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.
Key Findings from the Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women - Patricia Tjaden, Nancy Thoennes; November 2000 - U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs - National Institute of Justice
Key Issues
Despite a surge in research over the past 20 years, significant gaps remain in understanding violence against women.
Lack of reliable data on minority women’s experiences with violence.
Limited research on connections between childhood victimization and later victimization.
Insufficient data on injury rates and medical service usage among victims.
The National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey
Conducted from November 1995 to May 1996 by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Included both women and men to provide comparative data on victimization experiences.
Survey questions covered:
Physical assault by adult caretakers (as children) and by any attacker (as adults).
Forcible rape and stalking at any point in life.
Consequences of victimization, including injuries and medical service use.
Key Findings
Widespread Physical Assault:
51.9% of women and 66.4% of men reported experiencing physical assault in their lifetime.
Annually: 1.9 million women and 3.2 million men are physically assaulted in the U.S.
Early-Age Rape Victimization:
17.6% of women reported being raped (attempted or completed) at some point.
54% of female rape victims were under 18 when first raped.
21.6% were younger than 12, and 32.4% were 12–17 years old.
Stalking Prevalence:
8.1% of women and 2.2% of men had been stalked.
Annually: 1 million women and 371,000 men are stalked in the U.S.
Higher Victimization Among American Indian/Alaska Natives:
Women in this group were significantly more likely to be raped and stalked.
Men were more likely than Asian men to report physical assault.
Racial/Ethnic Differences in Rape Prevalence:
Hispanic women were less likely than non-Hispanic women to report being raped.
Childhood Victimization Predicts Adult Victimization:
Women raped as minors were twice as likely to be raped as adults.
Women assaulted as children were twice as likely to be physically assaulted as adults.
Women stalked before 18 were seven times more likely to be stalked as adults.
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is More Common for Women:
22.1% of women and 7.4% of men were assaulted by a spouse, partner, or date.
Annually: 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are assaulted by intimate partners.
Women Face Higher Injury Risks:
31.5% of female rape victims vs. 16.1% of male rape victims were injured.
39% of female physical assault victims vs. 24.8% of male victims were injured.
Risk of injury was higher when the attacker was a current/former intimate partner.
Medical Service Usage:
35.6% of injured female rape victims and 30.2% of injured female assault victims received medical treatment.
Policy Implications
Findings confirm violence against women is a major public health and criminal justice issue.
Since most victimizations are committed by intimate partners, prevention strategies should focus on protecting women from current/former partners.
The high rates of early-age victimization suggest a need for early intervention programs.
More research is needed to understand:
Racial and ethnic differences in victimization.
Long-term consequences of childhood victimization.
Social and environmental factors contributing to violence against women.
How Sexual Harassment Laws Have Evolved For 40 Years - The Sanders Firm; Eric Sanders; July 2024
Key Points on Workplace Sexual Harassment Laws and Developments
Pre-1960s: Lack of Protections
• Workplace sexual harassment was widespread but largely ignored.
• No legal frameworks existed to protect victims.
1960s: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, and EEOC
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
• Prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
• Became the foundation for workplace sexual harassment laws, though it did not initially mention harassment explicitly.
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (1965):
• A federal agency created to enforce Title VII and handle discrimination complaints.
• Began recognizing sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination in the 1970s.
1970s–1980s: Landmark Cases
• Barnes v. Costle (1977):
• Paulette Barnes was fired from the EPA for rejecting her supervisor’s advances.
• D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that firing someone for refusing sexual favors is sex discrimination under Title VII.
• Williams v. Saxbe (1976):
• Diane Williams sued the DOJ, claiming sexual harassment by a supervisor.
• First court ruling recognizing quid pro quo sexual harassment (job benefits tied to sexual favors) as illegal under Title VII.
• Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986):
• Mechelle Vinson alleged repeated sexual harassment by her supervisor.
• The Supreme Court ruled that a hostile work environment due to harassment violates Title VII.
• Employers could be held liable for supervisor harassment, even if unaware.
1990s: Expanded Protections
• Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993):
• Teresa Harris sued for repeated inappropriate comments and a hostile work environment.
• Supreme Court ruled harassment doesn’t need to cause psychological harm—if a reasonable person finds it abusive, it qualifies.
• Civil Rights Act of 1991:
• Strengthened Title VII by allowing victims to seek compensatory and punitive damages for harassment.
2000s: Policy Development
• Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998):
• A lifeguard, Beth Ann Faragher, sued the city over sexual harassment by supervisors.
• Supreme Court ruled that employers are liable for supervisor harassment unless they actively prevent and address it.
• Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998):
• Kimberly Ellerth sued her employer after enduring sexual advances from a supervisor despite no direct job retaliation.
• Court ruled that companies can be held responsible for harassment even if no tangible job loss occurs.
• EEOC Policies:
• Issued guidelines reinforcing employer responsibility to prevent and address workplace harassment.
2017–Present: #MeToo Movement and Legislative Responses
• High-profile cases led to cultural and policy shifts.
• States like California and New York passed stricter anti-harassment laws, including mandatory training and extended statute limitations for filing claims.
Ongoing Challenges
• Intersectionality: Harassment often intersects with race, gender identity, and sexual orientation.
• Remote Work: Digital communication has created new avenues for harassment.
• Global Variations: Legal protections differ widely across countries.
Conclusion
Workplace sexual harassment laws have evolved significantly, but challenges persist. Continued policy development and cultural shifts are necessary to ensure safe and equitable workplaces.
