Ambivalent Sexist, do we marry one (or be one?)

In the middle of my thesis writing, I stumbled upon many many journals and researches mainly towards gender role and marriage, as I am writing about one.

When I started my Postgraduate journey, I stated my focus on gender, mainly specify in feminism. But this isn’t about me. Let’s get back to what I about to say in the beginning.

One journal in particular just popped up, titled “Ambivalent Sexism and Power-Related Gender-role Ideology in Marriage” by Zhixia Chen & Susan T. Fiske & Tiane L. Lee, about a study in China. And as I was drowning in it, it got me thinking, are these people mentioned, around me?

I rarely talk about my deeper analytical writing here, mainly because I want to write fictions here. But about this subject, I cannot shake it out of my system, I got to share this.

In this amusing Journal, they quoted Glick-Fiske’s (1966) Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). According to Glick-Fiske and their Ambivalent Sexism Theory, sexism is a multidimensional construct that encompasses two sets of sexist attitudes: hostile and benevolent. While hostile sexist (man with hostile sexism) communicates a clear antipathy towards women, benevolent sexist takes the form of seemingly positive but in fact patronizing beliefs about women.

In a simpler word, while a hostile sexist will bluntly speak his disgust towards women, a benevolent sexist stereo-typically and restricting their roles, but that are subjectively positive in feeling tone and also tend to behave typically categorized as pro-social (for example, helping women) or intimacy seeking (such as self disclosure). Its underpinnings lie in traditional stereotyping and masculine dominance (see the man as the provider and woman as his dependent).

Have you ever met a guy, who is very nice to you, being very helpful and seemingly care for you (or other women) but has a very strong belief that a woman shouldn’t be anything but nurturing, dependent, a little fragile so men can play hero and safe her? If yes then unfortunately you have met a benevolent sexist. I hope you don’t end up marrying him.

Why? Here is why.

The theory posits that the relations between the genders are characterized by the coexistence of male dominance in society and intimate interdependence, hence eliciting ambivalent sexism. On the one hand, male predominance in economic, political, and social institutions supports hostile sexism, which characterizes women as inferior and incompetent. On the other hand, sexual reproduction makes men and women intimate and highly interdependent with each other, this relationship creating benevolent sexism, which characterizes women as needing to be protected.

A marriage between a woman and an ambivalent sexist will create a wave of never ending interdependence towards both party. As a sexist, the thought of seeing women as not equal has been there since day one. But when a marriage happens, women are men to keep, to guide, to hold, to be protected. In every cost and in both towards positive (kinda) and negative attitude towards women. With benevolent sexism, there are three scale developed, protective paternalism (chivalry toward women), complementary gender differentiation (stereotype roles for women), and heterosexual intimacy (believing men and women are incomplete without each other).

As combined positive and negative feeling, ambivalent sexism might seem to induce cognitive conflict. Actually, ambivalently sexist men avoid this inconsistency (Glick et al. 1997); they split women into “good” and “bad” subgroups that embody the positive and negative aspects of sexist ambivalence.

This clear-cut distinction leads to an internally consistent attitude: Some types of women (career women, feminists, lesbians) deserve hostile treatment (Eagly and Karau 2002), whereas others (housewives and mothers) should be treated with benevolence. The subgroups of women reflect traditional power relationships and gender roles. The objects of benevolent sexism are those women who obey traditional gender roles with no threat to the power of men; the objects of hostile sexism are those whose behavior opposes traditional gender roles and threatens the dominance of a traditional patriarchy. Thus, benevolent sexism should be especially obvious in beliefs about complementary gender relationships, such as ideology about marriage.

A widely accepted definition of marital power is “the potential ability of one partner to influence the other’s behavior,” which is manifested “in the ability to make decisions affecting the life of the family” (Blood and Wolfe, 1960). But let me make this simple to understand. In most basic tenet of the theory is that each spouse is dependent based on how much that spouse contribute a valuable resources to the marriage. As the family breadwinner, the husband usually possesses relatively higher socioeconomic resources, and correspondingly usually acts as the important family decision maker.

I cannot speak for every country, but in Indonesia, whereas the fully patriarchal society embedded strongly and have not been fully influenced by egalitarian (as you may call it liberal) norms, marriages will be almost uniformly husband-dominated, regardless of either the husband’s or the wife’s resources.

And if I may added, although it isn’t written strictly by the theory, religion takes a huge power to molding an ambivalent sexism seemingly common. In my beloved country stated above, the majority of the society are religious. In ways, they believe in one of five legal and acknowledged religions. But let’s talk about religion and beliefs in another day. But it is one of many factors, as we want or refuse to believe.

