feminism and women's rights worldwide

How to go to your page

This eBook contains three volumes. Each volume has its own page numbering scheme, consisting of a volume number and a page number, separated by a colon. For example, to go to page 5 of Volume 1, type vol1:5 in the page # box at the top of the screen and click Go. To go to page 5 of Volume 2, type vol2:5 in the "page #" box and so forth.

Feminism and WomensRights Worldwide

Recent Titles inWomens Psychology

Intimate Violence against Women: When Spouses, Partners, or Lovers AttackPaula K. Lundberg-Love and Shelly L. Marmion, editors

Daughters of Madness: Growing Up and Older with a Mentally Ill MotherSusan Nathiel

Psychology of Women: Handbook of Issues and Theories, Second EditionFlorence L. Denmark and Michele Paludi, editors

WomanSoul: The Inner Life of Womens SpiritualityCarole A. Rayburn and Lillian Comas-Diaz, editors

The Psychology of Women at Work: Challenges and Solutions for Our FemaleWorkforceMichele A. Paludi, editor

Feminism and WomensRights Worldwide

Volume 1

Heritage, Roles, and Issues

MICHELE A. PALUDI, EDITOR

Praeger Perspectives

Womens Psychology

Michele A. Paludi, Series Editor

PRAEGERAn Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC

Copyright 2010 by Michele A. Paludi

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by anymeans, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without priorpermission in writing from the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Feminism and womens rights worldwide / Michele A. Paludi, editor.v. ; cm. (Womens psychology)

Includes bibliographical references and index.Contents: The myth of the man-hating feminist / Melinda Kanner and

Kristin J. Anderson Gender differences : the arguments regarding abilities /Jennifer L. Martin Women in education : students and professors worldwide/ Susan Basow In womens voices / Samantha Smith Working life as ahouse : a tale of oors, walls, and ceilings / Leanne Faraday-Brash Womenas religious leaders : advances and stalemates / J. Harold Ellens Thefeminine political persona : Queen Victoria, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and MichelleBachelet / Emily A. Haddad andWilliam SchweinleWomen in themilitary : isit time to un-gender combat roles? / Breena E. Coates Sexual minoritywomen : sources and outcomes of stigmatization / Rhonda M. Schultz, andKristin P. Beals Special issues for women with disabilities / Martha E.Banks Body dissatisfaction and disordered eating : the globalization ofwestern appearance ideals / Jaehee Jung and Gordon B. Forbes Sexualviolence to girls and women in schools around the world / Susan Strauss.ISBN 978-0-313-37596-5 (set : hard copy : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-313-

37597-2 (set : ebook) ISBN 978-0-313-37598-9 (v.1 : hard copy : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-313-37599-6 (v.1 : ebook) ISBN 978-0-313-37600-9 (v.2 : hardcopy : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-313-37601-6 (v.2 : ebook) ISBN 978-0-313-37602-3 (v.3 : hard copy : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-313-37603-0 (v.3 : ebook)1. Feminism. 2. Womens rights. 3. Sexual harassment of women. 4. AbusedwomenPsychology. 5. WomenPsychology. I. Paludi, Michele AntoinetteHQ1180.F424 2010305.42dc22 2009035343

ISBN: 978-0-313-37596-5EISBN: 978-0-313-37597-2

14 13 12 11 10 1 2 3 4 5

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook.Visit www.abc-clio.com for details.

PraegerAn Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC

ABC-CLIO, LLC130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911

This book is printed on acid-free paper

Manufactured in the United States of America

For Rosa and Lucia, my maternal and paternal grandmothersand for Antoinette, my mother:

Remember, our heritage is our power; we can know ourselves andour capacities by seeing that other women have been strong.

Judy Chicago

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Series Introduction ix

Acknowledgments xi

IntroductionMichele A. Paludi xiii

Chapter 1: The Myth of the Man-Hating FeministMelinda Kanner and Kristin J. Anderson 1

Chapter 2: Gender Differences: The Arguments Regarding AbilitiesJennifer L. Martin 27

Chapter 3: Women in Education: Students and ProfessorsWorldwideSusan Basow 43

Chapter 4: In Womens VoicesSamantha Smith 63

Chapter 5: Working Life as a House: A Tale of Floors, Walls, andCeilingsLeanne Faraday-Brash 65

Chapter 6: Women as Religious Leaders: Advances and StalematesJ. Harold Ellens 85

Chapter 7: The Feminine Political Persona: Queen Victoria, EllenJohnson Sirleaf, and Michelle BacheletEmily A. Haddad and William Schweinle 97

Chapter 8: Women in the Military: Is It Time to Un-Gender CombatRoles?Breena E. Coates 111

Chapter 9: Sexual Minority Women: Sources and Outcomesof StigmatizationRhonda M. Schultz and Kristin P. Beals 125

Chapter 10: Special Issues for Women with DisabilitiesMartha E. Banks 149

Chapter 11: Body Dissatisfaction and Disordered Eating: TheGlobalization of Western Appearance IdealsJaehee Jung and Gordon B. Forbes 161

Chapter 12: Sexual Violence to Girls andWomen in Schoolsaround theWorldSusan Strauss 187

Appendix: Womens Studies Programs in the United StatesMichele A. Paludi 233

About the Editor and Contributors 249

Index 255

viii Contents

Series Introduction

Because womens work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boringor repetitious and were the rst to get red and what we look like is moreimportant than what we do and if we get raped its our fault and if we getbeaten we must have provoked it and if we raise our voices were naggingbitches and if we enjoy sex were nymphos and if we dont were frigid andif we love women its because we cant get a real man and if we ask ourdoctor too many questions were neurotic and/or pushy and if we expectchildcare were selsh and if we stand up for our rights were aggressiveand unfeminine and if we dont were typical weak females and if wewant to get married were out to trap a man and if we dont were unnatu-ral and because we still cant get an adequate safe contraceptive but mencan walk on the moon and if we cant cope or dont want a pregnancy weremade to feel guilty about abortion and . . . for lots of other reasons we arepart of the womens liberation movement.

Author unknown, quoted in The Torch, September 14, 1987

These sentiments underlie the major goals of the Praeger Perspectivesbook series, Womens Psychology. The goals are as follows:

Value women: The books in this series value women by valuing chil-dren and working for affordable child care; value women by respectingall physiques, not just by placing value on slender women; valuewomen by acknowledging older womens wisdom, beauty, aging; valuewomen who have been sexually victimized and view them as survivors;value women who work inside and outside of the home; and valuewomen by respecting their choices of careers, of whom they mentor, oftheir reproductive rights, their spirituality, and their sexuality.

Treat women as the norm. Thus the books in this series make up forwomens issues typically being omitted, trivialized, or dismissed fromother books on psychology.

Take a non-Eurocentric view of womens experiences. The books in thisseries integrate the scholarship on race and ethnicity into womens psy-chology, thus providing a psychology of all women. Women typicallyhave been described collectively; but we are diverse.

Facilitate connections between readers experiences and psychological theo-ries and empirical research. The books in this series offer readers opportu-nities to challenge their views about women, feminism, sexualvictimization, gender role socialization, education, and equal rights.These texts thus encourage women readers to value themselves andothers. The accounts of womens experiences as reected throughresearch and personal stories in the texts in this series have beenincluded for readers to derive strength from the efforts of others whohave worked for social change on the interpersonal, organizational,and societal levels. A student in one of my courses on the psychologyof women once stated:

I learned so much about women. Women face many issues: discrimina-tion, sexism, prejudices . . . by society. Women need to work together tochange how society views us. I learned so much and talked about muchof the issues brought up in class to my friends and family. My attitudeshave changed toward a lot of things. I got to look at myself, my life, andwhat I see for the future. (Paludi, 2002)

It is my hope that readers of the books in this series will also reecton the topics and look at themselves, their own lives, and what theysee for the future. This three-volume book set on Feminism and Wom-ens Rights Worldwide provides readers with the opportunity to ac-complish this goal and offers suggestions for all of us working forgender justice within our friendships and romantic relationships, inguiding institutional and social policy change in workplace and educa-tional institutions, and in lobbying state and federal legislators onissues related to reproductive rights, pay equity, education, sexual vio-lence, and childcare.

Michele A. PaludiSeries Editor

REFERENCE

Paludi, M. (2002). The psychology of women. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

x Series Introduction

Acknowledgments

Teaching and writing are separate, but serve/feed one another in so manyways. Writing travels the road inward, teaching, the road outhelpingOTHERS move inwardit is an honor to be with others in the spirit ofwriting and encouragement.

Naomi Shihab Nye

Nyes sentiment is echoed throughout this three-volume set on femi-nism and womens rights. Most of the contributors have taught coursesin womens studies and feminism as well as conducted research andwritten about feminist issues. Many contributors have been advocateson behalf of feminist principles through working with local, state andfederal agencies, legislators, and the United Nations. And many of ushave collaborated with students in our classes in writing chapters forthis book set. These students have made us believe that all of them, intheir individual ways, will continue to do what this book set intends:value feminism and work toward equality. It has been exhilarating forme to see a new generation of feminists collaborating with mentorsand colleagues on the chapters for this book set.