Social Progress for Women Over the Years - Chat GPT
(Main point of this is to look at how we used to socialize men and women and how that changed, leading to some of those occupation gaps narrowing, and women having more presence in historically male workspaces)
My original prompt to ChatGPT:
Help me with this. I just watched a video that makes a few claims. The first one is that women rely on men in indirect ways, where they used to rely on men in direct ways (in terms of not being able to have bank accounts, jobs, etc.) but the guy in the video is saying that now women rely on men because a higher percentage of transportation jobs that deliver groceries, power grid jobs, military defense, etc. are occupied by men, which those stats are true (please give me stats on that and if those percentages are slowly being shifted toward having more women in these jobs, and maybe if automation plays a role) but however true that is I think it is part due to socialization (just like old husband and wife roles were) and part due to real biological differences (where men and women will take on different societal roles if left to their own devices). But because ramming through a social agenda got rid of some of those direct social roles where women relied on men, I think we are still witnessing social advancement where some of those hard working jobs could be occupied by women. Now of course some women don’t want to do those jobs but some men don’t either. So I’m trying to cut through that guys slant because he frames everything as “women want to be safe and not do unsafe jobs because they’re brains are made that way” and what truth to there is this? Maybe there is some but there are some of examples of women doing trade jobs and truck driving and things like that and isn’t it likely that those numbers go up as we continue to advance society and progressive ideas more? Is there data to back up this claim?
He says that men do all the hard work and if men stopped working right now we’d all die and if women stopped working right now we’d be fine but aren’t there industries like health care that make that claim untrue? It’s such an exaggeration.
He also says men make all the food and build all of the buildings. Give me some numbers and trends here as well. Again I’m sure men dominate those spaces but I think I disagree on why that is. And why it might not be that way forever based on directions we’re going in.
Isn’t it still important to teach both men and women that you can grow up to be whatever you want? Hasn’t feminism helped in this area?
I know automation is an X factor here as well.
He also criticizes government laws that have helped equality and claims that it’s just women who want to feel equal who want those things but don’t want to do equal work. Can you give me some examples of equality laws for women? And how they make women more equal and why they’re good?
This also explores the wage gap issue. Which all ties in to what I’m saying here as well. If women and men naturally do different jobs if all else is equal, then im to a wage gap being somewhat fair. But it’s the “all else being equal” I’m not sure we have achieved yet, and I’m wondering if there is evidence of how socialization and even the patriarchy still has affects on those other factors like media, attitudes, etc.
He also says it’s hard for women to find desirable men when laws are equal and it’s easier for them to find desirable men when laws are unequal I guess? What kind of incel horseshit is that? It sounds like he’s mad that women have more freedom than before.
He also seems to claim that men pay more in taxes than women. Let’s look at the USA. Can you give me numbers there? How much do men pay in taxes vs women?
And then he says that women cannot do what men do, like on a physical level. Is there any kind of numbers you can give me here? Don’t men use machines a lot in construction and building? How much is the average man lifting in these building jobs? Women have the ability to do those jobs even if they aren’t occupying them as much right? And isn’t part of the reason they’re occupied by men due to socialization as well?
And then he says women are taking money from the men through the government. Is this like alimony or affirmative action? Is there data there? Are men losing money because women have equal rights (which I suppose is supposed to happen if women are equal but is it because of unfair government interference against our natural state?). Like what the fuck is this?
And then he ends with when men are fed up with women who want to be a “girl boss” they won’t want to defend women in times of war and then women will be screwed. What do you make of this claim?
Responses:
Analyzing the historical and current participation of women across various sectors reveals significant trends and the impact of legislative measures on gender equality.
- Women’s Participation in Transportation and Storage
Historical data on women’s involvement in the transportation and storage sectors is limited. However, it’s well-documented that these industries have been traditionally male-dominated. In recent decades, efforts have been made to encourage women’s participation, but as of now, women still represent less than 20% of the global workforce in these sectors. Specific data from 1900 and 1950 is scarce, making precise comparisons challenging.
In 2020, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported women were 24.1% of workers in the broad “Transportation and Utilities” category , indicating progress but persistent underrepresentation. Within transportation sub-sectors, women’s representation varies widely – for example, about 12.4% of workers in trucking are women, compared to 31.6% in air transportation, and only 7.4% in rail . These numbers highlight that women’s participation has improved since the mid-century but remains uneven across roles.
Specific job roles in this sector have seen slow but steady increases in female representation:
• Taxi and Chauffeur Drivers: Historically, female cab drivers were extremely rare (often just a few percent or less of drivers in the 1960s–70s). Over time, more women entered this occupation, especially with the rise of ride-share driving in recent years. As of 2022, about 17.6% of U.S. taxi and ride-share drivers were women  – a notable increase from past decades, though men still dominate the field. (By comparison, around 12.6% of taxi drivers were women in 2020 , indicating a rise in just a couple of years.)
• Transportation Supervisors: These are first-line supervisors who oversee drivers and material-moving workers in trucking, transit, warehousing, etc. Women are gaining ground in these leadership roles but remain a minority. Approximately 27% of transportation and material-moving supervisors are female , meaning roughly one in four supervisors is a woman. This is up from earlier decades when such managerial positions in transportation were overwhelmingly held by men.
• Security Screeners: In certain transportation-related jobs, women are much better represented. For instance, airport security screeners (such as TSA officers) today are nearly half female. About 45% of U.S. airport security screeners are women , reflecting conscious hiring practices to include women. (Notably, when the TSA was formed in the early 2000s, it had goals to recruit equal numbers of male and female screeners , partly to ensure female travelers could be screened by female staff. This has made security screening one of the more gender-balanced roles in transportation.)
• Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers: These are the logisticians and managers who run freight depots, warehouses, and transit systems. Women remain underrepresented in these high-level roles. Only about 21.8% of transportation, storage, and distribution managers are women . While this share is slowly growing as more women advance in logistics and supply chain careers, men still occupy the large majority of leadership positions in the sector. Efforts are underway to mentor and promote more women into management, recognizing that companies benefit from diverse leadership perspectives
- Women’s Representation in the Military
Women’s roles in the U.S. military have evolved significantly over the past century. During World War II, women served in auxiliary roles, but it wasn’t until the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 that they were granted permanent status in the armed forces, albeit with restrictions. In 1970, women constituted approximately 1.4% of the U.S. military. By 2020, this number had risen to about 16%, reflecting broader societal shifts towards gender inclusion.
- Rescinded Department of Defense Policies
In 2013, the U.S. Department of Defense rescinded the Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule, which had previously barred women from serving in combat roles. This policy change opened over 230,000 positions, including those in the Marine Corps infantry, to women.
- Women in the Marine Corps Infantry
Following the policy change, women began integrating into combat roles. As of 2020, women made up approximately 9% of the Marine Corps, with a smaller percentage serving in infantry positions. Assessments have shown that women in these roles meet the established standards, demonstrating capability and resilience.
- Women in Construction and Manufacturing
Women’s participation in construction and manufacturing has historically been low. In 1950, women represented about 1% of the construction workforce. By 2020, this had increased to approximately 10%. Similarly, in manufacturing, women’s representation grew from around 20% in 1950 to 30% in 2020. Initiatives such as trade apprenticeships and industry partnerships have been implemented to encourage more women to enter these fields. Notable figures, like Emily Roebling, who oversaw the completion of the Brooklyn Bridge, have paved the way for future generations.
- Women in Healthcare
Women play a pivotal role in the healthcare sector. As of 2020, they accounted for approximately 76% of all healthcare workers in the U.S. Notably, women represented:
• Registered Nurses: 89%
• Pharmacists: 61%
• Physicians and Surgeons: 36%
Their contributions are essential across various specialties and roles within the healthcare system.
- Women in Food Production and Manufacturing
In the mid-20th century, women’s participation in food production was predominantly in roles such as packaging and quality control. Over the past five decades, their involvement has expanded into areas like food science, agricultural management, and culinary arts. As of 2020, women constituted approximately 24% of the food manufacturing workforce, up from 12% in 1970.
- Educational Initiatives Encouraging Women in Male-Dominated Fields
Numerous programs aim to inspire women to pursue careers in traditionally male-dominated industries:
• STEM Education Programs: Initiatives like Girls Who Code encourage young women to explore technology and engineering fields.
• Trade Apprenticeships: Organizations offer apprenticeships targeting women in trades such as welding and electrical work.
A trade apprenticeship is a structured program combining on-the-job training with classroom instruction, allowing individuals to gain hands-on experience in specific trades while earning a wage. These programs typically last from one to six years, depending on the trade and skill level required.
Several organizations and unions offer trade apprenticeships, including:
• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW): Offers apprenticeships in electrical trades.
• United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry (UA): Provides programs in plumbing, pipefitting, and HVAC.
(It should be noted here that “brotherhood” and “journeymen” being in the titles of these programs both indicate a male-slant in some way or another and were probably catered more toward men, even though they’re probably for both sexes now).
• Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC): Offers apprenticeships in various construction trades.
• National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC): Provides resources and support for women entering construction trades.
To encourage women’s entry into transportation and other traditionally male trades, targeted apprenticeship programs and initiatives have been developed. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) program provides grants and technical assistance to help employers and unions recruit and train more women in apprenticeship programs . WANTO and similar programs support women entering fields like trucking, mechanics, and transit operations by creating inclusive training pipelines. In the transit industry, women-focused apprenticeships are helping women train as electricians, technicians, and operators. A 2023 panel on “Women in Frontline Transit Apprenticeships” highlighted that women have long been underrepresented in skilled transit jobs, but the number of women in registered apprenticeships is increasing, leading more women to rewarding careers with family-sustaining wages in public transportation . Other organizations, such as WTS International and the Women in Trucking Association, provide networking, mentorship, and scholarship programs to support women’s advancement in transportation careers. Research by the Pathways to Equity initiative notes that women currently hold only about 9% of middle-skill jobs in transportation, distribution, and logistics (roles like dispatchers, truck drivers, and aircraft technicians) . To close this gap, they recommend expanding access for women via apprenticeships and supportive work cultures, noting that inclusive apprenticeship programs in transportation are critical for meeting the industry’s skilled workforce needs.
Several local initiatives aim to encourage girls to explore careers in traditionally male-dominated fields:
• “Girls Build” (Oregon): Empowers girls aged 8-14 to explore construction through hands-on workshops and camps.
• “Rosie’s Girls” (Vermont): Offers programs that introduce middle school girls to trades and technical fields.
• “Techbridge Girls” (California): Provides after-school programs focusing on STEM and technical skills for girls in underserved communities.
These programs aim to break down gender stereotypes and provide young women with the skills and confidence to pursue careers in various trades.
- Impact of the Equal Pay Act
Enacted in 1963, the Equal Pay Act aimed to abolish wage disparity based on sex. Its most significant contribution was making it illegal to pay men and women differently for the same work, laying the foundation for ongoing efforts toward pay equity.
