Sexism Flashcards
Woman Score Higher Than Men in Most Leadership Skills - Harvard Business Review
Women in Leadership Effectiveness: Research from 360-degree reviews shows that women in leadership are perceived as just as effective, if not more, than men. Women scored higher in 84% of leadership competencies, such as resilience, integrity, and initiative.
Corporate Leadership: Only 4.9% of Fortune 500 CEOs and 2% of S&P 500 CEOs are women. The percentage of women in top leadership roles has remained stagnant, and is even declining globally.
Status Quo Bias in Hiring: Studies found that when at least two women or minorities are among a pool of finalists, their chances of being hired significantly increase. The odds of hiring a woman are 79.14 times greater, and for minorities, 193.72 times greater, if there are at least two finalists from these groups.
Self-Assessment Gap: Women tend to rate themselves lower in leadership ability compared to men, especially under the age of 25. By age 40, confidence levels between genders converge, and women’s confidence surpasses men’s after age 60.
Hiring Bias: Unconscious bias plays a significant role in hiring decisions. For example, if 96 out of 100 people in similar roles are men, decision-makers may perceive it as safer to promote a man over a woman, even if both candidates are equally qualified.
We see a similar trend in women’s perceptions of their overall leadership effectiveness, with their rating rising as they get older. This data is from a study that includes 40,184 men and 22,600 women and measures the overall effectiveness rating of males and females on 49 unique behaviors that predict a leaders effectiveness. Again, women at younger ages rate themselves significantly lower than men but their ratings climb — and eventually supersede those of men — as they get older. This data continues to reinforce our observations from our previous research — women make highly competent leaders, according to those who work most closely with them — and what’s holding them back is not lack of capability but a dearth of opportunity. When given those opportunities, women are just as likely to succeed in higher level positions as men.
BS AT WORK:
How Benevolent Sexism Undermines Women and Justifies Backlash - Harvard Business School, 2013, Peter Glick
Benevolent sexism (BS) plays a critical yet often underestimated role in maintaining gender inequality. Unlike hostile sexism, which overtly punishes women who challenge traditional gender roles, BS operates more subtly. It idealizes women as pure, nurturing, and in need of male protection. This creates a carrot-and-stick dynamic where women are rewarded for conforming to stereotypes but penalized for defying them. Together, benevolent and hostile sexism perpetuate systems of male dominance by punishing nonconformity and reinforcing traditional roles. For example, studies have shown that BS is highly correlated with hostile sexism, as they both serve complementary functions in maintaining gender hierarchies. Research by Glick and Fiske (1996) highlights that BS often goes unchallenged because it appears chivalrous or flattering, making it difficult for women to recognize or confront its discriminatory nature.
The impact of BS is far-reaching and detrimental. In workplaces, BS manifests in ways that limit women’s opportunities for advancement. For instance, studies indicate that women exposed to BS are more likely to receive positive feedback but fewer challenging assignments, which inhibits skill development and career progression. Additionally, BS affects women’s performance and self-perception. Research shows that women exposed to BS often experience increased self-doubt, which impairs their performance in tasks requiring confidence. In education and career contexts, BS discourages women from pursuing ambitious goals by replacing aspirations with a reliance on traditional roles as caregivers or homemakers. A 2010 study by Barreto and Ellemers found that women who encountered BS were less likely to identify such treatment as discriminatory, which reduced their motivation to resist systemic inequality. By fostering dependence and limiting ambition, BS undermines gender equality in ways that are harder to detect than overt hostility. Raising awareness and implementing organizational strategies to combat both forms of sexism are essential for promoting equity.
Peter Glick and Susan T. Fiske are prominent social psychologists who are widely recognized for their research on ambivalent sexism, which includes the concepts of hostile sexism and benevolent sexism.
Peter Glick:
A professor of psychology, Glick has focused much of his research on prejudice and stereotyping, particularly in the context of gender.
He collaborated with Susan Fiske to develop the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), a psychological tool to measure both hostile and benevolent sexism.