I have been honored to have collaborated with the contributors tothese volumes. Several friendships with contributors have beenrekindled and strengthened, and I have met many new colleagues fromaround the world who taught me about their disciplines through theirwriting. You have all shown me the great accomplishments of feministsas well as the work we have yet to do. Thank you.

I wish to thank my sisters, Rosalie Paludi and Lucille Paludi, fortheir support during the preparation of this book set. I also thank Car-men Paludi, Jr. for his guidance and encouragement. Our discussionsabout feminism brought back wonderful memories of my mother,

Antoinette, and my father, Michael, about whom I continue to learnand continue to cherish the time I had with them.

I acknowledge several friends who encouraged me during the prep-aration of this set of books. Thank you to Paula Lundberg Love, Jenni-fer Martin, Billie Wright Dziech, Darlene C. DeFour, and FlorenceDenmark.

I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with stu-dents throughout my career, now at Union Graduate College. I havethoroughly enjoyed learning from them. Thank you to students in theHuman Resource Management Certicate Program and Managementand Leadership Certicate Program. I especially acknowledge MichelleStrand, Carrie Turco, Haimanot Kelbessa, Sarah Bennett, Sarah Bog-gess, Kristina Hicks, James Luciano, Sarah Henderson Maneely, AbbeyMassoud-Tastor, Marie Fuda, Jessica Wilmot, Katie Kelly, and Nick Sal-vatoriello. I am honored you have called me your professor.

I also thank Debbie Carvalko for supporting my visions for booksand helping them become realities. I have enjoyed working with Deb-bie and her colleagues at Praeger. They are a wonderful team of caringpeople. They appreciate my love of writing and editing books. Debbiesomehow knew that, after the publication of the three-volume set onthe Psychology of Women and Work (2008, Praeger), which I edited, andthe political climate of the 2008 presidential campaign, especiallyregarding women, I had to follow up those texts with books on femi-nism. She knows I share Sheila Benders sentiment:

We write because something inside says we must and we can no longer ignorethat voice.

xii Acknowledgments

Introduction

Michele A. Paludi

And how do you look backward? By looking forward. And what do you see?As they look forward, they see what they had to do before they could lookbackward. And there we have it all.

Gertrude Stein

Alyssa Zucker and Abigail Stewart (2007) reported in their study of333 university alumnae that feminism is internalized quite differentlydepending on the developmental stage in our lives. This research ledme to consider my own feminist socialization and feminist identity de-velopment as I began writing and editing these three volumes on femi-nism and womens rights. I was introduced to feminism by myparents, Antoinette and Michael, at a very young age, even though thelabel feminism was not used by them. Yet, as I came to realize muchlater, their behavior was very much in keeping with feminist princi-ples. They valued my sisters and me unconditionally; wanted to giveus educational opportunities that were denied to them because of thegeneration into which they were born and because they were rst gen-eration Americans whose parents had other values to instill in them;they worked for equality in relationships, politics, and health care. Iwas 18 the year individuals became eligible to vote at age 18, and bothmy parents took me to cast my votes that year.

They believed that, like them, I had a responsibility to make thingsbetter for the next generation. They valued voting; I was told what theSuffragists had endured in order to win this right for us and to remem-ber this each year I vote. I took my rst course in feminism as anundergraduate in the early 1970s: Sex Roles in American Societywith Nancy Walbek. I would share the class discussions with mymother, telling her about the experiences of students in class that weredifferent from my ownfor example, being denied the use of certain

toys considered sex inappropriate for them; being tracked into differ-ent high school and college programs because of being women or men;women being told by family and friends to hide their achievementsfrom potential dates and mates. I was unable to relate to these experi-ences and realized for the rst time that my parents were feminists, aterm to which I was introduced formally in this class and then subse-quently as a graduate student when I took courses with Dee Grahamand Edna Rawlings. I also learned that I had been exposed to nonster-eotyped role models, and because there were all girls in our family, wewere not raised to conform to stereotyped behavior.

It was in graduate school that I decided to pursue research in femi-nist psychology, especially in womens career development. I was for-tunate to have a mentor, William Dember, who encouraged me topursue this research, even though it was not in his area of specializa-tion (i.e., visual perception). Bill encouraged me to take courses withfaculty in departments in addition to psychology: educational leader-ship and family development. He told me this would help put piecestogether in understanding the research I was conducting. I thank KathyBorman and Judy Frankel for their roles in my feminist identity devel-opment.

A few years later when my father died, Charlie, who attended myfathers wake, came to my mother, my sisters, and me and told us howmy father had impacted his life. Charlie, an African American man,told us my father was the only coworker (both were skilled workers atGeneral Electric) who treated him fairly, didnt talk with him in a de-rogatory manner, and stopped others from making racial slurs and epi-thets. I learned for another time what it meant to be a feminist.

I dedicated the three-volume set on the Psychology of Women at Workto my parents: For Antoinette and Michael Paludi, who encouragedme to dene what womens work is for myself. They wanted all theirdaughters to be independent thinkers and doers and to help others.They gave us no templates to follow but encouraged us to navigate ourown paths. And, especially in my case, encouraged me to leave hometo attend graduate school in a city that seemed, to my parents, to bevery far awaybut they never said no.

My parents thus taught me that not only did they believe in the eco-nomic, educational, social, and political equality of women and men, butthey favored the social and legal changes necessary to achieve equalitybetween the sexes and among races, and they were committed to imple-menting these principles. Perhaps they could not effect change at thenational level, but they did do so in personal relationships with theirfamily and friends and on the local level. This is the legacy they left mysisters and me. This book set is a tribute to Antoinette and Michael.

I have been reminded of Antoinette and Michael throughout thewriting and editing of these volumes on feminism and womens rights.

xiv Introduction

I am especially reminded of what my mother used to tell me: You arethere before you get there. She knew I wanted equality to happen fastand that I grew concerned when feminists didnt win political elec-tions, when younger women didnt know the heritage of how theycame to be accepted in graduate programs and in certain jobs, how theglass ceiling for women and people of color is still strong, and thatworldwide, women constitute 64 percent of all adults who are illiterate(see Susan Basows chapter in Volume 1). I have learned that she wasright; that change takes time, and to measure change differently, i.e., inincrements. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated as she sus-pended her campaign for president of the United States in 2008:Although we werent able to shatter this highest, hardest glass ceilingthis time, thanks to you, its got about 18 million cracks in it, and thelight is shining through like never before.

The chapters in these volumes show us where the light is shiningthrough on feminism. All three volumes represent what Judith Lorber(1998) and Snelling (1999) identied: several types of feminism andfeminists. Lorber (1998) categorized feminism into three major areas:gender reform, gender resistance, and gender rebellion. Gender-reform feminism emphasizes similarities between women and menrather than focusing on differences between them. Gender-resistancefeminism holds that formal legal rights alone will not end genderinequality; male dominance is too ingrained into social relations.Gender-resistance feminism focuses on how men and women aredifferentcognitively, emotionally, and sociallyand urges womento form women-centered organizations and communities. Gender-rebellion feminism looks at the interrelationships among inequalitiesof sex, race, ethnicity, social class, and sexual orientation. A numberof years ago my text on the psychology of women displayed a quilton its cover (Paludi, 2002). I asked for this design to highlightGentrys (1989) image of quilt making for understanding feminism.These three volumes on feminism and womens rights also representquilt making in understanding feminism. Each contributor has madeone piece of the quilt that has been joined with pieces by other con-tributors. Each of the contributors has used different stitching on theirpiece of the quilt. No one chapter is more important than the other.We need all pieces if we are to complete the quilt that is feminism.According to Gentry (1989):

Feminist psychology and feminism in general seem to be at the point oftrying to piece together the individual parts of a quilt. The overall pat-tern of the quilt that we want is still emerging. No one knows whatequality in a post-patriarchal world will look like. We are beginning topiece the separate parts togetherto explore the kinds of stitching to usein connecting the pieces and how to place the separate pieces into the

xvIntroduction

pattern. But we have not stopped questioning the process of quiltingitself.

In Volume 1, Heritage, Roles, and Issues, contributors have discussedefforts to integrate feminist scholarship into several disciplines, includ-ing education, work, science, military, religion, and politics. As Cather-ine Stimpson (1971) noted, there have been three kinds of problems inthe disciplines and curriculum with respect to women: omission, dis-tortions, and trivializations. Each of the contributors to Volume 1 noteswhere the sexism in the disciplines has existed and where feminist cor-rectives have restructured the disciplines. Jennifer Martin, in her chap-ter concerning gender differences in abilities, noted:

Women have made signicant social, academic, and occupational gainsin the past 50 years; for example, women are entering nontraditionalelds with more frequency, participating in high school and collegesports more than ever before, and carving out more egalitarian roles forthemselves within the family. However, women have still not ultimatelyachieved true equity with their male counterparts. . . . The idea thatwomen somehow possess different or inferior aptitudes when comparedto their male counterparts can lead to diminished expectations forwomenin terms of how they view themselves and how others viewthem.