Moving on to the subject, Fisman et al. 2006; Gutierres et al. 1999; Sprecher et al. 1994 stated that every women and men crave different preferences on choosing their partner. Some evolutionary psychologists have argued that men have developed a preference for partner who show signs of fertility (such as youth, health, and sexual maturity) and that women have developed a preference for partner who control resources (Buss and Schmitt 1993; Cunningham 1986; Kenrick and Trost 1989).

Thus, those who adopt this perspective usually comes from a culturally relative socialization pressure that men’s greater preference for a partner who is attractive and young and women’s greater preference for a partner who can provide material wealth can be explained by traditional sex-role socialization and the poorer economic opportunities for women. Or is it?

Overall, whether due to any socio-cultural perspective we peek in this phenomenon, the society pushes men to possess some stereotypic socially dominant provider-related resources such as high status, high ability, intelligence, economic success, etc. Accordingly, women should be stereo-typically attractive, submissive, and obedient.

Traditionally, husbands have exercised greater control in marriage, and this power is mainly linked with the income and status that men have provided as the breadwinner. In the modern world, one’s career is the main source of socioeconomic status. Beyond the power imbalance created by partner selection criteria, different attitudes toward spouses’ career development may also enhance this imbalance. These differences arise when sexists accept the norm that the wife should support the husband’s job even at the cost of her own job, while the husband is not required to support the wife’s job to the same extent.

The main mechanism of ambivalent sexism in marriage includes two aspects, first is enacting male dominance at the beginning of a marriage by partner selection criteria and maintaining male dominance during the marriage by power-related gender-role norms.

These norms are easily shown as time goes by in a marriage. Even the most gentleman sexist who down on his knee, or the one who writes you beautiful letters those previous years will not willingly do house works that stereo-typically, only women should do that, like doing the dishes, feed your baby, or cooking. He mainly fix the roof, susssh the cockroach and everything else that in his head what he believe to be protecting the house in a masculine way.

The significant hostile sexist gender difference is understandable, due to men and women’s different self-role identification. Hostile sexist mainly reflects men’s prejudice toward women, and women are typically less sexist toward themselves. Due to the superficial benefits of benevolent sexist for women, many people (especially women in more sexist or less-developed countries) usually think benevolent sexist is a kind of protection and respect attitude toward women. So women more easily accept benevolent sexist than hostile sexist. And due to the superficial benefits of some traditional marriage norms to women, they also more easily accept “Provider ability”.

In conclusion, as confusing or new as it is for us, I hope this short writing can help you open up your new perspective. I firmly believe in equality. But even in this modern world, there are many instances that shows me a lot of people (both men and sadly women) think otherwise.

On a lighter example (not a lighter problem tho), one of my friend was heavily verbally abused by her husband, for going back to work after resigning due to her pregnancy. In his defense, she should be home, waiting for him, making sure the house is perfect, nurturing their baby, cooking for him. In my observation, his provider role as a benevolent sexist is disturbed. His masculinity is poked and he felt his power over her is threaten. When I ask, her reasoning is actually very simple, “I feel stupid. I don’t socialize enough. I do not develop myself. I am not my best self. And although I love my kid, I am not happy. Should he is raised better by a happy mother?”

And she thinks if she takes the job, it is mainly to improve herself, in hoping to her being the best version. Even though I think she has every right to do whatever she wants, be whoever she wants in life, finally it ends with only husband and wife in a family. I am just a viewer. I cannot play any role in their interdependence in a marriage form.

If I can conclude this long writing based on that one amusing journal I found, an ambivalent sexist is both hostile and benevolent, and they act differently, based on whose women in which subgroups they create, and they firmly believe. Sadly, living in one of the most patriarchal country, we taught even since I was a little girl firm difference of gender role in school:

“Daddy goes to work. Mommy cooks for family. Little Adam goes to school.”

“On Saturday, Mommy cooks for family. Daddy watches TV. Adam plays with his new toys from his daddy.”

“It’s almost holiday. The family is visiting Grandma and Grandpa at the Village. Daddy changes the car’s tire. Mommy prepares food for the trip. Adam accompany daddy at the garage.”

And it’s written on textbooks after textbooks. We grew up thinking certain gender role for any of us. So I apologize for younger me, sorry you had to feel slightly scared and embarrassed for raising your hand when the teacher asked, “Who wants to be a Pilot when you grow up?” and looked at you, asking, “Sasi, don’t you want to be a Ballerina like other girls?”

Who wants to be Ballerina? I can’t even dance. And, everyone should be allowed to be a Pilot.

Oh, but on a happier note for my friend’s story I told you, she still took the job. You bad-ass girl, I hope life gives you beautiful things in its limited existence.