Before the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, substantial evidence indicated that women were consistently paid less than men for similar work:
• Early 1900s: Women in factories earned less than $8 a week, while men received higher wages for comparable roles. 
• 1937: The average annual salary for women was $525, compared to $1,027 for men. 
• 1940s: Despite taking on roles traditionally held by men during World War II, women often received lower wages than their male counterparts.
These disparities highlighted the systemic undervaluation of women’s work and underscored the need for legislative intervention. 
Legislative Milestones Advancing Women’s Rights
Over the past century, several key legislative actions have advanced women’s rights:
Equal Pay Act of 1963: Made it illegal to pay men and women different wages for equal work requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility. 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964): Prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title IX of the Education Amendments (1972): Prohibited sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978): Prohibited discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.
Women’s Business Ownership Act (1988): Eliminated state laws requiring male co-signers for business loans, empowering women entrepreneurs.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009): Extended the statute of limitations for filing equal-pay lawsuits regarding pay discrimination. 
These laws collectively aimed to dismantle systemic barriers and promote gender equality in various sectors.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Explained
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 addressed wage discrimination by resetting the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit with each discriminatory paycheck received. This act was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., which had limited the timeframe for filing such claims. The act ensures that employees can challenge ongoing pay discrimination, even if it began years earlier.
Factors Contributing to Low Salaries for Women in 1937
In 1937, several systemic factors contributed to lower salaries for women:
• Occupational Segregation: Women were often confined to “pink-collar” jobs, such as clerical or domestic roles, which were undervalued and underpaid.
• Lack of Legal Protections: Before the Equal Pay Act of 1963, there were no federal laws mandating equal pay for equal work, allowing employers to legally pay women less than men for similar roles.
• Cultural Norms: Prevailing societal beliefs held that men were the primary breadwinners, justifying higher wages for them compared to women.
Wage Disparities During World War II
During World War II, as men enlisted, women filled roles traditionally held by men, such as factory workers and assembly line operators. Despite their contributions, women were often paid less than their male counterparts. For example, women working in manufacturing plants earned approximately 50-60% of men’s wages for the same work. This disparity highlighted the need for legislative action, eventually leading to the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
Historical Legal Barriers Affecting Women
Women have faced numerous legal and systemic barriers:
• Credit and Banking: Until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, women often required a male co-signer to obtain credit cards or loans.
• Property Ownership: Historically, married women faced restrictions on owning property independently. While laws varied by state, significant progress was made with the Married Women’s Property Acts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
• Employment Discrimination: Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which included Title VII prohibiting employment discrimination based on sex, women could legally be denied employment or promotions solely based on their gender.
Wage Discrimination Before the Equal Pay Act of 1963
Before the Equal Pay Act of 1963, paying women lower wages than men for the same work was both legal and common in the United States. Numerous studies and anecdotal reports in the mid-20th century documented large gender pay disparities. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy noted an “unconscionable practice” in American workplaces: “the average woman worker earns only 60% of the average wage for men.”  In other words, women working full-time earned roughly 59–60 cents for every dollar earned by men. This statistic, cited by Kennedy upon signing the Equal Pay Act, underscores the extent of wage discrimination at the time. The wage gap was not merely due to different jobs or hours – even when women performed identical jobs as men, they were often paid less purely because of their gender.
Documented examples of wage discrimination: Prior to 1963, it was routine for employers to have separate pay scales or job titles for men and women in the same roles. For instance, factories and offices would sometimes label a position “Men’s Clerk” vs. “Women’s Clerk” and pay the women in the role a lower rate. Want ads in newspapers were divided into “Help Wanted—Male” and “Help Wanted—Female,” with the female-designated jobs typically offering lower salaries, even if the work was comparable. A common scenario was a man and a woman hired to do the same typing or assembly work, but the man would be paid more while the woman might be given a lower “women’s wage.” This systemic underpayment was so widespread that women’s groups and labor organizations amassed evidence of numerous cases. For example, reports presented to lawmakers noted cases like female factory workers being paid $0.50 an hour for a job where male workers earned $1.00 an hour (a 50% pay gap for the same task). In professional fields, women often hit a “salary ceiling” – a female high school teacher or office manager could be paid significantly less than a male doing the same job in the next office. One striking data point from the early 1960s showed that women college graduates, on average, earned less than men who only had a high school diploma (illustrating that even higher education did not close the wage gap for women at that time).
This pattern of pay inequality sparked legal and political action. Even before the federal Equal Pay Act, some states had begun passing their own equal pay laws in the 1940s and 1950s, under pressure from women’s organizations and unions. By 1963, 22 states had some form of equal pay law, but 28 states had no such protections  – and it was in those states (mostly in the South and Midwest) that women’s wage disparities were greatest. Economists analyzing the period found that after the federal Equal Pay Act took effect, women’s wages rose faster in the states without prior equal pay laws, closing about a 9% larger gap compared to states that already had laws . This suggests that before 1963, women in many states had virtually no recourse and were consistently paid much less than men, especially in jobs where employers could get away with bigger gaps.
Notable cases and factors leading to the Equal Pay Act: A few high-profile instances of wage discrimination drew public attention and built momentum for the law. One example often cited in the lead-up to 1963 was the U.S. Civil Service and federal contractors – during World War II and after, women working for the government or war industries discovered they were paid a fraction of men’s wages, leading to demands for fairness. The federal government itself took a step in 1962 by instituting equal pay for women in the federal workforce, setting an example. Additionally, the President’s Commission on the Status of Women (1961–1963), chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, investigated women’s economic status and reported stark evidence of wage discrimination. Their findings (released in 1963) gave authoritative data to Congress, reinforcing the need for a federal law. While there weren’t many court cases (since there was no federal law yet under which to sue), there were plenty of documented complaints to state labor boards and the Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labor. These included, for instance, female retail workers testifying that they were paid less than the men they trained, and women in manufacturing showing company pay stubs proving they earned significantly lower rates than men on the same production line. Such evidence and advocacy from groups like the National Women’s Party and labor unions built the case that legislation was needed.