In Volume 2, Mental and Physical Health, contributors deal with vio-lence and discrimination against girls and women and the resultingimpact on womens emotional and physical well being, interpersonalrelationships, career development, and self-concept. Types of discrimi-nation and victimization addressed are sexual harassment, sexual vio-lence, harassment of sexual minorities, and rape and violence in thecontext of womens HIV risk. Contributors have addressed these issuesglobally. Bethany Waits and Paula Lundberg-Love offer new cuttingedge evidence on neurological responses in women victims of sexualviolence. Therapeutic support for women victims of violence is alsoaddressed in this volume, including feminist therapy and ethnoculturalpsychotherapy.

All contributors note that sexual victimization is prevalent in theUnited States and globally, as is sexual harassment and sexual orienta-tion discrimination. As Waits and Lundberg-Love note:

Female survivors of sexual violence are everywhere. They are in univer-sities, religious institutions, court rooms, hospitals, and the military. Theyare daughters, mothers, spouses, sisters, friends, next-door neighbors,and co-workers. Many differ in age, education, ethnicity, and socioeco-nomic status. . . . However, their lives are connected by the violence thatthey have experienced.

xvi Introduction

The international focus on feminism and womens rights is contin-ued in Volume 3, Feminism as Human Rights. In this volume, contribu-tors address laws on sexual harassment, pay equity, and rape.Furthermore, contributors speak to the injustices to women with dis-abilities. Human rights issues such as arranged and forced marriagefor women, pornography, and the globalization of western appearanceideals are also presented in this volume. All contributors to this vol-ume call for further advocacy on behalf of women. As Noorfarah Mer-ali stated:

It is only if arranged marriages are understood in light of their inten-tions, diverse forms, actual outcomes, and local or international contextsthat laws, policies, and human rights advocacy can be appropriatelychanneled to protect and preserve womens well-being.

In addition to the scholarly reviews of research on feminism andwomens rights, I have included womens personal accounts of theirown feminist identity development. They are at different stages in life,in their career, and in relationships and yet they are bound by sharedstories.

It is my hope that these volumes encourage individuals to self iden-tify as feminists. Research has suggested for some time that most peo-ple reject the term feminist when describing themselves but supportfeminist principlesequal pay for equal work, for example (see Paludiet al., Volume 3). Goldners (1994) study noted that when women whohold feminist beliefs anticipate a negative reaction from their peers tothe label feminist, they will avoid using the term to describe them-selves. Goldner indicated that media is a primary source of negativeimages of feminists. It is common to see photos of women identied asfeminists having clenched sts. These images are not representative offeminists. More recent research by Rudman and Fairchild (2007) foundthat the stereotype that feminists are unattractive still persists.

However, these images are rejected by individuals, especially duringadolescence and young adulthood, when maintaining gender role ster-eotypic behavior is reinforced and is central to their self-esteem andself-concept. Paludi, Paludi, and DeFour (2004) noted that individualsreject the label feminist because they view themselves as in control, aspowerful rather than as victims of gender inequality. Thus, they per-ceive the term feminist to imply a powerless position, which theyreject (Rhode, 1977).

The contributors to each of the three volumes of Feminism and Wom-ens Rights Worldwide encourage us to think critically about feminism,to value cultural experiences and to integrate our knowledge of theo-ries and research about feminism with our own life experiences. Thechapters encouraged me to do this in remembering my own feminist

xviiIntroduction

socialization. I encourage you to do the same. It is my hope these threevolumes serve as a life raft (Klonis, Endo, Crosby, and Worell, 1997)for feminists, especially those in the millennial generation.

REFERENCES

Gentry, M. (1989). Introduction: Feminist perspectives on gender and thought:Paradox and potential. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender andthought. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Goldner, M. (1994). Accounting for race and class variation in the disjuncturebetween feminist identity and feminist beliefs: The place of negativelabels and social movements. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe American Sociological Association, Los Angeles.

Klonis, S., Endo, J., Crosby, F., & Worell, J. (1997). Feminism as life raft. Psy-chology of Women Quarterly, 21, 333345.

Lorber, J. (1998). Gender inequality: Feminist theories and politics. Los Angeles:Roxbury.

Paludi, M. (2002). The psychology of women. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Paludi, M., ed. (2008). The psychology of women at work: Challenges and solutionsfor our female workforce. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Paludi, M., Paludi, C., & DeFour, D. (2004). Introduction: The more thingschange, the more they stay the same. In M. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide tothe psychology of gender. xixxxi. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Rhode, D. (1997). Speaking of sex. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Rudman, L., & Fairchild, K. (2007). The F word: Is feminism incompatible with

beauty and romance? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 125136.Snelling, S. (1999). Womens perspectives on feminism. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 23, 247266.Stimpson, C. (1971). Thy neighbors wife, thy neighbors servants: Womens lib-

eration and black civil rights. In V. Gornick & B. Moran (Eds.), Woman insexist society: Studies in power and powerlessness. New York: Basic Books.

Zucker, A., & Stewart, A. (2007). Growing up and growing older: Feminism asa context for womens lives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 137145.

xviii Introduction

Chapter 1

The Myth of the Man-Hating Feminist

Melinda KannerKristin J. Anderson

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about asocialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leavetheir husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism,and become lesbians.

Reverend Pat Robertson (Robertson letter attacks feminists, 1992)

Spanky: Lets start a club right now. The He-man Woman-haters. Ill bepresident.Alfalfa: And Ill be second president, and you can be third president.Buckwheat: Thanks.Spanky: Alright, get up and do exactly what I do. Put your hand on yourheart, and raise your other hand. We, the He-man Woman-haters club . . .Alfalfa and Buckwheat: We, the he-man woman-haters club . . .Spanky: . . . promise not to fall for this Valentines business . . .Alfalfa and Buckwheat: . . . promise not to fall for this Valentines business . . .Spanky: . . . because girls are the bunk.Alfalfa and Buckwheat: . . . because girls are the bunk.

Hearts and Thumps (1937) from the Our Gang comedy lm series,directed by Hal Roach

THE HE-MAN WOMAN-HATER AND THE

MAN-HATING FEMINIST

In 1934, the comedy trio The Three Stooges made their rst shortmusical novelty lm, The Woman Haters. In this misogynist cinema

fantasy, the fraternal organization protects men from the trials ofromance and marriage and from the presumed inevitable disappoint-ments and betrayals that accompany relationships with women. A sec-ond fantasy comes from the Little Rascals child comedy troop whoproduced the Our Gang comedies for nearly two decades, a regularfeature of which was the He-Man Woman-Haters Club, which pro-vided solace for the little boys in the gang and excluded girls fromplay. Both examples from the annals of American mass media illustratesome of the important and lasting dimensions of the myth of the femi-nist man-hater. First, we nd an intrinsic conict that emerges in rela-tionships between females and males, even in these young, pre-adolescent ctional proxies for real-life women and men. This conictis presented as inevitable, natural, and as fundamentally contrary tothe personal and social interests of males. Second, in these apparentlyinnocent and trivial ctional illustrations, we nd the production ofjustication for division and suspicionnot caution and sensitivity, butovert and institutionalized hostility toward females from males. Finally,contained in the invention of the woman-hater, and the need for boysto embrace such an identity, is an expression of a diametric oppositionin which the needs of men and the needs of women are set up asantagonistic. Whether or not such antagonism is real, it is effectivelymade real and asserted redundantly and repeatedly. There is a pres-ence in male-produced and (largely) male-consumed popular culture ofthe gure of the woman-hating man. There exists as well a seeminglyparallel gurethe man-hating feminist. However, this gure is not, ina parallel way, the creation of some delirious feminist fantasy, but theproduct of the same mass media organ of patriarchy. The man-hatingfeminist is an invention, and a powerful and effective one at that. Butwhat are the sources of these images? What allows the image of theman-hater to persist, to stick in the popular mind? And what interestsare served by perpetuating this stereotype?

No matter how we frame it, feminism has gotten a bad rap in thecultural mind. From the myth of the bra-burner, to the negligentmother, to the career-minded spinster, to the man-hater, the mere men-tion of the word feminist produces strong and often negative reac-tions. The feminist has endured some of the most grotesque kinds ofdistortion and defamation among all the emblems of social progressiv-ism and liberation. Much as black activists have typically been por-trayed as wild-eyed, reckless, and dangerous to society, the feministhas been tagged with many labels. She has been assigned the role ofrepository of many cultural fears, and has, perhaps most potently, beenidentied as a man-hater. The man-hater itself is a socially and fright-ening gure in the cultural imagination. The man-hater will not coop-erate with the goals and practice of patriarchy and poses a threat tothe very cornerstone, the living embodiment of patriarchy: the

2 Heritage, Roles, and Issues

individual man himself. As with any political caricature, the images domore than misrepresent: they obstruct and mislead.

