Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women obliges the states ratifying it to take active steps to eliminate the discrimination against women in the areas of culture, society, education, politics and legislation. 

Examples: Discrimination against women and girls around the world 

Right to social welfare 

Nutrition : Where food becomes scarce, it is the women and girls who suffer most from hunger. With regard to those suffering moderate or severe food insecurity, the difference between men and women increased further during the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2021, food insecurity affected 150 million more women than men in the world. 

Poverty: During the Covid-19 pandemic, millions of women lost their jobs and livelihood . Sectors with higher proportions of women workers were most severely affected by the consequences of the pandemic.

Right to own property

It is women who frequently lose out on access to land: less than 20 per cent of landowners worldwide are women. However, it is the women who perform the major share of the work in the fields.   

Right to education

First, the good news: Looked at globally, the rates of schooling for both primary and secondary levels are increasing for girls and boys. However, in the countries affected by insecurity, conflicts and violence, girls are 2.5 times more likely than boys to be prevented from going to school. At secondary level, this probability is 90% higher. Almost two thirds of all adult illiterates are women . 

Right to life, liberty and security of person

Forced marriage: Estimates are that 12 million underage girls are forced into marriage each year.

Physical self-determination: Globally, pregnant people do not have easy access to safe and legal pregnancy termination . Abortions are often not even possible for women who were raped during wars and become pregnant as a consequence. This is not only because of the lack of medical possibilities, but mainly because pregnancy termination is forbidden by the provisions of international funders or restrictive laws and interpretations of faith. For example, since 2021 abortions have been either illegal or very difficult to access in Poland, Hungary and the USA. As a consequence 45 per cent of all pregnancy terminations around the world take place in unsafe conditions – sometimes with fatal consequences for the women: unsafe abortions are one of the most frequent causes of maternal mortality. 

Violence: Almost one in three women will be subjected to violence during her lifetime. Globally, each year some 50,000 women are killed by their partner or a relative. Female genital cutting (also known as female genital mutilation, FGM) is a violation of human rights. In spite of international condemnation and national laws, more than 200 million women and girls have been subjected to FGM. In one out of every four cases, the girl dies from the consequences. Most of these were not older than 15 years when the violent cutting occurred. 

Human trafficking: 72 per cent of all victims of human trafficking are women or girls. Most of these (77 per cent) are exploited sexually and/or forced into prostitution.

Wars and conflicts: In almost every conflict, warring parties use sexualised violence as an instrument of power to terrorise their enemies. Violence and sexualised attacks are also faced by women and girls as they flee their homes seeking refuge or after being displaced by advancing forces. 

Humanitarian aid: In emergency situations, the stress and pressure on women and girls grow because they are the ones who usually look after children and sick relatives, find and cook food, and take care of the home. However, humanitarian aid projects are often designed with too little consideration for this. For example, in refugee camps there may be no access to or space for gynaecological and obstetric healthcare, or even gender-separate toilets and washing facilities. Registration for aid generally occurs in the name of the male head of household, which denies wives, mothers and daughters any independent access to assistance. 

Climate change: In many rural areas of Africa and Asia, it is still usual for women to work near their home. This means they often receive life-saving information about disasters or severe weather later than men or not at all. This is one reason for the higher female fatalities in the wake of natural disasters. Additionally, in emergency accommodation there is an increased risk of sexual harassment.  

Political representation

Worldwide, 26 per cent of members of parliament are female. In most of the countries where the proportion of women in parliament is above 30 per cent a quota ruling had been introduced in order to strengthen political participation of women. With success: In Rwanda the figure of 61 per cent (as of April 2022) is the highest proportion of women in parliament in the world. In Cuba it is more than 53 per cent and in Mexico 50 per cent. In 28 of 193 countries , women are head of state or government, including , Bangladesh, New Zealand and Tanzania.  

