Allies against Sexism: The Role of Men in Confronting Sexism

Abstract

Consider recent actions by two politicians. The first campaigned for women to have equal representation in the government and pursued equal pay for women in the workplace. The second made campaign promises to reduce the gender gap in pay and used the first bill signing as a new leader to enact a law making it easier for women to recoup wages lost as a result of sexism. These politicians share something in common; they are both men (the first is French President Francois Hollande and the second is U.S. President Barack Obama). In advocating on behalf of women, Hollande and Obama each took on the role of an ally, or someone who aligns with a disadvantaged group by recognizing the need for further progress in the fight for equal rights. Allies work alongside a disadvantaged group in the search for justice. In this article, we explore the role of men who become allies by confronting sexism. We examine factors that lead men to take on the ally role and explore the effectiveness of men in this role. We also offer suggestions

Confronting Sexism as Persuasion: Effects of a Confrontation's Recipient, Source, Message, and Context

“…Although targets (e.g., Blacks, women) and nontargets (e.g., Whites, men) both decrease stereotyping through confrontation (Czopp et al., ), previous research is mixed on the effect of target or nontarget confrontation on other outcomes (Blanchard et al., ; Czopp & Monteith, ). Our finding that a man's (vs. woman's) confrontation was more surprising replicates Czopp and Monteith's () finding that nontarget (vs. target) confronting is unexpected (Drury & Kaiser, ). However, Study 2 found no difference in perceptions of sexism based on whether the confronter was a target (i.e., woman) or nontarget (i.e., man) of sexism.…”

“…Study 2 further revealed that public confrontations increased sexism perceptions of gender bias. Applied to workplace settings, this pattern of results suggests that publically confronting everyday prejudice, including gender bias (De Lemus, Navarro, Megías, Velásquez, & Ryan, ) or sexual harassment (Buchanan & Settles, ; Drury & Kaiser, ), causes people to see these actions as more sexist. Thus, organizations should lead by example and encourage people to publically confront.…”

“…Additionally, target confronters are less persuasive than nontarget confronters (Rasinski & Czopp, ). These finding can be explained in terms of the confrontation recipient's and/or observer's perceptions of the self‐interest—or lack thereof—motivating confrontation (Drury & Kaiser, ). Taking an unexpected position that violates self‐interest may cause surprise (Czopp et al., ).…”

Workplace Discrimination against Sexual Minorities: Subtle and not‐so‐subtle

“…Ragins et al (2007) found that the best predictor of fear of disclosure (the fear of fully disclosing one's sexual orientation at work) was the perceived presence of supportive supervisors and co-workers. Research on confronting prejudice suggests that the most effective confronter is a member of the nontarget group (i.e., a European-American confronting an example of prejudice against an African-American; Gulker, Mark, & Monteith, 2013;Rasinski, & Czopp, 2010;Stangor, Sechrist, & Jost, 2001; a male confronting sexism, Drury & Kaiser, 2014;Gervais & Hillard, 2014). Brooks and Edwards (2009) discussed the importance of having an ally-a person from the majority group who advocates support and equal rights for members of minority groups.…”

Do You Say Something When It's Your Boss? The Role of Perpetrator Power in Prejudice Confrontation

“…These findings also held true when the remark was racist rather than sexist and regardless of individual differences in participant prejudice. Moreover, patterns of results were consistent even when removing individuals who did not share group membership with the target of the prejudicial remark, which is important given increasing evidence for the effectiveness of ally confronters (e.g., Drury & Kaiser, ) and given that discriminatory remarks are often made in the absence of people directly targeted by the remarks. Together, the findings highlight the robust impact of perpetrator power on confrontation intentions.…”