These problems have been compounded somewhat by genuine cri-tiques of patriarchy as a system. Much like the identication andexpose of the institutionalized racism of dominant society, feministcritique of patriarchy necessarily identies the oppressive nature of thesocial supremacy of man. The invented feminist man-hater is inno way a natural, inevitable, or organic product of feminist politicsand philosophy. This straw woman is not linked to feminist values inany sense. It rst serves nefarious and destructive ends aimed atundermining the philosophy and struggle for social equality.

If this is not a real thing, how did it become coined? What specicsocial and political circumstances are linked to this myth? Is there anybasis in reality to support the claims entailed in this gure? At stakehere is not just the good name of feminists, nor even the struggle forequality. The data we present here demonstrate that it is not the casethat feminists hate men, but perhaps that anti-feminists hate men. Theman-hating feminist has no basis in reality but is part of a large-scale, long-term tacit process by which power is maintained and themyths that support gender inequality continue to circulate on itsbehalf. It is part of a smoke-and-mirrors subterfuge to convert woman-haters into an epidemic of male bashing, feminist man-haters and les-bian conversion campaigns. In this process of misdirection, accusation,and cultural myth-making, not only feminists are harmed. Anywoman, any man who resists the narrow and constricting connes ofabsolute gender conformity, are victims as well.

This chapter explores the myth of the feminist-as-man-hater andexamines some of the origins and content of the myth. We do notundertake here to review the history of the term feminist or to sortthrough the hundreds of historical and recent aspersions cast on femi-nism through the direct effort of conservative news, and talk program-ming, or the more subtle but equally effective contamination ofmainstream news and entertainment media. The major contributionoffered here is an argument built on empirical evidence that actuallyexamines the truth-value of the claim that feminists dislike men. In ourempirical research, we investigated the real-life ideas and experiencesof respondents and discovered that the image of the feminist as man-hater is far from the reality of women and men who embrace feministvalues and identify themselves as feminists.

FEMINISM: THE ANTI-FEMINIST CREATES

THE MAN-HATER FEMINISM

The very word evokes strong feelings in most people; Strong feel-ings and, too often, a world of misconceptions. The real meaning of

3The Myth of the Man-Hating Feminist

feminism, and what it actually means to call oneself a feminist, hasbecome obscured by an array of prejudices, preconceptions, and mech-anisms that serve to maintain inequality. Structured inequality basedon gendermuch like inequalities based on race or ethnicity or sexualidentityhas been an established way of doing things for centuries.For some, the question begins and ends with womens right to vote.For others, a belief exists that gender inequality is a thing of the past,and that women now enjoy social and economic equality in terms ofaccess to resources and prestige. Still others believe that feminism is anantique effort, a fad whose time has passed. In any event, manywomen and many more men continue to resist identifying themselvesas feminists.

What are some of the sources of the claims asserted by the man-hating feminist myth? Some of the myths are simply defamatory anddismissive of feminists and feminism. Through the simple accusationsof lesbian, and the homophobia easily mobilized, many are fright-ened away from the label that accurately describes their philosophy.By invoking terrifying images of social outcasts, of spinsters, andbra-burners, still others are driven into a disjuncture between valuesand the adoption of an identity that accurately describes their socialprinciples. The deployment of the twinned terms man-hating andfeminist creates a myth with doubly harmful results. First, feminismis denied the understanding it merits. The obfuscation and distortionsof the realities of feminismthe struggle for suffrage, the collectivestriving for economic and social parity, the centuries-long drive toachieve meaningful political participationare overwhelmed by thefun-house mirror of misogyny held up by the accusations of man-hating. Second, in the service of dismissing the central values offeminism, such accusations additionally activate hostility toward lesbiansand intensify the sexism and misogyny that underlies both issues.

At its core, feminism is the belief in certain fundamental principlesof social, economic, political, and judicial equality. In a society in whichwomen and men have traditionally received unequal treatment, femi-nism seems a reasonable and long-overdue corrective to the historicallack of access women continue to experience. Merriam-Webster denesfeminism as: (1) The theory of the political, economic, and social equal-ity of the sexes; and (2) Organized activity on behalf of womens rightsand interests. The Encyclopedia Britannica denes it as: The belief in thesocial, economic, and political equality of the sexes. And bell hooks(2000) denes feminism as a movement to end sexism, sexist exploita-tion, and oppression. On the face of it, it would seem that all women,and most men, would identify with the goals of feminism. In spite ofthe widely agreed-upon philosophical desire for guarantees of equality,today, few women call themselves feminists. Survey research showsthat the percentage of respondents who actually call themselves


feminists is strikingly small. In surveys of university women, the per-centage who identify as feminists range from 8 (Myaskovsky & Wittig,1997) to 44 percent (Bullock & Fernald, 2003) depending on the demo-graphic makeup of the students. What accounts for these low num-bers? When you consider the misconceptions we carry around with usbecause of the way in which feminism is portrayed in popular cultureand politics, it is not surprising that relatively few women call them-selves feminists. Anti-feminists blame feminists for a variety of socialproblems: for young men entering college at a lower rate than that ofyoung women (Sommers, 2000); for the decline in manliness inAmerican culture (Manseld, 2006); and even for the terrorist attacksof September 11, 2001 (Falwell, 2001).

MOST WOMEN ENDORSE FEMINIST PRINCIPLES

Surveys nd that women hold feminist beliefs but are hesitant todescribe themselves as feminists because they know that feminism isviewed by some as anti-male (Alexander & Ryan, 1997; Aronson, 2003).If it is the case that most peoplemen and womenendorse the fun-damental principles of feminism, it should stand to reason that mostpeople would actually support feminism. Even among individuals whoendorse or embrace feminist principles, the adoption of the identityfeminist is resisted. One study of mostly white American womenwho were college students found that of the women who did not con-sider themselves feminists, 81 percent agreed with some or all of thegoals of the feminist movement (Liss, Hoffner, & Crawford, 2000).

DO FEMINISTS HATE MEN? WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?

Now let us address the common belief that feminists are man-haters.While there are abundant of examples popular culture purporting toreveal feminists attitudes toward men, there are very few empiricalstudies on the subject. In addition to our own empirical study that wedescribe shortly, Iazzos 1983 study is the only one we found thatexamines feminists attitudes toward men. Iazzo (1983) developed theAttitudes toward Men scale. He measured the degree to which womenagreed with statements about Marriage/Parenthood (e.g., Men considermarriage a trap.), Sexuality (e.g., A man cannot get enough sex.),Work (e.g., A mans job is the most important thing in his life.), andPhysical/Personality Attributes (e.g., An athletic man is to be admired.)of men and gender roles. Women expressed their agreement on a 1 to4 scale, and a score of 80 would indicate a neutral attitude towardmen. The control group sample was 104 mostly white womenrecruited from a university, department stores, and other places ofbusiness. They were compared with battered wives, rape victims,


lesbians, and feminists from a local chapter of the National Organiza-tion for Women. The control group mean score was 89.93, above theneutral midpoint of 80.00, suggesting slightly positive attitudes towardmen. The average score of feminists was 79.54, not statistically distin-guishable from the 80.00 midpoint, suggesting neutral attitudes towardmen. So feminists did not have negative attitudes toward men. Whatabout lesbians, a category that is often conated with feminists? Les-bians scored, on average, 70.97, so somewhat lower than neutral buthardly indicative of man-hating. Further inspection of the statementsthat make up the Attitudes toward Men scale may shed light on whylesbians scored lower than both feminists and the control group ofwomen. Some of the statements may not be relevant to lesbians. Forinstance, some of the items are as follows: Male sex organs are attrac-tive, The male body is visually unappealing, and The sight of apenis is repulsive. These are questions from the Sexuality subscale. Itwould have been interesting to have analyzed how feminists and les-bians scored on each separate subscale. For instance, perhaps lesbianshad relatively anti-male attitudes on the 7 items that made up theSexuality scale because they do not nd mens body parts attractive.Conversely, their scores on the other subscales could have been neutralor positive. The limitation of Iazzos study is that many of the state-ments might be irrelevant to lesbians because the statements assumethat women have intimate relationships with men.

Maltby and Day (2001) studied British college students and exam-ined various psychological characteristics as they correlate with atti-tudes toward women and men. For women, a feminine-stereotypedgender role self-conceptthe degree to which people see themselves interms of feminine stereotypeswas found to be correlated with nega-tive attitudes toward men. In other words, the more women saw them-selves as feminine, the less they liked men. While Maltby and Daysstudy did not measure feminists attitudes toward men, their resultsimply that perhaps it is non-feminists who do not like men becausefeminists tend to have relatively more masculine and androgynousgender role self-concepts than do non-feminists. Another way to put itis that, in this study, women with traditional gender role orientationwho are likely to be non-feministshad more negative attitudes to-ward men than did women with nontraditional gender self-conceptswho are more likely to be feminists. Another study with an ethnicallydiverse sample of university students found that those women whoperceived large value and belief differences between women and mentended to like men less than did those women who did not perceivelarge value and belief differences (Stephan, Stephan, Demitrakis,Yamada, & Clason, 2000). Again, this study did not examine feministsattitudes per se; however, we can extrapolate from the data. Otherstudies have found that feminists tend to think women and men are


not very different (Liss et al., 2000; Liss, OConnor, Morosky, & Craw-ford, 2001), whereas non-feminists are more likely to think that womenand men are fundamentally different (Yoder, Fischer, Kahn, & Groden,2007). Therefore, it appears non-feminists see women and men as fun-damentally different and have more negative attitudes toward menthan do feminists.