”Although all humans have a right to self-determination this is regularly denied to women and girls.. Unfortunately, this is a global phenomenon which we see in, for example, Serbia, Liberia, Afghanistan or Germany. In Europe, there is currently a trend to further restrict women’s rights.“ Jessica Mosbahi, Advocacy and Human Rights Officer

Discrimination against women in Germany – some examples 

Women face discrimination in Germany. Four examples: 

Politics: 34.7 per cent of the Members of the Bundestag are women (after the election in 2021). Twelve federal states are governed by men, only four by women. At a local level, the differences are even more severe: In 2021, 80 per cent of German mayors were male. 

Economy: Female staff earn on average 18 per cent less than their male colleagues. The income gap has reduced a little in recent years, but in comparison to the European average (13 per cent), the gender pay gap in Germany is still high. Furthermore, women face professional disadvantages due to pregnancy and maternal leave, and are less likely to be selected for promotion.

Legislation: §218 of the German Penal Code violates the right to self-determination. Women who want to terminate their pregnancy, and all of those involved in carrying out abortions, are being criminalised. This is the case despite access to legal and safe abortions being a human right.

At home: Statistically speaking, once every 2.5 days in Germany, a woman is killed by her partner or ex-partner. In 2021, 161,000 survived what is euphemistically called ‘domestic violence’ – two thirds of them were women. 

From the practical experience of our partner organisations: Against sexism 

Ensuring the right to healthcare

Violence against women is a worldwide problem, but in war and post-war countries the rates are particularly high. Compared with the great need, there is very little provision of assistance for those affected. The staff of healthcare clinics have generally not received appropriate training. Frequently, healthcare professionals exhibit prejudices and discriminatory behaviour when treating survivors, leading to stigmatisation and feelings of shame. Our partner organisations train doctors, midwives and nursing staff locally. They learn how to offer beneficial support to women affected by violence. In a second step, these specialist staff then learn how to pass on the training to their colleagues. In this way, the knowledge about trauma-sensitive support can be anchored in their community for the long term.

Appeal against a ban on pregnant girls attending school

In Sierra Leone, a law was passed in 2015 that prohibits pregnant girls from attending school. The law is unconstitutional. This affects a large number of girls since the pregnancy rate for under-18s is one in three. A group of activists took legal action against this – successfully. One of the plaintiffs was the organisation WAVES (Women Against Violence and Exploitation Society), which medica mondiale has been cooperating with since 2019. 

More on sexism and discrimination 

Essay on Sexism

According to Charles et al. (2018), sexism is prejudice, discrimination, and serotyping people based on their gender. These stereotypes in society are primarily against women. In the past, sexism was very evident in the community, with women being left out in the most important sectors at work and home. Women were also judged and harshly punished for the same actions that men got praised for doing. Although sexism is a bit hidden and reduced in modern society, it is still evident in almost all sectors. The entertainment industry is not left out as various form of sexism is witnessed. They, however, try to show how society discriminates and treats the genders differently. I will explain the television show “two and a half men.” The show aired for twelve seasons from September 2003 to February 2015. It followed the lives of pleasure-seeking jingle writer Charlie Harper, his uptight brother Alan, and Alan’s naughty son Jake. Alan and Jake move into Charlie’s beachfront Malibu house after his marriage begins to crumble, and divorce seems likely, making Charlie’s carefree lifestyle more complicated than it would otherwise be. Chuck Lorre and Lee Aronsohn created the show. I will address sexism as shown in “Two and a half men.” The show’s most evident theme is sexism and shows gender inequality throughout its plot.

The show is very sexist as the movie is based on focusing on and following the life of male characters. Even though the show has female characters, the main actors in the film are men, and women are given junior roles. This reflects society’s view and belief in male superiority. The community believes that men are superior and better, as shown in the show. The characters in the show are also sexist, and they think and demonstrate their ability to control women and use them without any consequences.