Ultimately, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was enacted to outlaw sex-based wage discrimination, making it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women performing substantially equal work in the same establishment. The law (an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act) came just in time to address the egregious pay gaps of the era. Its immediate impact was significant: studies show that women’s wages began to rise more rapidly in the mid-1960s, especially in occupations and regions that had previously lacked protections. One analysis finds that in jobs that had larger preexisting gender pay gaps, women’s wages grew about 11% after the Equal Pay Act, closing a substantial portion of the gap . These gains indicate that the law helped correct some of the worst wage discrimination cases, lifting women’s earnings without detriment to men’s wages .
It’s worth noting that even with the Equal Pay Act, wage disparities did not disappear overnight – enforcement was a challenge and loopholes (like differing job titles or “merit” pay systems) often had to be addressed through later lawsuits and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But the documented injustices prior to 1963, combined with advocacy and data (such as President Kennedy’s 60% statistic), were instrumental in pushing this landmark law that began leveling the playing field for working women.
- Social and Systemic Barriers for Women
Despite progress, women continue to face challenges:
Leadership Representation: As of 2020, women held approximately 7.4% of CEO positions in Fortune 500 companies.
Trends in Female Representation Among Writers and Authors
As of recent data, women constitute approximately 55.5% of writers and authors. Historical data indicates a significant increase over the past decades:
• 1970s: Approximately 35% women
• 1990s: Approximately 45% women
This upward trend reflects broader societal shifts towards gender equality and increased opportunities for women in literary professions.
Female Role Models in STEM: NCWIT, O’Brien et al., and Dasgupta Studies
Providing female role models in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) has been shown to positively influence girls’ and women’s interest, confidence, and sense of belonging in those fields. Several organizations and researchers have explored how and why female role models make a difference. The National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT), for example, emphasizes the importance of role models while also noting that role models are just one part of the success equation in attracting more women to technology  . NCWIT’s research team and resources often cite studies by social scientists like L. T. O’Brien and Nilanjana Dasgupta, which delve into the nuanced effects of role models on female students. The overall finding is that seeing women succeed in STEM can inspire girls and young women, but the effectiveness of role-model interventions depends on how relatable and attainable those role models appear to the learners.
O’Brien et al. study: Psychologist Lora O’Brien and colleagues conducted a notable study on girls’ “sense of fit” in science when exposed to female scientist role models. In a 2017 field experiment, O’Brien et al. tested ways to increase the impact of role models on middle school girls . One key result was that a brief, surface-level introduction to a female scientist was not enough to make the girls see her as a role model. When girls participated in science activities and met female scientists, they did not immediately identify these women as role models—at least not until a more personal connection was formed  . In other words, just knowing of a successful woman in science didn’t automatically change girls’ attitudes. However, when the girls were encouraged to engage more deeply – for instance, by finding a “favorite” scientist or learning personal stories – they began to identify with the role models. The research suggests that relatability and personal bonding are crucial. Girls started to think “If she can do it, so can I” only after they saw similarities or formed a connection  . Without that, there was a risk that the role model might seem too distant or “exceptional” to emulate. The implication of O’Brien et al.’s work is that STEM outreach programs should create interactions where girls can truly get to know female STEM professionals (through Q&A sessions, mentorship, hands-on projects together) rather than just hearing a speech about achievements. When done right, exposure to female role models improved girls’ sense of belonging in science class and their identification with science careers .
Furthermore, the study and related research found that the type of role model portrayal matters. If a role model is presented as almost superhumanly exceptional or is very different from the students, the effect can backfire. For example, other researchers (Betz & Sekaquaptewa, 2012) showed that middle-school girls actually felt less confident about math after meeting a highly glamorous, ultra-feminine woman in STEM, because the girls perceived her success as unattainable and too far removed from their own identity  . This aligns with O’Brien et al.’s conclusions: role models need to be credible and attainable in the eyes of the girls. A relatable role model – someone “cool” or similar in interests to the students – can boost self-efficacy , whereas an unrelatable role model might be dismissed as an outlier (“she’s nothing like me, I could never do what she does”). Thus, the O’Brien study underscores the value of personalized and relatable role model interactions to truly encourage girls in STEM.
Dasgupta’s research: Dr. Nilanjana Dasgupta has extensively studied how female role models and peers influence women’s success in STEM, coining the idea of a “stereotype inoculation” model. Dasgupta famously described female peers and mentors as a “social vaccine” that inoculates women against the negative effects of stereotypes  . By this she means that when a young woman entering a male-dominated STEM environment has contact with other successful women in that field, it can protect her self-confidence and belonging in the face of stereotypes that “women don’t do well in STEM.” One of Dasgupta’s well-known studies (published in PNAS in 2015) was a year-long experiment with female engineering undergraduates . In the study, incoming female engineering students were randomly paired with either a female mentor, a male mentor, or no mentor. The outcomes were striking: those who had female mentors showed significantly higher motivation and self-assurance in their engineering programs, and lower anxiety, compared to those who had male or no mentors . These women also were less likely to drop out of their engineering major and more enthusiastic about pursuing engineering careers after graduation . In contrast, women with male mentors or no mentors were more prone to feel isolated or unsure in the engineering culture. This study provides concrete evidence that female mentorship can improve retention of women in STEM education. The female mentors acted as a buffer against the biases and self-doubts that often accumulate in a male-dominated field. As Dasgupta put it, having a female role model “builds resilience, and increases [women’s] sense of belonging” in STEM settings  .