AMBIVALENCE TOWARD MEN: TWO ASPECTS OF

ATTITUDES TOWARD MEN

The most recent method of measuring attitudes toward men hasbeen the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI), developed byGlick and Fiske (1999). They found two aspects of womens (and to asomewhat lesser extent mens) attitudes toward men. Hostility towardmen represents overtly negative attitudes toward men. It characterizesmen as inferior in ways that are safe to criticize, such as that men arebabies when they are sick. Hostility toward men also taps into resent-ment about mens power relative to women, mens aggressiveness, cul-tural attitudes that portray men as superior, and the way men exertcontrol within heterosexual intimate relationships. Individuals withhigh hostility toward men scores tend to agree with statements suchas, When men act to help women, they are often trying to provethey are better than women, and Most men pay lip service to equal-ity for women, but cant handle having a woman as an equal. Thesecond aspect of attitudes toward men is benevolence toward men. Benev-olence toward men does not represent overtly negative attitudes towardmen, but rather overtly positive or affectionate attitudes toward men. Itis a set of beliefs that includes the idea that just as women are depend-ent on men, so too are men dependent on women. Benevolence towardmen suggests that a womans role is to take care of a man, but only inthe domestic context. Experiencing subjectively positive feelings of af-fectionate protectiveness, admiration, and connection with men in inti-mate relationships represents benevolence toward men. Those whoscore high on benevolence toward men agree with statements such as,Women are incomplete without men, and Even if both members ofa couple work, the woman ought to be more attentive to taking care ofher man at home.

Hostility and benevolence toward men are distinct concepts, althoughthey tend to occur together. That is, women who have high hostility to-ward men scores tend to also have high benevolence toward men scores.Thus, women may resent mens power even as they subscribe to beliefsthat support it. Women tend to score higher than men on hostility to-ward men and lower than men on benevolence toward men.

Attitudes of hostility and benevolence toward men are correlatedwith other kinds of beliefs. For instance, benevolence toward men is


correlated with sexist attitudes toward women: those who believe thatmen should protect women, and that women should take care of menat home, also tend to believe that women need protection because theyare inferior to men. Interestingly, womens hostility toward men and be-nevolence toward men scores correlate, indicating that some womensimultaneously hold beliefs that actively support and justify male dom-inance (benevolence toward men) at the same time they resent the conse-quences of this dominance (hostility toward men). Glick and Fiske (1999)speculate that the greater the dependence a woman has on men, themore she is likely to experience both benevolence and hostility towardmen; the former because of her recognition of her investment in menand the latter because of resentment over her dependence.

Although Glick and Fiske do not directly answer the question of therelative position of feminists in terms of their benevolent or hostile atti-tudes toward men, they do explore the relationship between gender in-equality and hostility toward men and benevolence toward men, which hasimplications for feminism and attitudes toward men. In a massivestudy across sixteen nations, Glick et al. (2004), along with several col-leagues around the world, used many translated versions of the AMIto investigate attitudes toward men.

Glick et al. (2004) found that in most nations, hostility toward menwas higher among women than among men. Hostility toward menscores correlated with the national measures of gender inequality. Spe-cically, hostility toward men was higher in traditional than in egalitar-ian nations. At the same time, benevolence toward men was higher intraditional than in egalitarian nations. The authors speculated thatwomen in traditional nations may be more resentful toward men forwhat they view as abuses of power, but that this resentment is not nec-essarily a challenge to gender hierarchy because it coexists with benev-olent beliefs about mens roles as protectors and providers. The morehostile men are toward women, the more women resent and show hos-tility toward men. Heightened resentment of mens hostility mayexplain why womens hostility toward men scores increasingly outstripmens in more traditional cultures.

It is worth noting that there were many more gender similaritiesthan differences across nationswomen and men in the sixteen nationstended to have similar attitudes toward women and men. In terms ofaddressing the myth of feminists and man-haters, the Glick et al. (2004)study on attitudes toward men suggests that man-hating is linkedmore to anti-feminism and gender in equality, than it is to feminismand gender equality.

Although the AMI is widely used, it had not been used with femi-nists until Anderson, Kanner, and Elsayegh (2009) conducted a studythat examined feminists and non-feminists attitudes toward men thatsurveyed an ethnically diverse sample of 488 American college


students and asked them to respond to statements about gender rolesincluding the items from the AMI. Students were also asked whether ornot they are feminists. Only 14 percent of the sample of women and menidentied as feminists, which is consistent with an ethnically diverse sam-ple. Contrary to popular stereotypes, self-identied feminists had lowerlevels of hostility toward men than non-feminists. Interestingly, womenoverall did tend to have higher levels of hostility toward men than didmen, but again, the hostility was not among the feminists. Feminists alsotended to have lower levels of benevolence toward men. Low levels of benev-olence toward men does not mean one feels malevolence toward men, it justmeans that the respondent does not agree with traditional gender rolesfor instance, that women should take care of men in the home, while menshould be the main wage earners. Thus, based on our study results, itappears that feminists, compared to non-feminists, do not have negativeattitudes toward men. Feminists do tend to reject traditional gender rolesthat put women in less powerful positions than men.

Taken together, systematic empirical studies do not nd evidencethat feminists dislike men. In contrast, there is some suggestion thannon-feminists, those women who adhere to traditional gender stereo-types, dislike, or at least, resent, men. We must ask then, why does themyth of feminist man-haters persist?

WHY DOES THE MYTH OF THE FEMINIST

MAN-HATER PERSIST?

The myth of the feminist man-hater exists in part because feministsdo not behave themselves in conventional ways. Feminists tend to vio-late gender role expectations, and that makes people uncomfortable.Women who desire and have professions, women who resist the limi-tations of housewifery, women who do not feel themselves to be in theirresistible grip of maternal inevitabilitythese and other women, andmen, who depart from gender conformity nd themselves in the sweepof the accusation of man-hater. There are stiff sanctions for women,and men, who violate gender roles. Now that we have established thelack of empirical support for the notion that feminists are man-haters,we are left with explaining why the myth persists and what we can doabout it. The next section begins by examining womens reactions toconventional and nonconventional women by rst examining ambiva-lent sexism. Next, we will look at peoples perceptions of another typeof gender violator, women leaders. Then the supposed link betweenfeminism and lesbianism is examined, and the function of lesbian-bait-ing as a strategy to keep women in their place is discussed. Finally, theempirical research presented in this chapter is put in its larger culturalcontext by tying it to the battle of the sexes and the boy crisisrhetoric that are currently popular.


WOMEN ARE WONDERFUL BUT FEMINISTS ARE NOT:

REWARDING TRADITIONAL AND PENALIZING

NONTRADITIONALWOMEN

Understanding peoples negative attitudes toward feminists requiresunderstanding the context more generally of attitudes toward women.Just as peoples attitudes toward men are ambivalentwith a mix ofrespect and admiration along with resentment of mens power andprivilegeattitudes toward women are ambivalent as well. At rstglance, however, attitudes toward women seem positive relative to atti-tudes toward men. Attitudes toward women are more positive in termsof affect. Eagly and Mladinic (1994) have coined the phrase women-are-wonderful to illustrate this. The global category woman is viewedmore positively than the global category man. The women-are-wonder-ful effect occurs on explicit attitude surveys as well as with implicitattitude measures such as when positive words such as good andhappy are associated more with women than with men (Rudman &Goodwin, 2004). There are two important points about the positivefeelings people have about women compared to men connected to thenegative reaction some have for feminists. Just because a group is likeddoes not mean that it is treated fairly and taken seriously. Also, justbecause the global category women is liked more than men, thisdoes not mean that particular subcategories of women are liked. Theseimportant caveats to the women-are-wonderful effect are elaboratedbelow.

DISCRIMINATION AND DISRESPECT

Gender-based discrimination is widespread and well documented(see Valian, 1998, for a review). Take, for example, the disparities inpay between women and men (see Volume 3) Women college gradu-ates in the United States who work full time make only 75 percent ofwhat comparable men make (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). In theUnited States, girls and women are more likely to live in poverty thanare boys and men (Bishaw & Stern, 2006). And while women in theUnited States held half of all management and professional positionsin 2004, only 14 percent of architects and engineers and 29 percent ofphysicians and surgeons are women, whereas 86 percent of paralegalsand legal assistants are women (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005). Interms of representations of women in popular culture in the UnitedStates, men are overrepresented on prime time television shows (ScreenActors Guild, 2005), in television commercials (Ganahl, Prinsen, &Netzley, 2003), feature lms (Lauzen & Dozier, 2005), music television(Seidman, 1999), and in newspaper comics (Glascock & Preston-Schreck, 2004). In terms of political representation, women make up


only 16.1 percent of the members of the U.S. House of Representativesand Senate (Center for American Women and Politics, 2008).

