Antipathy alone cannot explain how sexism operates

Evidence

Although the Allportian approach to sexism has been fruitful, the limitations of treating sexism purely as antipathy toward women are twofold. First, it does not take into account the fact that people often hold positive attitudes toward and beliefs about women. Second, it does not explain why women themselves are prone to maintaining the status quo. … Thus, implicit measures provide unique insights into the psychology of prejudice beyond the direct, explicit measures that were the tools of social psychology when The Nature of Prejudice was written. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 758 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Allport’s (1954/1979) discussion focused on ethnic and religious prejudice, primarily racism and anti-Semitism. Antipathy toward a group as a whole (and its individual members) thus formed the core of Allport’s definition of prejudice. In contrast, he ignored (with one brief exception, pp. 33–4) a prejudice that targets about half the population, namely sexism, whose nature poses a critical challenge to defining prejudice as an antipathy. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 176 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Prejudice theory that equates bias with antipathy cannot explain benevolent sexism.; Sexism’s positive sentiment toward women breaks antipathy-based definitions.; Sexism challenges defining prejudice as antipathy — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 758 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• Sexism challenges defining prejudice as antipathy #corroborates (0.95) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 758
• Allport’s antipathy-based definition cannot capture sexism, which lacks pure hostility #expands (0.92) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 176