Additionally, Dasgupta’s earlier work (2000s) showed that even indirect exposure to female exemplars can help. For instance, one experiment demonstrated that reading brief biographies or stories of successful female scientists had a positive effect on college women’s perceptions. Such exposure served as a mini “social vaccine,” countering stereotypes about women’s abilities . Over time, repeated exposure to female role models – whether professors, peers, or even prominent women in science covered in the media – accumulates to strengthen women’s identification with STEM fields. Dasgupta often emphasizes that role models are especially critical during key “transition periods” (such as the first year of college or the first year on a job) when individuals are most vulnerable to feeling like they don’t belong . Having ingroup role models (i.e. successful people who share your gender or background) during those times can determine whether a young woman sticks with a STEM major or leaves it. In summary, Dasgupta’s research implies that organizations and schools should actively provide female mentors, teachers, and peer support networks for women in STEM as a strategy to inoculate them against stereotype threat and build a strong, persistent STEM identity.
NCWIT’s perspective and implications: The National Center for Women & IT synthesizes findings like O’Brien’s and Dasgupta’s to inform practice. They note that role models alone aren’t a silver bullet – you also need to actively recruit girls into programs, build their confidence with skill-building, cultivate a sense of belonging (e.g. inclusive classroom environments), and help them develop a STEM identity  . Role models tie into several of these elements: seeing a possible self in a successful woman helps girls envision an identity in tech , and interacting with female professionals can bolster interest and confidence when done right. NCWIT often advises educators to showcase diverse women in computing (through classroom posters, guest speakers, videos, etc.) in a way that emphasizes relatability  . For example, they suggest featuring role models who share some interests or background with the girls, rather than only spotlighting “brilliant prodigies.” The research findings imply that organizations should design role model programs thoughtfully: pairing students with mentors (as Dasgupta did) or engaging them in workshops led by female STEM professionals over some time, so that personal rapport and identification can form. When girls and women have these positive role-model experiences, it can lead to higher self-efficacy (“Yes, I do belong here in STEM”), greater persistence in STEM courses, and ultimately a narrowing of the gender gap in those fields . In short, female role models are crucial for breaking stereotypes, but they must be presented in an accessible way. Combined with encouragement, hands-on experience, and an inclusive culture, role models help normalize the idea of women in STEM for the next generation.
Role Models Influencing Children’s Career Aspirations: Harvard Kennedy School Research
It’s not only teens and adults who are affected by role models – children’s early career aspirations can be powerfully shaped by the examples of adults they see. A notable study affiliated with researchers at the Harvard Kennedy School demonstrated how female leadership role models raised girls’ ambitions and achievements. This research, often cited as a policy experiment in India, was conducted by Lori Beaman, Esther Duflo, Rohini Pande, and Petia Topalova (Pande being a Harvard Kennedy School professor)  . The study took advantage of a natural experiment in India where a 1993 law mandated that a certain number of village council leader positions (heads of local government, called Pradhans) be reserved for women. Because the villages that had female leaders were essentially randomly assigned (through quotas), the researchers could observe the impact of exposure to a female leader on children’s aspirations.
The findings, published in Science in 2012, were striking. In villages that had been led by female leaders for multiple election cycles, the gender gap in what children aspired to become narrowed dramatically compared to villages that never had a female leader. Specifically, after a decade of exposure to women leaders, the gender gap in adolescent girls’ career aspirations was 32% smaller in those villages (and the gap in parents’ aspirations for their children shrank by 25%)  . In fact, girls in villages with women role models in leadership raised their ambitions to match those of boys – they were more likely to imagine careers beyond traditional female roles. Alongside this, the researchers observed a real effect on behavior: the girls had higher educational attainment. The study reports that the gender gap in education (years of schooling completed) was completely closed in villages with a female leader, and girls were performing as well in school as boys . Moreover, girls in those villages spent less time on household chores (a traditional expectation for girls), indicating a shift in how they and their families valued girls’ time and future. Importantly, there was no change in local labor market conditions or job availability for women during that period – the gains occurred without new job opportunities for women opening up  . This meant the improvements in aspirations and education were attributable not to economic changes but to the psychological and social impact of having a woman in a high-status role model position.
The researchers concluded that exposure to female role models can causally change gender norms and individual ambitions. In this case, seeing a woman capably lead a village (a role traditionally held by men) sent a message to both parents and daughters that “women can achieve and deserve the same opportunities as men.” Girls who saw women leaders were more likely to say they wanted careers like becoming a doctor, teacher, or police officer – careers that they might not have considered possible for women otherwise. Parents in those villages also began to hold higher expectations for their daughters. Essentially, the role model effect was confirmed: female leadership raised girls’ aspirations and even their actual educational outcomes, by providing a powerful example to emulate .
This Harvard Kennedy School-linked research has broad implications. It suggests that policy interventions to increase female representation in visible positions of power (whether in politics, business, or other fields) can have long-term social benefits by inspiring children. It’s not just about the immediate decisions a leader makes; it’s also about the symbolic effect on the next generation. Other studies have echoed this idea – for instance, separate research in economics has found that after countries or regions get a female president or prime minister, girls’ career aspirations tend to rise. But the India village council study is a particularly clean example showing that when girls see someone who looks like them in a role they never saw a woman in before, it expands their sense of what’s possible. This is a reminder that achieving gender diversity in leadership and various professions can pay dividends beyond just fairness – it can literally change the mindset of children about their future. As the study in India showed, role models can help break down internalized barriers, leading to more equal aspirations between genders and encouraging girls to invest in their education to reach those aspirations  .