Eagly and Mladinics (1994) work on the women-are-wonderful effectrevealed, women may be liked, but they are not necessarily respected. Fiske,Cuddy, Glick, and Xu (2002) have found that groups that are traditionallytargets of discrimination are judged along two dimensions: warmth andcompetence. For instance, people tend to think Jews are highly competent,but do not feel warmly toward themthey are respected but not liked.People tend to feel warmly toward old people, but do not respect themthey are high on warmth, low on respect. As you might guess, womenare viewed as warm and therefore likeable, but they are less likely to beseen as competent and are therefore less respected. Men, relative towomen, are less liked but are viewed as more competent.

If women are liked more than respected, where do feminists t in?Haddock and Zanna (1994) found that people have different views oftwo categories of women that are seen as opposites: housewives andfeminists. Like Eagly and Mladinics (1994) work on the women-are-won-derful effect and Fiske et al.s (2002) work on warmth and competence,Haddock and Zanna found that when Canadian college students wereasked to form a mental image of the typical woman and typical man,women were evaluated more favorably than were men. However,when subcategories of women were considered, different attitudesemerged. Feminists tend to be evaluated more negatively than house-wives, even though feminists and housewives are both part of thelarger category of women. Haddock and Zanna further found thatthose who dislike feminists believe that feminists violate traditionalvalues and customs. In other words, feminists are seen as a threat tothe status quo in a way that housewives are not.

AMBIVALENT SEXISM: THE CARROTAND THE

STICK OF PATRIARCHY

Because there are differing views of different types of women, sexism,the institutionalized prejudice and discrimination against women is nota single, unitary concept. Glick and Fiske (1997) developed ambivalentsexism as a measure that captures subjectively positive and negativefeelings toward women. Racial/ethnic groups may, and often do, avoidkinship ties (or almost any kind of contact) with other racial/ethnicgroups, however, heterosexual women and men have to be intimate.For instance, one might be against marrying someone of another race,but it is unlikely that a heterosexual man will decide not to be involvedwith a woman. And although men may wish to exclude women fromcertain activities and roles, few (even among the most rabidly sexist)wish to banish women completely from their lives. You can avoidanother ethnic group, but it is hard to avoid another gender.


Similar to their measure of ambivalence toward men discussed earlier,Glick and Fiske nd that mens (and peoples, generally) ambivalencetoward women can be broken down into two kinds of sexism, hostilesexism and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism is what most people thinkwhen they think of sexism. It consists of overtly hostile feelings towardwomen, with negative feelings toward, and stereotyping of, nontradi-tional women in particular. Hostile sexism seeks to justify male power,traditional gender roles, and mens exploitation of women as sexualobjects through derogatory characterizations of women. Hostile sexistsagree with statements such as, When women lose to men in a fair compe-tition, they typically complain about being discriminated against, andMost women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them. Benevolentsexism is something of a slippery concept because it involves subjec-tively positive attitudes toward women. Women are characterized aspure creatures who need protection from men. It is the view thatwomen are adored by men and are necessary to make a man complete.Benevolent sexism relies on kinder and gentler justications of maledominance and prescribed gender roles; it recognizes mens depend-ence on women and a romanticized view of heterosexual relationships.Ideologies of what Glick and Fiske (1997) refer to as benevolent pater-nalism allow members of dominant groups to characterize their privi-leges as well deserved, even as a responsibility they must bear (similarto the white mans burden). Men are willing to sacrice their ownneeds to care for the women in their lives. Benevolent sexists agreewith statements such as, No matter how accomplished he is, a man is nottruly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman, and Womenshould be cherished and protected by men. For women, benevolent sexismundermines womens resistance to male dominance: benevolent sexismis disarming because it is subjectively favorable and also promises thatmens power will be used to womens advantage, as long as they cansecure a high-status male protector. People do not immediately recog-nize benevolent sexism as sexist, and some women are even attered bythe attitudes of benevolent sexism (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005).

Although hostile sexism and benevolent sexism are separate andcontradictory concepts, people can, and often do, experience hostileand benevolent sexism simultaneously. People can have loving andhating attitudes toward women. People tend to feel hostile sexism to-ward women who violate traditional gender roles (e.g., feminists, sexu-ally active women) and benevolent sexism toward conventionalwomen (e.g., homemakers). Benevolent sexism can result in thewomen-are-wonderful effect because traditional women are consideredto be wonderful because of their purity and nurturance. The way Glickand Fiske describe the workings of ambivalent sexism, benevolent sex-ism is the carrotthe reward of positive feelings toward and protec-tiveness given to women who embrace traditional roles; and hostile


sexism is the stickthe hostility that women who reject traditionalroles in favor of taking on traditionally masculine roles face from menwho wish to keep them in their places. Punishment (through hostilesexism) alone is not the most effective means of shaping behaviorbecause that might result in only resentment and resistance. However,punishment for some and reinforcement for others maintains patri-archy and the gender status quo (Glick & Fiske, 2001).

Benevolent sexism, then, is insidious for three reasons. First, itdoesnt seem like prejudice to male perpetrators because men do notview it as something negative. Second, women may nd its sweetallure difcult to resist (Glick & Fiske, 2001, pp. 114115). Praisingwomens nurturing traits is part of expressing the belief that womenare especially suited to domestic roles. Furthermore, stereotypes ofwomen as nurturing and communal justify their subordinated status(Jost & Kay, 2005). Third, benevolent sexism can drive a wedgebetween women. Women (e.g., feminists) who reject the overtly nega-tive aspects of hostile sexism as well as the more hidden negativeaspects of benevolent sexism are at odds with traditional women whoare rewarded by benevolent sexism and reject feminism because theywant to hold on to the little power they get as a result of benevolentsexism. So, while feminists and traditional women should be workingin solidarity to ght gender discrimination, they are split by being ontwo opposite sides of benevolent sexism.

Like their work on ambivalence toward men, Glick and Fiske haveanalyzed patterns of hostile and benevolent sexism in a variety of cul-tures (Glick et al., 2004). In general, mens hostile sexism is higher thanwomens, and women are more receptive to benevolent sexist beliefsthan hostile sexist beliefs. In nations where hostile sexism wasendorsed, women were especially likely to embrace benevolent sexism,in some cases, even more so than the men. This points to the irony ofwomen who are forced to seek protection from members of the verygroup that threatens them: The greater the threat, the stronger the in-centive to accept benevolent sexisms protective ideology. This explainsthe tendency for women in the most sexist societies to endorse benevo-lent sexism more strongly than do men. Furthermore, the countries inwhich women rejected both benevolent and hostile sexism were theones in which men had low hostile sexism scores. As sexist hostilitydeclines, women may feel able to reject benevolent sexism without fearof a hostile backlash.

Ambivalent sexism addresses the question of whether or not chiv-alry is good for women. In excluding women from the outside worldof work and from positions traditionally held by men, benevolent sex-ists exclude women from roles that offer more status in society. Thus,some women (specically traditional women) are protected to someextent by chivalry, but at great cost. Ambivalent sexism is a concept


that can also be related to other objectionable attitudes. Feminists, whomay reject chivalry for good reason, get an angry, defensive responsefrom men who feel that feminists are ingrates.

In a study of Spanish womens reactions (Moya, Glick, Exposito, deLemus, & Hart, 2007) to discriminatory scenarios (e.g., losing a promo-tion), the same acts of discrimination were perceived as less seriouswhen the perpetrators expressed a benevolent, protective justicationthan when they expressed a hostile one. Furthermore, women whoscored higher in benevolent sexism were more likely to excuse bothhostile treatment from a husband and benevolently-justied discrimina-tion by non-intimate men (e.g., a boss). But this pattern of responseonly occurred among women participants who were without paidemployment. This nding suggests that women who are highly de-pendent on men are prone to forgive even hostile acts, perhaps reinter-preting them as signs of the husbands passionate attachment. Onestudy with Turkish and Brazilian respondents, found that individuals(both women and men) with high levels of hostile sexism found wifeabuse more acceptable than those with low levels of hostile sexism(Glick, Sakalli-Ugurlu, Ferreira, & de Souza, 2002). Benevolent sexismhas been linked to attributions of blame against women for acquaint-ance rape. Individuals high in benevolent sexism attributed less blameto perpetrators and recommended shorter sentences for an acquaint-ance rape perpetrator than did low benevolent sexist individuals (Viki,Abrams, & Masser, 2004). A study of Zimbabwean male college stu-dents found that those men with higher levels of hostile sexismreported that they were more likely to commit acquaintance rape thanmen with lower levels of hostile sexism (Viki, Chiroro, & Abrams,2006). Thus, hostile sexism rationalizes mistreatment of women whoviolate traditional roles, while benevolent sexism provides a frameworkfor what is acceptable (i.e., traditional) behavior for women.

