Minding the Gap Between Feminist Identity and Attitudes: The Behavioral and Ideological Divide Between Feminists and Non‐Labelers

Abstract

Sexism persists in the contemporary United States and has deleterious effects on women and girls. This suggests that feminism--as a movement, a set of attitudes, or an explicit identity--is still warranted. Although feminist attitudes may buffer against the effects of sexism, notably in health domains, we suggest that there may be an ideological divide between those who hold such attitudes while rejecting the identity (non-labelers) and self-identified feminists. Non-labelers engage in less collective action on behalf of women's rights. On the basis of survey responses of 276 college students, non-labelers appear to be self-interested. We argue that disentangling attitudes from identity is crucial for sharpening predictions about the relation of feminism to other psychological and behavioral variables, and for engaging in broader social change. Furthermore, understanding whether non-labelers' rejection of feminist identity is rooted in fear of stigma associated with the label, neoliberal beliefs, or other explanations is important to those organizing for reform.

Not All Nonlabelers Are Created Equal

“…Such faith in the existence of meritocracy resonates with the central tenets of the American Dream: that through hard work and ability, anyone-regardless of group membership-can succeed and that individuals have only themselves-and possibly bad luck-to blame for failure Plaut, Markus, & Lachman, 2002;Zucker & Bay-Cheng, 2010). Adherence to these principles has significant ramifications for social and political views.…”

“…Some scholars regard nonlabelers as ''fence-sitters'' (Smith, 1999) or ''weak feminists'' (Duncan, 2010), implying they occupy a midpoint between nonfeminists and feminists. However, emerging empirical evidence indicates a competing view: Rather than being quasi-feminist, nonlabeling women are ideologically distinct from their feminist peers and fall outside the nonfeminist-feminist continuum (e.g., Bulbeck, 2001;Rich, 2005;Zucker & Bay-Cheng, 2010). In previous work (Zucker & Bay-Cheng, 2010), we reviewed existing theoretical and empirical examinations of feminist identification and feminist attitudes.…”

“…However, emerging empirical evidence indicates a competing view: Rather than being quasi-feminist, nonlabeling women are ideologically distinct from their feminist peers and fall outside the nonfeminist-feminist continuum (e.g., Bulbeck, 2001;Rich, 2005;Zucker & Bay-Cheng, 2010). In previous work (Zucker & Bay-Cheng, 2010), we reviewed existing theoretical and empirical examinations of feminist identification and feminist attitudes. This synthesis led us to a preliminary test of an idea we proposed based on findings regarding the association between sexual attitudes and feminist identification (Bay-Cheng & Zucker, 2007): that a neoliberal ideological orientation that assumes the existence of a functioning meritocracy, not a feminist one, underlies nonlabelers' support for ostensibly feminist positions (e.g., a belief in gender equality).…”

“…Considerable attention has been dedicated to understanding nonlabelers' rejection of feminist identity (e.g., Yoder et al, 2011;Zucker & Bay-Cheng, 2010). Some scholars regard nonlabelers as ''fence-sitters'' (Smith, 1999) or ''weak feminists'' (Duncan, 2010), implying they occupy a midpoint between nonfeminists and feminists.…”

“…In total, women might be categorized in three ways in relation to feminist identity development: feminists (i.e., women who label themselves as feminists and hold feminist attitudes), nonlabelers (i.e., women who do not label themselves as feminists yet hold feminist attitudes), and nonfeminists (i.e., women who neither label themselves nor hold feminist attitudes; Ramsey et al, 2007;Zucker, 2004;Zucker & Bay-Cheng, 2010). Throughout the present article, we will use these labels to differentiate among these groups of women.…”