Suchergebnisse

In a culture that's driven by social media, women are using this online space to come together, share their stories and encourage a new generation to recognise the problems that women face. This book is a call to arms in a new wave of feminism, and it proves sexism is endemic - socially, politically and economically - but women won't stand for it

AbstractAnalyzing unique, nationally representative data, I show that two faces of sexism—hostile and benevolent—operate in systematically different ways to shape Americans' electoral decisions and evaluations of their leaders. In the 2016 presidential election, both fostered support for Donald Trump and opposition to Hillary Clinton. They operated differently at the congressional level, however. In analyses of actual congressional candidates and in a conjoint experiment, the impact of hostile sexism is moderated by candidate sex: those high in hostile sexism oppose (and those low in hostile sexism favor) female candidates. Benevolent sexism is moderated by candidates' symbolically gendered leadership styles: those high in benevolent sexism oppose candidates with feminine styles and favor candidates with masculine styles, regardless of whether the candidate is male or female. I conclude with discussion of the implications of the two faces of sexism for the role of gender and power in American elections.

No one who cares about equal opportunity can derive much comfort from the present occupational distribution of working women. In the various industrial societies of the West, women comprise between one quarter and one-half of the national labor force. However, they tend to clustered in employment sectors – especially clerical, sales, and service J occupations – which rank relatively low in remuneration, status, autonomy, and other perquisites. Meanwhile, the more prestigious and rewarding managerial and professional positions, as well as the major categories of blue-collar labor, remain largely a male preserve. In the same societies the average income earned by full-time female workers is one-half to two- J thirds that of their male counterparts. Although this disparity owes much to i other factors, including lower pay for work similar or even identical to that r standardly done by men, much of it can be explained only by the concentration of working women in traditional female job ghettos.

Two main approaches concerning the relation between sexism and psychiatry have been developed in the feminist literature. One, now less fashionable, follows Phyllis Chesler's influential Women and Madness (1972) in emphasising the centrality of sexism within psychiatry and its constructs of mental illness. The other, emphasising the sexism within Society as a whole and the way it generates mental suffering and disturbance, suggests the potential of psychiatry and the mental health professions to ameliorate that suffering. This paper looks once more at the second approach to see whether it should now be abandoned. It analyses the role gender plays within psychiatry, distinguishing three levels of definition and identification - official definition, the delineation of `normal cases', and the identification of individual cases. It points to the way in which issues of gender impinge on all three levels and argues that there is little evidence of the increasing marginalisation of the dimension of gender within psychiatry.

Race plays a significant role in shaping women of color's experience with sexism. This title takes a look at the history of sexism that women of color have endured, the current issues surrounding this topic, and steps people can take to eliminate sexist practices