The work on ambivalent sexism demonstrates that while traditionalwomen tend to elicit positive feelings from people, nontraditionalwomen such as feminists have hostile reactions directed toward them.Even though the supposed protective qualities of benevolent sexismare alluring to some women, that protection comes with the price of re-stricted options and strong sanctions to women who appear to violatetraditional roles.

PENALTIES FOR NONTRADITIONALWOMEN

A central feature of negative attitudes toward women is the dislikeof women who do not t into the traditional feminine role (e.g., femi-nists, lesbians, women athletes). From the discussion of Glick andFiskes (1997) work on ambivalent sexism and Fiske et al.s (2002) workon warmth and competence as a relevant dimension of judging social


categories, it should be clear that what makes feminists threatening isthat they violate (or appear to violate) and reject traditional gendernorms for women.

Women leaders also violate peoples expectations about women andtherefore threaten the gender hierarchy. While women who are leadersare not necessarily feminists, and feminists are not necessarily womenin leadership positions, both engender similar reactions. Think of thestrong reactions toward Hillary Clinton, Martha Stewart, and Condo-leezza Rice. While women in leadership positions in the work domainhave gradually increased, expectations about what women arelike have not kept pace with womens changing roles. Research nd-ings have indicated that women who behave in ways typically reservedfor men are found to be less socially appealing than men who behavesimilarly or women who behave in ways that are more in line withnormative prescriptions. When a woman is acknowledged to have beensuccessful at performing male gender-typed work, she is, by denition,thought to have the attributes necessary to effectively execute the tasksand responsibilities required. But it is these same attributes that are inviolation of gender-prescriptive norms (Valian, 1998). So, althoughthere is a good t between what the woman is perceived to be like andwhat the job entails, there is a bad t between what the woman isperceived to be like and the conception of what she should be like.

One study illustrates the subtlety with which judgments aboutwomen who violate gender expectations get played out (Heilman, Wal-len, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004). American college students were givenpackets that contained a prole of a clearly successful or ambiguouslysuccessful woman or man in a male-dominated job (assistant vice pres-ident in mechanics and aeronautics). Students were asked to rate thecandidate on competence, likeability, and interpersonal hostility. Whenstudents rated the obviously successful candidate, women and menwere rated equallythey were both given credit for their successes.However, gender did play a role when the candidates qualicationswere ambiguous. When information about the candidates performancewas ambiguous, the woman was rated as less competent than the man.There were results associated with liking ratings as well. When therewas ambiguity about the target persons performance, there was nosignicant difference between the liking ratings of women and mentargets. But when there was clear evidence of success, the woman wasliked less than the man. In other words, the clearly successful womanwas liked signicantly less than the clearly successful man, the unsuc-cessful woman, and unsuccessful man. A similar nding emerged interms of judgments of hostility. The woman candidate was rated as lesshostile than the man in the ambiguous performance outcome conditionbut was rated as more hostile than the man in the clearly successfulcondition. These results suggest the double standard used when


judging women in male-dominated occupations: Women were viewedas less competent than men only when there was ambiguity about howsuccessful they had been; when the womens success was madeexplicit, there were no differences in these characterizations. However,when success was explicit, women were viewed as less likeable thanmen. Women, although rated less competent than men when informa-tion about them was ambiguous, were at least rated as less hostileinterpersonally. But the switch when success was clear is dramatic:women who are acknowledged as successful were viewed not merelyas indifferent to others but as downright uncivil. And these patternsheld for both women and men participants, so these gender stereotypicnorms and the tendency to penalize those who violate them are mean-ingful for both women and men. Heilman et al. (2004) also found thatdislike was associated with not being recommended for promotionsand salary increases. The authors conclude that while there are manythings that lead an individual to be disliked in the job setting, it is onlywomen who are disliked when they are successful.

LESBIAN-BAITING

Understanding the link between feminism and lesbianism revealssome of the fundamental sources of the discomfort and antagonism to-ward feminism we have explored so far. Indeed, in casual contexts andin mass media, lesbian is, erroneously, often portrayed as interchange-able with feminist where the presumption is made that lesbians are, bydenition feminists, and feminists are presumed to be lesbians. Bothlesbians and feminists are understood as women who disrupt andthreaten gender, and both terms describe nontraditional women. Bothfeminists and lesbians seem inherently unladylike, assertive, and out-spoken, and women like this threaten the gender status quo (Alexander& Ryan, 1997).

Homophobia, in addition to sexism, creates an additional set of tacti-cal opportunities to discredit and marginalize feminisms efforts toachieve comprehensive equality for women. Like the accusation ofmale-bashing, the framing of lesbianism as the inevitable result of femi-nism or as a necessary dimension of feminism, are scare tacticsdesigned to frighten people away from associating with feminism andfeminist activism. The very positioning of lesbianism as a source of dis-crediting reveals the underlying layer of homophobia that often joinswith sexism to maintain systems of oppression and retain privilege.Women who have worked actively against sexual assault and rape areoften the target of lesbian-baiting. Framed as insults and debasement,accusations of lesbianism, along with descriptions of feminists as an-gry, unladylike, and unfeminine, are employed to make feminists, andby extension, the goals of feminism, unattractive and repellent. Grant


(2000), who has studied community responses to anti-violence activists,argues that these slurs are the result of people feeling as thoughwomen are acting out of their place by complaining too much aboutmens violence against women. It is as though it is okay to believe thatrape is wrong, but that women should not complain about it, or atleast if they complain, they should not complain loudly. Battered wom-ens shelters and rape crisis centers have been vandalized with graftisuch as No means dyke, or No means tie her up. Rape crisis cen-ters have been charged with turning women into lesbians or beingman-hating. Womens activism is seen as a threat. Lesbian, as muchas it is an expression of sexual identity, also functions as a regulatoryterm (Grant, 2000). It refers to women who are independent from men.That is why it can be used when a woman refuses sexual advancesfrom a man. Since lesbian is often conated with feminist, and becauseof homophobia, feminists are often required to prove they are notlesbians.

Lesbian-baiting can also be a form of sexual extortion, especially inthe military. Corbett (1997) has written about lesbian-baiting since theemergence of the U.S. military policy of Dont Ask, Dont Tell, DontPursue. According to Corbett, accusations of lesbianism are a threat toall military women, regardless of their sexual orientation. The antigaypolicy gives harassers and rapists tools of sexual extortion. Allegationsof lesbianism can ruin a womans career. It doesnt matter whether ornot the allegations are true. Women soldiers who refuse sexual advan-ces from men may be accused of being lesbians and subjected to inves-tigation for homosexual conduct. Thus, the Dont Ask policy is beingused as a weapon of retaliation against women who report sexual har-assment or rape, against those who rebuff sexual advances, or againstthose who succeed in their careers. Obviously, if lesbians and gay mencould serve openly in the military, this would be a less effectiveweapon against service members.

Although lesbians, like feminists, are seen as man-haters, there is noempirical evidence suggesting they are. Markey begins her Redbook arti-cle, Male Bashing, with, I used to be a rather accomplished male-basher. After all, I was married to a man. . . (Markey, 1993, p. 104).Magazines from the popular press actually imply that male-bashers areheterosexual women with traditional gender roles: women complainabout mens indelity (Lego, 1999), inept husbands (Heckard, 1998),and men who are not domesticable (Heard, 1989). Lesbians likelyhave different relationships with men and therefore do not have thecomplaints, disappointments, and frustrations that some heterosexualwomen have. Grant (2000) interviewed lesbian feminist activists whoreported that, rather than disliking men, they felt that men were eitherneutral players (e.g., male relatives) or just not relevant to their lives.One lesbian interviewee reported that men are not a major part of her


life and that heterosexual women complain about men all the time.More systematic research needs to be done in the area of lesbians-as-man-haters. We suspect another stereotype will be debunked, just asthe feminists-as-man-haters stereotype has been.

CONFUSING THE UNIT OF ANALYSIS: WAR AGAINST

THE SEXES VERSUS PATRIARCHY AND PRIVILEGE

Feminists are accused of man-hating when they object to gender dis-crimination because some interpret the objection as being anti-man (ascomplaints about particular, individual men, or even all men) rather thanas a protest against the patriarchal system that gives power and privi-lege to men relative to women. Feminists see sexism as part of a systemof inequality (Kane, 2000). Those who do not understand the systemicnature of gender inequality translate feminists activism as complaintsdirected at particular men or at men as a category, as if feminists blameeach man or all men. For instance, in his book, Manliness, HarveyManseld describes feminism as women being none too pleased withmen and not shy about letting them know it (Manseld, 2006, p. 4).The incorrect notion that stems from and engenders hatred of men,rather than the accurate framing of feminism being a critique of a patri-archal system, does more than make women afraid to call themselvesfeminists, thereby contributing to gender inequality. In the studies wehave reviewed in this chapter that revealed gender discrimination,nearly all found that men and women participants discriminate againstwomen. Sexism and gender discrimination is not just something mendo to women. Everyone participates in a sexist system, although it iscertainly true that men benet through the male privilege inherent in asexist system. Ignoring the systemic nature of gender inequality alsoleads men to feel stuck in a defensive response rather than being ableto see that men too are conned by gender expectations. Trivializingfeminists resistance to inequality as anger at men insults the womensliberation movement that ghts for the right to vote, for equal pay, foreducational equity, and for reproductive freedomefforts focused onchanging the system, not on bashing men.