Media Representation and Career Choices: Influence of On-Screen Role Models
Beyond real-life figures, media representations – the characters and professionals we see on TV, in movies, and in news – play a significant role in shaping career aspirations and societal perceptions of who belongs in which jobs. Academic researchers and career counselors have long observed what communication theorist George Gerbner called the “cultivation effect,” where heavy media exposure gradually influences people’s views of reality . In terms of occupations, if children and adults repeatedly see certain jobs portrayed by certain types of people (for example, nurses are women on TV, engineers are men on TV), they begin to subconsciously associate those roles with those genders. Media can thus either reinforce stereotypes or help break them, depending on the portrayal.
Studies on children’s career aspirations have directly linked media influence as a major factor. A large survey in the UK, “Drawing the Future,” asked 7- to 11-year-old children about the jobs they want and what influenced those choices. The report found that 45% of children who didn’t personally know someone in a job said that TV, film, and radio were the biggest factors shaping their aspiration . In fact, the patterns of jobs children chose mirrored what they frequently saw in media and gender stereotypes: for example, many boys aspired to be sportsmen or police (roles often glorified by male characters on TV), while girls frequently mentioned teachers or nurses (roles where women are commonly depicted) . Alarmingly, the study noted that children’s dream jobs often had little connection to real workforce needs – instead, they were following the visibility of jobs in media and their immediate environment . This highlights that media exposure from a young age contributes to a skewed understanding of what careers are “popular” or appropriate for whom. It also suggests that broadening the representation of careers in media (showing diverse professions, with diverse people in them) could broaden children’s horizons.
Concrete examples of what’s been dubbed the “role model effect” of media abound. One famous case is “The Scully Effect,” named after Dana Scully, the fictional FBI scientist from The X-Files. In the 1990s, Scully was one of the only female STEM characters on primetime TV – a medical doctor and scientist solving mysteries. Decades later, a study by the Geena Davis Institute surveyed women in STEM and found that 63% of women who were familiar with Agent Scully said she influenced their confidence to pursue a STEM career  . In addition, 91% of these women viewed Scully as a role model . This data validates what fans had claimed anecdotally: seeing a woman portrayed as a smart, capable scientist on a popular show inspired many girls and young women to believe “I can do that too.” The Scully Effect study illustrates the power of counter-stereotypical media representations. When a TV show broke the mold by having a female scientist hero, it not only challenged audience perceptions but also tangibly affected career choices – numerous women credit that character for motivating them to go into science  .
Another example is how medical and forensic TV dramas have influenced education trends. During the 2000s, the immense popularity of shows like CSI, which glamourized forensic science, coincided with a spike in students pursuing forensic science and criminal justice degrees. Universities observed enrollment surges in forensic science programs – a phenomenon educators call the “CSI effect.” Studies found a positive correlation between the number of forensic TV shows and the number of students enrolling in forensic science courses . Essentially, as young people watched characters solve crimes with high-tech lab work, many became fascinated with forensic careers that they previously knew little about. While CSI also gave the public unrealistic expectations of crime-solving (another aspect of the “CSI effect”), from a career standpoint it undeniably put the field of forensic science on the map for a generation of students. Similarly, shows like Grey’s Anatomy and ER – with their charismatic doctor characters – have been credited by some medical students for sparking their interest in medicine. Even children’s cartoons can have an influence: the cartoon Doc McStuffins, featuring a young Black girl who “diagnoses” and fixes toys as a doctor, has been praised by real-life female physicians for inspiring little girls (especially girls of color) to imagine themselves as doctors  . After that show aired, many pediatricians reported young patients proudly proclaiming they wanted to be doctors, and Black women doctors formed groups to encourage and mentor girls, buoyed by the positive representation that Doc McStuffins provided .
Academic research reinforces that media both reflects and shapes societal perceptions of professions. One content analysis looked at how different jobs are portrayed across thousands of movies and TV shows from the 1950s to 2017. It found that media portrayals of professions have changed over time – for instance, depictions of STEM jobs (like scientists, engineers, tech experts) have increased, and portrayals of manual labor jobs have decreased . Importantly, the study noted that media often over-represents certain glamorous careers (like lawyers, detectives, doctors) and under-represents others, which can skew public perception of how common or desirable those jobs are  . The sentiment towards professions in media also matters: if all business executives shown in films are greedy villains, people might develop a negative perception of that career; conversely, if computer programmers on TV are always depicted as quirky geniuses saving the day, that creates a specific stereotype that might attract or deter different viewers. Cultivation theory research by Signorielli and others found that heavy TV viewers often internalize the occupational stereotypes they see. For example, one study showed that high school students who watched a lot of television were more likely to want high-prestige, exciting careers – the kind often seen on TV – and to have distorted ideas of those jobs’ day-to-day realities . Children as young as 6 or 7 have been shown to learn about unfamiliar jobs from television and incorporate those portrayals into their “role schema” of what that job is and who does it . This means that if a child has never met an engineer but sees an engineer character on a show, that depiction might form the child’s baseline image of engineers.
Why media representation matters: When media provides diverse and non-stereotypical examples, it can expand viewers’ notions of who can work in a given field. For instance, the more we see female scientists, male nurses, or other counter-stereotypical professionals on screen, the more those combinations start to seem normal in real life. There’s evidence that simply increasing the visibility of women in STEM in entertainment can boost girls’ self-concept in STEM. The Scully Effect is one example, and NCWIT also notes an experimental finding where something as simple as changing the decor of a computer science classroom (from “geeky male-oriented” to neutral) eliminated the gender gap in interest in a coding class . This is analogous to media: change the “decor” of our media landscape by showing, say, a balanced mix of male and female tech experts in a TV series, and you might draw more girls into tech (without turning boys away) . On the flip side, when media continuously omits certain groups from certain roles, it sends a subtle but powerful message about who doesn’t belong. For decades, the absence of women in lead scientist or adventurer roles possibly signaled to girls that those paths were not for them. Now, with more deliberate inclusivity in media casting and storytelling, we’re seeing course-corrections: e.g., movies like Hidden Figures (which showcased Black women mathematicians at NASA) have inspired increased interest in STEM and even sparked real-world initiatives to provide role models and math programs for girls of color.
In summary, academic studies and real-world cases agree that media representation can shape career aspirations and societal beliefs. By providing role models on screen, media can ignite interest in fields that viewers might never have considered, and can also help break down prejudices about who can succeed in those fields. Whether it’s a fictional FBI agent inspiring a generation of female scientists  , or a data-driven finding that nearly half of kids’ career ideas come from TV and movies , the conclusion is that what we see in media matters. It’s not just “entertainment” – for many, it becomes an early blueprint of reality. This is why experts call for intentional media portrayals: showing diverse genders, ethnicities, and backgrounds in a wide range of careers. By doing so, media can encourage all people to pursue their interests freely, unbound by outdated stereotypes, and ultimately help society tap into a broader talent pool in every profession.
Fewer women than men fall victim to violence - Statistics/Netherlands; 2019
In 2017, 1.7 percent of women aged 15 or older indicated that they had fallen victim to one or multiple violent crimes, versus 2.5 percent of men. Women are twice as likely as men to fall victim to sexual violence. This is evident from the Safety Monitor, a survey conducted in connection with the 10th edition of the Emancipation Monitor, a joint publication by Statistics Netherlands (CBS) and the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP).Of all types of violent crimes, intimidation is the most common among both women and men. The majority of victims are male: 1.6 percent of men against 1.1 percent of women. In addition, more men (0.9 percent) than women (0.5 percent) fall victim to assault. The opposite holds true for sexual offences: more women than men report that they have been victimised. Relative to 2012, the share of male victims of one or multiple violent crimes has dropped, while the share of female victims has remained at the same level.
Victims of violence mostly young
The rates of violent crime victimisation are higher among young people between the ages of 15 and 25 years than among other age groups. The victimisation rate decreases with age. In the age categories 15 to 24 years and 25 to 34 years, more men are subjected to violence than women. The same holds true for 55 to 64-year-olds and 65 to 74-year-olds.
More female victims know the perpetrator
Half of all violent crimes against women are committed by someone they know, versus 38 percent of violent crimes against men. As for women, the familiar perpetrator is - more often than among men - their partner or ex-partner. For both male and female victims, the familiar perpetrator in most violent crime cases is a neighbour.
Most violent crime takes place in the street
Approximately half of all violent crimes committed against men are street crimes; among female crime victims, 43 percent of crimes are street crimes. Women report having been assaulted at home in 21 percent of the cases , versus 11 percent of cases against men. However, violent crimes against men are twice as likely to take place in a hospitality establishment nearly twice as often.
Male violence against women is about so much more than toxic masculinity - Sonia Sodha; The Guardian; 2022
The murder of Sarah Everard by a police officer shocked the UK and sparked widespread calls to confront male violence, yet a year later, little has changed. Since her death, at least 125 women in the UK have been killed by men, many in public spaces like Sabina Nessa, and even more in domestic settings. While men commit the vast majority of violent crimes—including over four-fifths of all violent and sexual offenses—women are especially vulnerable to severe domestic abuse. Though men are also victims of violence, the extremes of male violence set them apart, particularly when shaped by environmental and social factors.
While biological explanations like testosterone have been studied, socialization and harmful gender stereotypes appear to play a larger role in male aggression. Boys are often taught toughness and dominance, while girls are expected to be gentle, reinforcing damaging patterns. School-based and peer-led programs that challenge these norms show promise, and similar approaches have shaped perpetrator programs like the Duluth model, which views male violence as a product of patriarchy. However, research shows that simply educating men about gender power dynamics is not enough to change deeply rooted violent behavior.
More effective interventions focus on targeted disruption, not moral reform. One standout is the Drive project in the UK, which works with the most dangerous domestic abusers through a mix of support (housing, mental health) and surveillance (coordination with police and social services). The results are significant: physical and sexual abuse dropped by 82% and 88% among participants. Yet, only 1% of serious domestic abusers are enrolled in such programs. In contrast to broad ideological efforts, Drive treats high-risk men as individuals whose behavior must be monitored and interrupted, not just corrected.
Additionally, structural measures like alcohol restrictions—through minimum pricing and sales limitations—have been proven to reduce violence in high-risk areas, though they are underused. The article concludes that while male violence is undeniably tied to gender, it’s also about early trauma, neglect, and systemic failures. If society is serious about reducing violence, it must invest in disruptive strategies and public health approaches as seriously as it does in counter-terrorism. It’s time to stop simply trying to “fix” dangerous men and start actively preventing harm before it happens.
