Two forms of sexism
Glick and Fiske (1996) argued that the traditional view of prejudice as simple antipathy cannot fully explain sexism. Men and women are interdependent, so the dominant group also shows affection and protection toward the other. They therefore distinguished hostile sexism, which sees women as seeking power or manipulating men, from benevolent sexism, which sees women as fragile, in need of protection and as completing men. They built the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) to measure both, and the two scores were positively correlated, so the same people often hold both. This echoes the velvet-glove paternalism described by Jackman (1994).
Cross-cultural evidence and complementary justification
Glick and colleagues (2000) surveyed more than 15,000 people in 19 countries and found both forms in nearly every culture; countries with higher average sexism scored lower on gender equality indices. Strikingly, in more sexist countries women also endorsed benevolent sexism more. Glick and Fiske (2001) called this an ambivalent alliance: benevolent sexism rewards women who follow traditional roles while hostile sexism punishes those who deviate, so together they protect inequality. Glick and Fiske (1999) showed a parallel structure in attitudes toward men.
The hidden harms of benevolent sexism
Dardenne and colleagues (2007) found that women who heard benevolent remarks such as offers of help because they are women performed worse on a task than women who heard hostile remarks. Benevolent statements are hard to recognize as discrimination and so easily breed self-doubt. Becker and Wright (2011) showed that exposure to benevolent sexism makes women less willing to join collective action for gender equality, whereas hostile sexism motivates it. Together with system justification theory, the theory helps explain how inequality is maintained through gentle means.
FAQ
- What is ambivalent sexism theory in simple terms?
- Sexism has a hostile face that puts women down and a benevolent face that puts women on a pedestal as weak beings needing protection, and both work together.
- Why is benevolent sexism a problem?
- It looks kind but treats women as weaker and less competent and rewards them only for following traditional roles, which keeps inequality in place.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. The founding paper and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory.
- Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. Explains how the two forms jointly justify inequality.
- Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. Cross-national evidence from 19 countries.
- Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519–536. Extends the framework to attitudes toward men.
- Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women's performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 764–779. Shows benevolent sexism impairs women's task performance.
- Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 62–77. Benevolent sexism undermines women's collective action.
- Jackman, M. R. (1994). The Velvet Glove: Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class, and Race Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press. A sociological account of paternalism as soft domination.