“Putting gender on the table”: Understanding reactions to women who discuss gender inequality

Abstract

Even though gender inequality remains an important challenge across societies, many believe it to be long gone (Marken, 2016). Thus, it is essential to publicly address issues related to gender inequality as a first step towards advancing change in this domain. However, those who address gender inequality may encounter personal costs. In the current research, we examined reactions to women who “put gender on the table.” In Study 1 (N = 202), men who were exposed to a woman who raised the issue of gender inequality (vs. age inequality or a neutral topic), had more negative attitudes towards both her and gender equality. In Study 2, (N = 233), women high on feminist identification were more positive toward a woman who discussed gender inequality (vs. other topics), whereas women low on feminist identification were more negative toward both her and the issue. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords

addressing gender inequality feminist identification gender

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anisman-Razin

Saguy

(2016). Reactions to tokenism: The role of individual characteristics in shaping responses to token decisions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 716–731. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2215

Becker

J. C.

Wagner

(2009). Doing gender differently—the interplay of strength of gender identification and content of gender identity in predicting women’s endorsement of sexist beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 487–508. doi:10.1002/ejsp.551

Brady

H. E.

(1999). Political participation. In Robinson

J. P.

Shaver

P. R.

Wrightsman

L. S.

(Eds.), Measures of political attitudes (Vol. 2, pp. 737–801). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

(2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 247–265. doi:10.1037/1076–8998.8.4.247

Cundiff

J. L.

Vescio

T. K.

(2016). Gender stereotypes influence how people explain gender disparities in the workplace. Sex Roles, 75, 126–138. doi:10.1007/s11199–016–0593–2

Czopp

A. M.

Monteith

M. J.

(2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 532–544. doi:10.1177/0146167202250923

Czopp

A. M.

Monteith

M. J.

Mark

A. Y.

(2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 784–803. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.90.5.784

Dodd

E. H.

Giuliano

T. A.

Boutell

J. M.

Moran

B. E.

(2001). Respected or rejected: Perceptions of women who confront sexist remarks. Sex Roles, 45, 567–577. doi:10.1023/A:1014866915741

Eliezer

Major

(2012). It’s not your fault: The social costs of claiming discrimination on behalf of someone else. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 487–502. doi:10.1177/1368430211432894

10.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146

11.

Hayes

A. F.

(2016). PROCESS (Version 2.15) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.processmacro.org/download.html

12.

Huddy

Neely

Lafay

(2000). Trends: Support for the women’s movement. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 309–350. doi:10.1086/317991

13.

Iyer

Ryan

M. K.

(2009). Why do men and women challenge gender discrimination in the workplace? The role of group status and ingroup identification in predicting pathways to collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 791–814. doi:10.1111/j.1540–4560.2009.01625.x

14.

Jost

J. T.

Burgess

(2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 293–305. doi:10.1177/0146167200265003

15.

Kaiser

C. R.

Drury

B. J.

Malahy

L. W.

King

K. M.

(2011). Nonverbal asymmetry in interracial interactions: Strongly identified Blacks display friendliness, but Whites respond negatively. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 554–559. doi:10.1177/1948550611401043

16.

Kaiser

C. R.

Dyrenforth

P. S.

Hagiwara

(2006). Why are attributions to discrimination interpersonally costly? A test of system- and group-justifying motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1423–1536. doi:10.1177/0146167206291475

17.

Kaiser

C. R.

Hagiwara

Malahy

L. W.

Wilkins

C. L.

(2009). Group identification moderates attitudes toward ingroup members who confront discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 770–777. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.027

18.

Kaiser

C. R.

Miller

C. T.

(2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263. doi:10.1177/0146167201272010

19.

Kaiser

C. R.

Miller

C. T.

(2003). Derogating the victim: The interpersonal consequences of blaming events on discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 227–237. doi:10.1177/13684302030063001

20.