His work often explores how sexism operates in subtle yet pervasive ways, contributing to systemic gender inequality.
Susan T. Fiske:
Fiske is a professor at Princeton University and a leading figure in social cognition research.
Her work encompasses topics such as stereotyping, prejudice, and interpersonal relationships.
She has published extensively on the interplay between power, prejudice, and discrimination, contributing foundational insights into the psychology of bias.
Together, Glick and Fiske introduced the concept of ambivalent sexism in a 1996 paper titled “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism”, published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. This seminal work has since become a cornerstone of gender studies and social psychology, offering a framework to understand how benevolent attitudes can subtly reinforce gender inequality.
Ana Barreto:
Ana Barreto is a social psychologist whose research focuses on identity, stereotyping, and discrimination. She has explored topics such as how individuals cope with prejudice and how social identity influences behavior. Barreto’s work often examines the interplay between power dynamics, discrimination, and psychological well-being. She has collaborated with Naomi Ellemers on research addressing workplace discrimination, gender inequality, and the effects of subtle forms of bias.
Naomi Ellemers:
Naomi Ellemers is a distinguished professor of social psychology, with expertise in organizational behavior, group processes, and diversity. Her research spans topics such as:
Social identity and group dynamics.
Workplace diversity and inclusion.
How individuals experience and respond to bias and inequality.
Ellemers is particularly known for investigating how people respond to discrimination and how organizations can foster equality. She has received numerous awards for her contributions to social psychology and is considered a leading authority in the field.
Collaborative Work:
Barreto and Ellemers have jointly published influential research on the subtle and overt manifestations of discrimination, particularly in organizational and social contexts. Their studies often focus on the psychological effects of bias, the strategies individuals use to cope with discrimination, and how these dynamics can be addressed to promote equity and inclusion.
Anita Hill on Sexual Harassment - NPR; 2021
Key Points from the Article:
• Anita Hill’s Testimony Against Clarence Thomas (1991):
• Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment during his time as chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
• Her testimony was unprecedented in a Supreme Court nominee hearing, held by a Senate committee chaired by Joe Biden.
• Despite her allegations, Thomas was confirmed by a 52-48 Senate vote, leaving Hill to face public condemnation and death threats.
• Hill’s Motivation and Impact:
• Hill believed it was her ethical responsibility to share critical information about Thomas.
• Her testimony opened a national conversation about sexual harassment and inspired others to share their experiences.
• Parallels to Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation (2018):
• Hill’s experience resurfaced during Kavanaugh’s confirmation, where Christine Blasey Ford made similar allegations of sexual misconduct.
• Both cases highlighted flaws in the Supreme Court nomination process and lack of proper investigations into allegations.
• Hill’s Life Since 1991:
• She shifted her career focus to broader issues of gender violence, recognizing the interconnectedness of harassment, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault.
• Hill has written a book, Believing, discussing gender-based violence and suggesting reforms for the nomination process.
• Systemic Problems in Nomination Processes:
• Hill criticized the lack of clear guidelines for reporting misconduct by nominees, calling the current vetting process inadequate.
• Neither she nor Ford had clear avenues to raise their complaints, underscoring systemic failures.
• Threats and Hostility Faced:
• Hill endured bomb threats, vulgar mail, and public hostility post-testimony.
• She noted that today’s social media amplifies threats against whistleblowers.
• Joe Biden’s Apology:
• Biden apologized for her treatment during the 1991 hearings but failed to acknowledge the broader harm caused to women nationwide.
• Hill felt his apology was limited to personal regret rather than addressing systemic issues.
• Addressing Workplace Harassment and Assault:
• Hill emphasized the pervasive nature of sexual harassment across government and private institutions.
• She called for systemic change and leadership to address the issue at its root.
• Faith in the Judicial System:
• Hill maintains faith in the courts but stresses the importance of improving the vetting process to ensure credible, ethical justices are appointed.