One manifestation of the focus on individual men versus the focuson systemic gender discrimination and male privilege is the battle-of-the-sexes (e.g., Heard, 1989) rhetoric that is prevalent in popularculture. Battle-of-the-sexes rhetoric produces false neutrality and falseparallelism of the advantages/disadvantages of women and men andsuggests that both women and men are equally advantaged and disad-vantagedjust in different ways (e.g., OBeirne, 2006). For instance, inTime magazine article, Men, Are They Really That Bad? Morrow(1994) takes on what he describes as the overt man bashing of recentyears (p. 54). He says, both men and women have been oppressed


by the other sex, in different ways (p. 56), and American men andwomen should face the fact that they are hopelessly at odds (p. 59).Judy Markey (1993) says, How can we gripe that they put us down asa group, if we do the same thing to them? (p. 105) and, Well windup sounding like squabbling children crying, He started it! No, shedid! (p. 105). This popular discourse that women-and-men-are-at-odds suggests that womens and mens complaints are parallel andequal. The sex wars rhetoric trivializes genuine critiques about patri-archy and male supremacy and reduces discrimination to a he-said-she-said dynamic in which there are no real winners and no real losers,but only miscommunication between the sexes.

This view of individual-based gender debates can reduce thingssuch as rape and sexual harassment to miscommunication that canleave men victims. For instance, in his book, The Myth of Male Power,Warren Farrell (1993) writes Feminism has taught women to sue menfor creating a hostile environment or for date rape when men initiatewith the wrong person or with the wrong timing (p. 18). Similarly,Morrow (1994) claims that a successful approach to a woman is calledromance and courtship. Sexual harassment, according to Morrow, issimply an unsuccessful approach, and, in his view, is unfairly treatedas a crime. This rhetoric suggests that the real victims of sexual harass-ment and rape are not women, but men who are victimized by wom-ens irtations and mixed messages.

STEALING THE CENTER STAGE OF OPPRESSION:

THE BOY CRISIS

In recent years, another manifestation of the accusation of man-hating comes in the form of the popular discourse on the boy crisis.Beginning in the 1980s, there was an increase in awareness regardingthe male bias in clinical and popular psychological theories that treatedgirls like deviants and boys as the norm, with books such as CarolGilligans (1982), In a Different Voice and Mary Piphers (1994) RevivingOphelia. Part of this focus was a critique of the educational system thatseemed more geared toward the benet of boys. Myra and DavidSadkers (1994) book, Failing at Fairness: How Americas Schools CheatGirls, as well as a report from the American Association of UniversityWomen (1992), generated headlines in the popular press. As theseworks grew in popularity, a backlash in the form of a recovery effortfor boys supposedly wounded by the alleged disproportionate atten-tion given to girls and women during the 1980s and early 1990s beganto grow as well. Several anti-feminist pop psychology books on boysdevelopment became best sellers. Christina Hoff Sommers (2000) book,The War Against Boys, and now more recently, Kate OBeirnes (2006)book, Women Who Make the World Worse and How Their Radical Feminist


Assault is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports, accompa-nied hundreds of books and newspaper and magazine articles pub-lished in the United States, Europe, and Australia about the boycrisis. Writers cite the disproportionate numbers of women enteringand graduating from college compared to men who do so as their evi-dence of women getting one up on men. Typical newspaper and maga-zine articles of this type are entitled At Colleges, Women Are LeavingMen in the Dust (Lewin, 2006), Silence of the Lads (Stark & Eben-kamp, 1999), and How Boys Lost Out to Girl Power (Lewin, 1998).

According to Meads (2006) analysis of National Assessment of Edu-cational Progress data, in primary school, boys overall academicachievement is increasing, but girls academic achievement is increas-ing at a faster rate. Girls still outperform boys in reading and writingand boys outperform girls in math and science. Thus, mens highereducation attainment is not declining; its increasing, albeit at a slowerrate than that of women. Women still earn fewer than half of U.S. doc-torates and professional degrees, such as those in law and medicine.Women earn more masters degrees than men, but these are heavilyconcentrated in female-stereotyped elds, such as education and psy-chology. Womens college degrees are more likely to be for low-paying,low-status occupations such as teaching, and recent women collegegraduates earn less than men even after controlling for choice of eld.

Anderson and Accomando (2002) analyzed the literature on theboy crisis that claims that girls have myriad advantages over boys.They nd that this literature reveals a panic reaction that amounts tocenter-stealing (Grillo & Wildman, 1997). Center-stealing occurs whenmembers of a privileged group imagine a threat when attention, eventemporarily and briey, is directed away from them and toward mem-bers of a marginalized group. Center-stealing occurs when the domi-nant and privileged group steals back attention from the subordinategroup, putting the focus back on the dominant group. While booksand articles that focus on how the educational system has been biasedagainst girls assume that it is necessary to redress past wrongs includ-ing sexism, discrimination, and exclusion, boy crisis authors see thefocus on girls as a takeover by girls and women. The boy crisisauthors assume that the playing eld for girls and boys (and men andwomen) was level before this relatively brief focus on girls, rather thanseeing the decades of disadvantage of girls. The brief moment of aca-demic, educational, and popular focus on the inhospitable nature ofclassrooms for girls and of the workplace for women has been per-ceived as a conquest by girls and women.

This backlash against feminism may account for some of the appa-rent internal contradiction among those who, while claiming to supportegalitarianism, think that feminists have gone too far. Much in theways that cries of reverse racism attract attention, engender fear,


and draw upon the accumulated confusion and misinformation thatsurrounds gender and race politics (Anderson, in press), those who aregenuinely disenfranchised become the accused, and the oppressorseither actual or symbolicare both exculpated and their imaginaryinjuries are nursed and tended publicly.

CONCLUSION

How do we understand the myth of the man-hating feminist? Howdo we explain the combined pedestalizing and devaluing of womenin mass media imagery? Finally, what do we make of the invention ofterms such as man-hating or male bashing? Cataldi (1995) discussesthe irony in the use of the term male bashing. To bash means to vio-lently strike with a heavy crushing blow. Bash connotes an indiscrimi-nate, random, confused and unmotivated lashing out. Bash suggests thatthe striking of the blow is unfair, undeserved, or prejudicedsimilar tohow the word gay-bashing is usedviolently beating someonebecause of their presumed homosexuality and never used in cases ofmale violence against women. There is no standardized woman bash-ing. Verbal bashing appears to involve unjustly denouncing the mem-bers of a group, people who are innocent victims. As Cataldi remindsus, women (in general) are not bashers, they are bashees. In the UnitedStates, one study of more than 5,000 American women college students,found that 28.5 percent had experienced an attempted or completed sex-ual assault either before or since entering college. One fth of the collegewomen reported experiencing an attempted or completed sexual assaultsince entering college (Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007).One out of every 12 American women will be stalked at some point intheir lives, and 87% of the stalkers were men. Four out of ve stalkingvictims were women (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). Why arentphysical assaults on women characterized as female bashing? Cataldi(1995) argues that conjuring up images of abused men bashed bywomen and casting women in the role of bashers reverses what actuallyhappens. This table turning can then operate, perniciously, as a form ofvictim-blaming and as a means of exaggerating the severity of any harmdone to men who are, supposedly verbally bashed by women. Anotherfunction of co-opting the expression male-bashing and its brutality, isto lead us into thinking that the male bashing women supposedlyengage in is equivalent to what men do to women. Those who use theexpression may also be attempting to siphon attention and supportaway from women and from those who are physically harmed by men.In designating feminists as male-bashers focus is shifted entirely fromthe system, from the institutions, from the mechanisms that create, reify,and perpetuate oppressive structures, including sexism, heterosexism,misogyny, and homophobia.


On the very social bruises where attention should focus on the epi-demic problem of mens violence against women, we nd insteadmedia attention proclaiming that there is a war on boys and that thereis an epidemic of male-bashing. Instead of social and educational pro-grams, we have unsupportable claims that feminism brings with itman-hating. The feminist critique of gender-based social inequalitymay be disconcerting to men and some women; it might hurt feelings,it might seem unfair, and it might seem to disregard mens good inten-tions. It certainly does problematize and complicate the privileges thataccrue to men in patriarchy. Although these challenges and theirresults make menand doubtless many womenfeel resistant anduneasy, these challenges do not constitute male bashing. Feminists arenot critical of men simply for being men.

A feminist social critique targets systems of gender-based inequalityand their connections to other forms of oppression based on sexuality,class, and race. The stronger women become, the more gains theymake, the more pernicious are the representations of the feminist. Aliving and vivid image in many domains in mass media, there appearsto be no real-life support for such fears. Indeed, given the goals andvalues central to feminism, it is anti-feminis

feminism and women's rights worldwide

Documents