Kaiser

C. R.

Pratt-Hyatt

J. S.

(2009). Distributing prejudice unequally: Do Whites direct their prejudice toward strongly identified minorities? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 432–445. doi:10.1037/a0012877

21.

Kaiser

C. R.

Wilkins

C. L.

(2010). Group identification and prejudice: Theoretical and empirical advances and implications. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 461–476. doi:10.1111/j.1540–4560.2010.01656.x

22.

Kelly

Gauchat

(2016). Feminist identity, feminist politics: US feminists’ attitudes toward social policies. Sociological Perspectives, 59, 855–872. doi:10.1177/0731121415594281

23.

Konrad

A. M.

Hartmann

(2001). Gender differences in attitudes toward affirmative action programs in Australia: Effects of beliefs, interests, and attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 45, 415–432. doi:10.1023/A:1014317800293

24.

Kteily

Saguy

Sidanius

Taylor

D. M.

(2013). Negotiating power: Agenda ordering and the willingness to negotiate in asymmetric intergroup conflicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 978–995. doi:10.1037/a0034095

25.

Marken

(2016). Fewer in U.S. say men and women have equal job opportunities. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/194036/fewer-say-men-women-equal-job-opportunities.aspx

26.

McCabe

(2005). What’s in a label? The relationship between feminist self-identification and “feminist” attitudes among U.S. women and men. Gender & Society, 19, 480–505. doi:10.1177/0891243204273498

27.

Meyerson

D. E.

Scully

M. A.

(1995). Crossroads tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6, 585–600. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.5.585

28.

Pew Research Center. (2013). On pay gap, millennial women near parity—for now: Despite gains, many see roadblocks ahead. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/12/11/on-pay-gap-millennial-women-near-parity-for-now/org/2013/12/11/on-pay-gap-millennial-women-near-parity-for-now/

29.

Rogers

(2016, November 9). White women helped elect Donald Trump. The New York Times. Retreived from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/white-women-helped-elect-donald-trump.html?mcubz=3

30.

Roy

R. E.

Weibust

K. S.

Miller

C. T.

(2007). If she’s a feminist it must not be discrimination: The power of the feminist label on observers’ attributions about a sexist event. Sex Roles, 60, 422–431. doi:10.1007/s11199–008–9556–6

31.

Saguy

Dovidio

J. F.

Pratto

(2008). Beyond contact: Intergroup contact in the context of power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 432–445. doi:10.1177/0146167207311200

32.

Saguy

Kteily

(2014). Power, negotiations, and the anticipation of intergroup encounters. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 107–141. doi:10.1080/10463283.2014.957579

33.

Sandberg

(2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York, NY: Random House.

34.

Shelton

N. J.

Stewart

R. E.

(2004). Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 215–223. doi:10.1111/j.1471–6402.2004.00138.x

35.

Statistical overview of women in the workplace. (2016). Catalyst. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women-workforce

36.

Stewart

A. L.

(2017). Men’s collective action willingness: Testing different theoretical models of protesting gender inequality for women and men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18, 372–381. doi:10.1037/men0000068

37.

The World Bank. (2017). Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%) [Data]. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS

38.

Unzueta

M. M.

Everly

B. A.

Gutiérrez

A. S.

(2014). Social dominance orientation moderates reactions to Black and White discrimination claimants. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 81–88. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.005

39.

Van Breen

J. A.

Spears

Kuppens

de Lemus

(2017). A multiple identity approach to gender: Identification with women, identification with feminists, and their interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01019

40.

Walfisch

van Dijk

Kark

(2013). Do you really expect me to apologize? The impact of status and gender on the effectiveness of an apology in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1446–1458. doi:10.1111/jasp.1210

41.

Warner

(2015). The women’s leadership gap. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2015/08/04/118743/the-womens-leadership-gap/

42.

Warner

R. H.

Kiddoo

K. L.

(2014). Are the latter-day saints too latter day? Perceived age of the Mormon Church and attitudes toward Mormons. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 67–78. doi:10.1177/1368430213490211