Charlie, a free-lance writer, is shown as sexist and a man who takes advantage of women and their vulnerability. Charlie views women as objects to be used by men whenever they wish as he sleeps around with multiple women. From Charlie’s viewpoint, women are painted as excessively demanding, which is insane. Even though he is not so much into having a woman in his life, he uses several women as sexual objects. He values women for what they can offer, which is sex, rather than loving them for who they are. Sexism is seen in how women are dehumanized, made valueless, and only seen as objects for men’s pleasure. The show’s value of women is clearly shown through its constant display of prostitutes (Zimdars, 2018). It shows how women are valueless and can be harassed, used, and their body parts displayed for anyone to see without much struggle.

The show also emphasizes women’s menstrual cycle, where Lee states, “enough ladies, I get it you have periods.” Even though people can argue that it was used to acknowledge that women are human and have their biological processes, it is far from that. This show how women are demoralized and ignored despite their significant contribution to life continuity. Getting “chicks” was the driving force behind every episode. I don’t know what would be duller than that. Boobs, dicks, and vaginal references are made frequently throughout the show. The only thing a lesbian niece cares about is having sex with whatever woman she may find. Lesbians walk around freely screaming, “must have a vagina.” The highest point goes to the player whose sex has the most participants. Everyone is a pervert.

Sexism is also shown in the way the characters childishly talk about sex. The show jokes about rape despite being a common issue affecting women. The joke causes the women audience to feel disrespected and unsafe despite their suffering in the world. The show diminishes the effect rape has on women and the fear of going through, making it seem like it is not an issue. Charlie is also heard saying, “if we are at peak vagina, the prices at the pump are gonna skyrocket.” This shows how women are viewed as objects for financial gain as their prices are negotiable. Sexism is also demonstrated in how all women, especially in season 11, have alcohol addiction problems, are sexually promiscuous, and hate each other. The women hate each other, and the show paints it as dangerous to create meaningful feminine friendships. Women on the show are devalued to the status of their bodies based on the size of their breasts. The fact that Alan is not stereotypically masculine and therefore labeled “gay” is sometimes the most “comic” aspect of his character.

Even after Charlie leaves the show, the series still hold sexist views even though it is not against women. Walden is shown as a person with a good heart and has financial independence and success. Despite his accomplishments, Walden is painted as a man-child who throws tantrums whenever things go against his wishes and hopes. He’s the type to toss food in restaurants, make theatrical and ludicrous suicide attempts after being dumped, flail his penis around in public naively, and fall hopelessly in love with every woman he encounters, con artist included. He even enters into a pseudo marriage to adopt a child. Even though most people could interpret this action as praise for the importance of family when having a child, it is not. The creator uses this to emphasize that women are objects or can be used as a means to an end and to get what men desire. The creator paints men as weak creatures who women sometimes beat. It also shows that men’s pain does not matter, just like how society views men. Even though men are free to do as they want, the community does not welcome men who show emotions openly or cannot handle their wives (Yao 2022). The men are therefore left to suffer in silence.

So much more could be said about the show’s discrimination is its fundamental misogyny. It is a wonder how this show lasted for 12 seasons. The show comes across as a magnificent celebration of toxic masculinity. Still, it’s just a bunch of poor jokes that are repeated over and over again, some misogyny, rape culture, and homophobia set against a background score that tells you when to laugh. While women are shown as material and sex objects, men are portrayed as sex-driven individuals. They are also painted as greedy and selfish. The show’s society has no room for an upright man or a loving woman, which is a hostile world viewpoint.

Charles, K. K., Guryan, J., & Pan, J. (2018).  The effects of sexism on American women: The role of norms vs. discrimination  (No. w24904). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Yao, C. (2022). Analysis of Verbal Humor in Two and a Half Men from the Perspective of Cooperative Principle.  International Journal of Social Science and Education Research ,  5 (4), 210-218.

Zimdars, M. (2018). Having it both ways: Two and a Half Men, Entourage, and televising post-feminist masculinity.  Feminist Media Studies ,  18 (2), 278-293.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Public health and ethics, essay on education equality, what impact will climate change have on food security in sub-saharan africa in the next decade, a proposal on how arming teachers with guns influence school shootings in the u.s., poverty in the community of saskatoon, canada., the religious discrimination – reasonable accommodations analysis, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail