Sexism : perceptions and experiences of lower-level educated adolescents in the Netherlands

(1)

CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND GOVERNANCE

Sexism: Perceptions and Experiences of

Lower-Level Educated Adolescents in the Netherlands

June 30, 2017

Iris Workum

Supervisor: Dr. Polly Pallister-Wilkins Second Reader: Dr. Saskia Bonjour

Department: Political Science Word Count: 20.013

(2)

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge the supervision of Dr. Polly Pallister-Wilkins throughout my thesis. Furthermore, I would like to offer my special thanks to Mediacollege Amsterdam and Mavo aan Zee for their willingness to cooperate with me. I am particularly grateful for the support of Martin van Genderen, Rixt Feersma Hoekstra, Nicole Reijnen and Judith Dekker as their support was of great value by getting me in touch with their students. Last but not least, I want to thank all adolescents participating in this thesis, as without their insightful contribution, the existence of this thesis would not have been possible.

(4)

4

1. Introduction

“In the nineteenth century, the central moral challenge was slavery. In the twentieth century, it was the battle against totalitarianism. We believe that in this century the paramount moral

challenge will be the struggle for gender equality around the world.”

- Nicolas Kristof (Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, 2010: 7)

The words above are indicative of the struggle of the modern age: The fight against sexism. Sexism comes in many forms and intensities, and although the Netherlands is a progressive-considered society, the battle against sexism is as relevant as ever. Over the past recent years, the position of the Netherlands in the Global Gender Gap Index keeps dropping, and over the period of a decade, no improvement of gender equality has been observed (World Economic Forum, 2016). Sexism reveals itself in subtle, nonetheless harmful, forms. Illustrative is the following statement by Thierry Baudet, a member of Dutch parliament: “I know that women in general excel less in a lot of professions and are less ambitious. More often also have a greater interest in family-like issues and stuff”1 (Joop, 2017: 1). Baudet himself considered this a fact, ‘just the way it is.' His inability to recognize such a statement as sexist precisely indicates the problem: The normalization of sexism.

Sexism is “prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the

basis of sex” (Oxford Dictionary). Sexism, a latent construct, reveals itself in the everyday experience. This day to day experience is coined as everyday sexism (Bates, 2016). The intangible quality of sexism makes it hard to get a grasp on it. As a contribution to the fight against sexism and as an effort to make the latent tangible, my thesis aspires to explore how everyday sexism affects a specific group in particular: lower-level educated adolescents in the Netherlands. I will later explain my choice for this group, but for now, it suffices to say that they are extra vulnerable to become subjected to sexism. I will focus on their perception and experience of everyday sexism, and from these accounts assess how and to which extent sexism affects the personal development of Dutch lower-level educated adolescents.

I will argue that the everyday experience of sexism is embedded in a larger system of

social injustice. Henceforth, I will utilize complementing theories that explain the underlying mechanisms of sexism. These theories are the ambivalent sexism theory, the social theory of

1_{Ik weet wel dat vrouwen het over het algemeen minder excelleren in een heleboel beroepen en minder}

(8)

8

gender, and theory of structural and cultural violence. First, the ambivalent sexism theory forms a huge contribution to the current understanding of sexism by differentiating hostile sexism from benevolent sexism. Sexism expresses itself in negative and seemingly positive forms, both contributing to the existence of gender inequality (Glick & Fiske, 2001). Second, the social theory of gender is applied to demonstrate the embodiment of power relations in gender. Hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity – those qualities considered manly or womanly – both guarantee the domination of men over the subordination of women

(Schippers, 2007; Connell, 1995). Last, Galtung’s (1969, 1990) reconceptualization of violence will be used to explore how benevolent and hostile sexism, and hegemonic gender are regulated through a system of structural violence and how this influences people’s potential, creating a gap between what is and what could have been. In addition, I will show how cultural violence functions to normalize and naturalize views of hegemonic gender, resulting in the legitimization of sexism as structural violence.

My thesis will be structured in the following way. The next sections argue the societal and scientific relevance of this thesis, as well as introducing the research questions and provide a brief explanation of the used methodology coupled with a summary of the main findings. Chapter 2 and 3 form the core of the aforementioned theoretical framework. Having built a theoretical foundation, I utilize Chapter 4 to discuss several forms of everyday sexism women and men experience and will demonstrate how these experiences relate to the

theoretical framework. Chapter 5 forms the end of the literature review by discussing the vulnerability of lower-level educated adolescents and how sexism influences their personal development.

Having set up an understanding of sexism using relevant theory and literature,

Chapter 6 explains the used methodology and procedures. Having clarified the

operationalization of everyday sexism, Chapter 7 presents the results combined with an analysis using the theories of ambivalent sexism, the social theory of gender, and structural and cultural violence. Finally, Chapter 8 closes the thesis by providing a conclusion, including practical implications, an outset of the limitations, and suggestions for future research.

1.1 Relevance

Feminism has been and is a groundbreaking movement to fight sexism. As a result of its fight, awareness about sexism and gender inequality slightly is rising. Over the years, women

(9)

9

forms of sexism go unnoticed. On average, women in the Netherlands still earn 18.6 percent less than men (CBS, 2014) and only hold one-third of the seats in Dutch Parliament

(Parlement en Politiek, 2017). It is harder for men to gain custody of the children, as it is traditionally believed that women are better caretakers (Bates, 2016). If we want to achieve gender equality, it is important to recognize and fight sexism in all its forms.

Lower-level educated adolescents in particular form a vulnerable group to be

subjected to sexism. Adolescence, in general, is a very turbulent stage of life, full of rapid developmental changes (Delay, Hanish, Zhary & Martin, 2017). During this time, adolescents tend to rely on stereotypes to create a sense of stability (Vanwesenbeeck, 2011).

Unsurprisingly, they use hegemonic gender constructs in the formation of their personal identity, and during adolescence, a slight gender intensification seems to occur (Steensma, Kreukels, de Vries & Cohen-Kettenis, 2013). Additionally, lower-level educated adolescents tend to show more sex-stereotypical behaviour than their higher educated peers

(Vanwesenbeeck, 2011) as well as hold stricter views of femininity and masculinity (van der Vlugt, 2017: Appendix B). Considering the relatively fast personal development combined with the display of sex-stereotypical behaviour, it is reasonable to assume that lower-level educated adolescents are extra vulnerable in relation to sexism. As they show more sex-stereotypical behaviour, it is also likelier that they will fail to recognize sexism as such, therefore increasing the likelihood of gender interfering with their personal development.

Equally important, these adolescents are the generation of the future. They will pass

on their attitudes regarding sexism to the next generation. In order to fight sexism, every opportunity to create awareness about sexism in lower-level educated adolescents should be seized. Remarkably, sexism is hardly addressed in, for example, high schools or other programs that focus on lower-level educated adolescents (van de Bongardt et al., 2013). A possible explanation is the relatively little available knowledge about the experience of sexism and its effects regarding this group. Dutch organizations have conducted some qualitative research, but always marginally touched upon sexism and hegemonic gender. Additionally, this does not provide in-depth information (de Graaf, Kruijer, van Acker & Meijer, 2012). I aim to contribute to the research field by gathering qualitative data about the perception and experience of everyday sexism by Dutch lower-level educated adolescents, which in turn can support practical initiatives tackling sexism.

(10)

10

1.2 Research Questions and Methodology

My thesis aspires to gain insight in the perception and experience of everyday sexism by lower-level educated students, as well as to assess the effect sexism has on their personal development. To do so, I address the two following main research questions:

RQ1: How do lower-level educated adolescents in the Netherlands perceive and experience everyday sexism?

RQ2: How does sexism influences the personal development of lower-level educated adolescents in the Netherlands?

It is expected that because of the normalization of sexism, perception and experience will differ. Presumably, the experience of sexism does not necessarily equal the perception of this experience as sexist. Second, as lower-level educated adolescents tend to show more sex-stereotypical behaviour, it is expected that they hold traditional beliefs about the roles of men and women matching hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity. Third, it is expected that both male and female adolescence experience sexism, but that sexism affects them in different forms. Fourth, it is expected that the experience of sexism negatively influences the personal development of lower-level educated adolescents by regulating and constraining their behaviour, actions, and thoughts.

The experience of everyday sexism was operationalized using a combination of

semi-structured and episodic interviewing. A detailed explanation of methodology will be provided in Chapter 6, but for now, it suffices to mention that this methodology was chosen as it best serves the purpose of the thesis. Within a semi-structured interview, there is a given set of questions, while on can remain flexible. The structure increases reliability, as all adolescents were exposed to the same questions. Episodic interviewing is a form of narrative interviewing, whereas the “central aim is to understand, conceptualize, and theorize everyday information needs and information seeking of individuals from their own perspective, and is most pertinent for studies which focus on disadvantaged or marginalized members of groups in society” (Bates, 2005, 17). Using elements of episodic interviewed, enabled me to stay as close as possible to the experience of everyday sexism by lower-level educated adolescents.

This thesis shows that Dutch lower-level educated adolescents held a binary

perception of men and women in line with hegemonic gender, legitimizing traditional views. Surprisingly, these traditional views co-existed with modern attitudes, resulting in conflicting perceptions of hegemonic gender. However, traditional views were predominantly present. Consequently, this generally resulted in an inability to recognize sexist experiences as

(11)

11

discriminatory. Everyday sexism affected female and male adolescents in different ways: Sexism against women manifested in beauty standards, sexual objectification and

intimidation, and feminine niceness. Sexism against men expressed in the suppression of vulnerability and violence, whereas men ought to be violent as well find themselves at the receiving end of violence. Strikingly, all adolescents desired expressing themselves without the constraints sexism puts on them but lacked the capacity to fight the system. Remarkably, they reproduced sexism through peer relationships. All in all, these results form evidence of a negative influence of sexism on the personal development of lower-level educated

(12)

(13)

13

2. What is Sexism?

Sexism is defined as “prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex” (Oxford Dictionary). Traditionally, sexism is understood as hostility towards women. Hostile sexism refers to “subjectively negative views toward women” (Greenwood & Isbell, 2002: 341). Examples of hostile sexism are expressions such as “feminists are seeking for women to have more power than men,” or “women are too easily offended” (Glick & Fiske, 2001). By developing the ambivalent sexism theory, Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (2001) demonstrated that sexism also expresses itself in a seemingly positive way. This is benevolent sexism, defined as “subjectively positive attitudes toward women that are predicated upon patriarchal condescension” (Greenwood & Isbell, 2002: 341). Although the latter form of sexism is seemingly positive, both forms are equally harmful, as they reinforce the subordinated position of women (Glick & Fiske, 2001). Whereas benevolent sexism rewards women for staying in their traditional roles, hostile sexism punishes those challenging the patriarchal structure (Glick & Fiske, 2001).

However, the definitions of sexism as formulated in the ambivalent sexism theory fail

to recognize sexism against men. In his book The Second Sexism, David Benatar (2012) points out that although women are more frequently subjected to sexism and men indeed are the dominating force, sexism against men often goes unrecognized precisely because of these factors. This “compounds the wrong and may constitute a further form of discrimination” (Benatar, 2012: 128). I argue that the ambivalent sexism theory also applies to men: They too are subjected to hostile and benevolent sexism in order to ensure domination of men over women. Hostile sexism against men expresses itself in discouraging men to show

characteristics associated with femininity. This includes signs of vulnerability, such as “hurt, sadness, fear, disappointment, insecurity, embarrassment and other such emotions” (Benatar, 2012: 83). Men doing so are told to ‘men up’ or ‘don’t act like a girl’ (Hooks, 2004).

Benevolent sexism occurs when men stick to the dominant masculine standard by showing features such as being the main financial provider, aggressiveness or strength (Urwin, 2016; Benatar, 2012). In sum, men too are subjected to hostile and benevolent forms of sexism.

Moreover, sexism is related to other –isms, such as racism, classism, ableism, and

heterosexism. This relatedness is coined as intersectionality, and “refers to the interaction between gender, race and other categories of difference in individual lives, social practices, institutional arrangements, and cultural ideologies and the outcomes of these interactions in terms of power” (Davis, 2008, 68). Even though the investigation of the intersectionality of

(14)

14

sexism goes outside the scope of this thesis, it is important to be aware that sexism is not the main oppressing force for everyone (Hooks, 1982). For example, the experience of a black middle-class transgender physically disabled man is not the same as the experience of a white high-class middle-aged bisexual woman. Due to its intersectionality, sexism affects people in different ways.

Taken together, sexism today is understood in benevolent and hostile terms, which

both contribute to the unequal distribution of power embedded in gender. Whereas women more frequently are subjected to sexism, it recently is more acknowledged that men

experience sexism too. Furthermore, sexism is intersectional, meaning that sexism is related to other forms of oppression. Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination based on one's sex come into being through maintained dominant views on men and women. These views are defined as hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity (Connell, 1995). Through hostile and benevolent sexism, these dominant views are sustained and reinforced.

Hegemonic gender prescribes how one should behave, act and think according to one's sex (Tolman, 2006), hence reducing agency and creating a gap between what is and what could be (Galtung, 1969). By constraining people’s potential, sexism is structural violence. This understanding is essential to get a full grasp on the manifestation of sexism. The following chapter focusses on sexism as social injustice. This is done by exploring sexism as a structure of power using Raewyn Connell’s (1995) social theory of gender. From here, Johan

Galtung’s (1969, 1990) notion of structural and cultural violence will be utilized to

understand through which mechanisms sexism manifests itself as social injustice, and how this becomes legitimized.

(15)

15

3. Sexism as Social Injustice

As aforementioned, sexism is a latent form of social injustice, as it sustains an unequal

distribution of power and resources. To recognize sexism as social injustice and get a grasp of its underlying mechanisms, Section 3.1 explores the relationship between gender and power using the social theory of gender by Raewyn Connell (1995). The unequal distribution of power between men and women is explained through the construction of hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity. From this understanding, Section 3.2 outlines how these power relations give way for sexism to manifest itself as violence. This will be done using Galtung’s (1969, 1990) notion of structural and cultural violence, explaining how sexism as violence influences people’s potential, and how this is legitimized. The overall understanding of sexism as social injustice lays the foundation for understanding the everyday experience of sexism by lower-level educated adolescents as part of a bigger system.

3.1 Gender and Power

Sexism is the structure ensuring the dominant position of men over the subordination of women. In her social theory of gender, Connell (1995) explains how this power structure is guaranteed through hegemonic masculinity, whereas all forms of femininity are constructed “in the context of the overall subordination of women to men” (187). Elaborating on

Connell’s social theory of gender, Karen Pyke and Denise Johnson (2003) added hegemonic femininity as the structure that regulates power hierarchy amongst women. From this stance “hegemonic masculinity is a superstructure of domination, [and] hegemonic femininity is confined to power relations among women. The two structures are interrelated with

hegemonic femininity to serve hegemonic masculinity, from which it is granted legitimacy” (Pyke & Johnson, 2003: 50-51). Their works combined constitute hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity as the normative notions of gender: It is that considered normal and natural (Butler, 2004), ensuring an unequal distribution of power (Pyke & Johnson, 2003; Connell, 1995).

Connell’s (1995) original theory fails to acknowledge both the difference and

complementary of hegemonic gender, regulated through heterosexual desire. Heterosexual desire requires the presentation of "gender as a binary relation in which the masculine term is differentiated from a feminine term" (Butler, 1990: 31). This differentiation leads to a natural attraction between masculinity and femininity and forms the basis for the difference and the

(16)

16

Hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity are constructed so the complementary serves the dominance of men over women. Using the framework of heterosexual desire, Mimi Schippers (2007) reconceptualised the social theory of gender by defining dominant views on masculinity and femininity as following:

“Hegemonic masculinity is the qualities defined as manly that establish and

legitimate a hierarchical and complementary relationship to femininity and that, by doing so, guarantee the dominant position of men over the subordination of women. […] Hegemonic femininity consists of the characteristics defined as womanly that establish and legitimate a hierarchical and complementary relationship to hegemonic masculinity and that, by doing so, guarantee the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (94).

For clarity purposes, the above definitions will be used in this thesis when referring to masculinity or femininity. It combines both the difference and complementary of hegemonic gender while explaining the power mechanisms embedded in gender.

Whereas hegemonic gender creates a binary illusion of the masculine and feminine,

binary is contingent, and “those permutations of gender which do not fit the binary are as much a part of gender as its most normative instance" (Butler, 2004: 42). The permutations Butler highlights are deviations of the norm, consequently threatening the power structure. To maintain hegemonic gender as the ideal, these permutations are stigmatized, undesirable, and subordinated to hegemonic gender to serve as the inferior other (Schippers, 2007). Connell (1995) defines this as marginalized gender. Marginalized gender is regulated through heterosexual desire to maintain the differentiation and complementary of the sexes, by

replicating “heterosexual constructs in non-heterosexual frames, [which] brings into relief the utterly constructed status of the so-called heterosexual original” (Butler,1990: 43). Thus, women enacting hegemonic masculinity are lesbians, sluts, or bitches, whereas men performing hegemonic femininity are gays, pussies or girls (Schippers, 2007). The

reconceptualization of cross-gender behaviour as compulsively feminine or masculine, and the subordination of marginalized gender ensures the superiority of hegemonic gender.

The distinction between hegemonic and marginalized gender brings up the ambivalent

sexism theory. Conformation to hegemonic gender is encouraged through benevolent sexism, while hostile sexism tries to suppress behaviours associated with marginalized gender

(Schippers, 2007; Glick & Fiske, 2001). For instance, when hegemonic femininity prescribes women to be passive sexual creatures as complementary to the masculine sexual

(17)

17

assertiveness, a woman showing sexual assertiveness is likely to be slut-shamed (Armstrong, Hamilton, Armstrong, & Seeley, 2014). If hegemonic masculinity means being tough and strong, men showing signs of vulnerability are effeminate - they are not ‘real’ men (Benatar, 2012). Combining the social theory of gender and the ambivalent sexism theory, it becomes clear how hegemonic gender is sustained to guarantee the dominant position of men over the subordination of women.

Summarized, hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity those qualities

considered manly or womanly establishing a differentiated and complementary hierarchy, ensuring the dominance of men. Marginalized gender deviates the norm, and in order to guarantee the superiority of hegemonic gender, is subordinated. The social theory of gender and the ambivalent sexism theory complement one another: While the enactment of

hegemonic gender is encouraged through benevolent sexism, forms of marginalized gender are faced with hostility. These factors combined demonstrate the embedment of power dynamics in gender. These power mechanisms regulate and constrain people. This should be understood as violence, which I will turn to now.

3.2 Sexism as Violence

Sexism forces people to behave, think, and act in ways that conform to hegemonic gender (Tolman, 2006; Butler, 2004), reducing people’s agency. Because of this quality, sexism is violence. As violence often is perceived as tangible, physical and direct, most fail to recognize sexism as such. Galtung’s (1969) notion of structural violence provides a useful alternative through which one can analyze sexism as violence. Structural violence takes indirect, less tangible forms, without a clear acting subject. Galtung (1969) states structural violence is present when

“human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental

realizations are below their potential realizations. [...] Violence is here defined as the difference between the potential and the actual, between what could have been and what is” (Galtung, 1969: 168).

In other words, when the potential is higher than the actual, and something withholds people from reaching their potential, violence is present. Sexism manifests itself as structural violence, by pressuring men and women to conform to hegemonic gender through its

benevolent and hostile forms (Confortini, 2006). Therefore, sexism creates a situation where the potential is higher than the actual. This is evident in the case where a woman is denied a

(18)

18

management function, as she is believed to possess fewer leaderships skills than her male equivalent (Bates, 2016). Another example is the lesser likelihood of a man is to obtain custody over the children after a divorce than a woman, based on the assumption that women are better caretakers (Benatar, 2012). Placing sexism in a framework of structural violence helps to make the latent tangible and to recognize sexism as violence.

Structural violence operates through cultural violence. Cultural violence is defined as "those aspects of culture, the symbolic of our existence – exemplified by religion and

ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal science – that can be used to justify or legitimize [...] structural violence (Galtung, 1990: 291). Cultural violence depicts the world as a dualistic, mutually exclusive place, a conflict between good and evil, making “structural violence [...] feel right, or at least not wrong” (Galtung, 1990: 291). Cultural violence normalizes hegemonic gender as the ‘good’ of the ‘evil’ marginalized gender (Tolman, Davis & Bowman, 2016) and naturalizes the implicit belief that gender mirrors biological sex (Butler, 1990). By doing so, cultural violence legitimizes an unequal distribution of power and resources, hence structural violence. In the words of Schippers (2007), through culture

“masculinity and femininity, as a web of symbolic meanings, provide a rational [...] available for organizing social practice that, over time as recurring patterns of practice, become, produce and legitimate male dominant interpersonal power relations, a gendered division of labor, and unequal distribution of resources and authority, global imperialism, and so on” (93).

In short, sexism is structural violence, as it negatively influences people’s potential by

pressuring men and women to conform to hegemonic gender (Connell, 1995; Galtung; 1969). Structural violence is legitimized through cultural violence, which presents hegemonic gender normal and natural (Butler, 2004; Galtung, 1990).

In conclusion, this chapter clarified sexism as social injustice and laid bare its underlying mechanisms. The social theory of gender explains how power mechanisms are embedded in hegemonic gender, guaranteeing the subordination of women to men (Connell, 1995). As sexism pressures men and women to conform to hegemonic gender, it regulates and constrains people’s behaviour, actions, and thoughts. Using Galtung’s (1969) theory, the chapter explained how these regulations and constrained should be understood as structural violence, as sexism indirectly influences people’s potential. In addition, sexism as structural violence is legitimized through cultural violence, as it depicts hegemonic gender as just and

(19)

19

right (Galtung, 1990). Having provided a theoretical foundation to understand sexism as social injustice, the following chapter will explore how sexism materializes through everyday practices and how this affects the individual.

(20)

(21)

21

4. Everyday Sexism

Hegemonic gender is “a practice of improvisation within a scene of constraint” (Butler, 2004: 1). By ‘doing’ gender, sexisms materializes in the everyday experience. Hegemonic

femininity and hegemonic masculinity prescribe different qualities for women and men to enact, resulting in a different experience of everyday sexism. Section 4.1 will outline the different ways hegemonic femininity affects women as the subordinated group, and how sexism interferes their daily lives. Section 4.2 explores the constraints hegemonic masculinity puts on men, and how they too are discriminated based on sex.

4.1 Sexism and Women

Women are subordinated to men in a system of sexism. This subordination is guaranteed through hegemonic femininity (Connell, 1995). “Femininity ideology comprises qualities girls are to enact, including being responsive and caring, avoiding conflict and anger, preserving relationships, curbing hunger, having and maintaining a body that conforms to particular standards of beauty, and not expressing sexuality" (Tolman et al., 2016: 3). In other words, hegemonic femininity prescribes, regulates and constrains a girl’s being to maintain the subordinated position of women.

Nonetheless, girls today live in a different society than their grandmothers. Due to feminism, women have gained increased social and economic freedoms (Stuart & Donaghue, 2012). Women now can embrace masculine attributes such as confidence, assertiveness, and self-determination (Budgeon, 2014), but as long as they enact this in reassuringly feminine ways (Stuart & Donaghue, 2012). The reconceptualization of hegemonic femininity that assimilates masculine attributes without upsetting hegemonic masculinity (Budgeon, 2014), happens “alongside the reinvigoration of inequalities and the emergence of new forms and modalities of power” (Gill & Scharff, 2013: 1). In a word, the new generation of women enjoys liberated social and economic freedoms while facing new forms of oppression to sustain their subordinated position.

New forms of oppression rise in various ways. First, beauty standards on women have

become more strict (Jeffrey, 2015). Women have to live up to unrealistic beauty ideals and face negative consequences for defying these standards (Forbes, Collinsworth, Jobe, Braun & Wise, 2007). Through sexism, a woman’s sense of self-worth is reduced to her physical appearance (Wolf, 1990). Second, women are sexually objectified to satisfy male sexual desire as prescribed through hegemonic masculinity (Tolman et al., 2016). "Over the course of adolescence, girls learn how to make themselves into sexual objects not only for the

(22)

22

consumption of others but also in their own eyes, that is, through an internalized male gaze" (Tolman, 2006: 76). Their own sexuality is strictly controlled to maintain the passive sexual position of women, taking away their agency and reducing women to an object of possession (Vanwesenbeeck, 2011). Third, alongside the expression of assertiveness and

self-determination, women need to live up to a high standard of niceness to maintain their

femininity (Rudman & Glick, 1999) and have to suppress all considered unladylike (Tolman, 2006). It is recognized that sexism intrudes women’s life in a broader sense than only these areas. As beauty standards (Section 4.1.1), sexual objectification (Section 4.1.2) and the standard of niceness (Section 4.1.3) are most relevant to the analysis, the thesis elaborates on these three elements to understand how everyday sexism is a manifestation of a mechanism of social injustice, which I will turn to now.

4.1.1 Beauty Standards

“An ideology that makes women feel worth less was urgently needed to counteract the way feminism had begun to make us feel worth more.”

- Naomi Wolf (The Beauty Myth, 1990: 12)

In her influential work The Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf (1990) argues that beauty has become the new form of oppression against women. Alongside social and economic gains, standards on beauty for women have become more strict (Jeffry, 2015). Women can enjoy their liberated freedom, as long as they do not do this is at the expense of their femininity (Stuart & Donaghue, 2012). Beauty has become another way of suppressing women, a new way of controlling women in a world that is supposed to be dominated by men, enforcing a system of structural violence:

“Beauty ideals and beauty practices signal women’s inferior status and identify their differences from men, shift social awareness from women’s competencies to

superficial aspects of their appearance, undermine women’s self-confidence, dissipate their emotional and economic resources, and reduce them to sex objects”(Forbes et

al., 2007: 266).

The endorsement of beauty ideals is related to the ambivalent sexism theory (Forbes

et al., 2007). Women who manage to conform to idealized beauty standard are rewarded. For example, adolescent girls perceived physical attractiveness as status-enhancing (Carey, Donaghue & Broderick, 2011). Women challenging beauty standards, face hostile sexism (Forbes et al., 2007). Fahs (2011) found that women not removing bodily hair experienced

(23)

23

personal embarrassment and shame, and faced social derogation and pressure to resume to normal practices. Beauty standards convey a message to women that their bodies in their natural form are not beautiful, affecting their sense of self-worth and confidence (Wolf, 1990). This message is constantly reinforced through benevolent and hostile sexism.

Beauty standards, as part of hegemonic femininity, objectify women, and subordinate

and differentiate them from men (Forbes et al., 2007). In order to achieve gender equality, beauty should become a choice, not a need: “Just as the beauty myth did not really care what women looked like as long as women felt ugly, we must see that it does not matter in the least what women look like as long as we feel beautiful” (Wolf, 1990, 85). This is not easily done. Stuart and Donaghue (2012) explored how women use choice to negotiate themselves as autonomous beings within a repressive system of ideological beauty. In line with the

reconceptualised views on hegemonic femininity, it was voiced women should be confident and rise above beauty ideals, but on the contrary felt a pressure to conform in order to feel beautiful, avoid negative judgments and raise one's social status. Combining the social theory of gender and the ambivalent sexism theory, beauty standards should be explained as a

manifestation of sexism, ensuring the subordination of women through hegemonic femininity, maintained through benevolent and hostile sexism.

In sum, women are allowed to feel confident and embrace the revised perception of

femininity, as long as they conform to idealistic beauty standards, a renewed apparatus to reduce women's self-worth and agency (Forbes et al., 2007). Beauty standards are just one way of objectifying women. Through sexism, women are made into sex objects to satisfy the sexual desire of men. The next section focuses on the sexual objectification of women and analyses how this form of sexism is another way of suppressing women.

4.1.2 Sexual Objectification

“To be sexually objectified means having a social meaning imposed on your being that defines you as to be sexually used. […] To use a woman sexually does not violate her nature

because it expresses her nature; it is what she is for.”

- Catharine MacKinnon (Feminism Unmodified, 1987: 138, 173) Sexual objectification is another manifestation of sexism which ensures the dominant position of men. Through sexual objectification, a social status is constructed for women which serve the sexual interest of men and represents women as "the less social equals of men" (Jütten, 2016: 39):

(24)

24

"Sexual objectification is a threat to women's autonomy because it invites men (and other women) to see them as sex objects whose worth is defined by men's sexual interests, rather than as self-presenting autonomous agents who make claims on their own behalf and have the right to be recognized as such agents” (Jütten, 2016: 38).

Men sexually objectify women for their own pleasure, but women also sexualize themselves as they learn how to turn themselves into sex objects through an internalized male gaze (Tolman, 2006: 76). The reduction to sex objects diminishes women’s agency and reinforces the power structure of women as subordinate to men (Jütten, 2016; Connell, 1995).

The sexual objectification of women legitimizes the sexual use of women (Mackinnon,

1987), influencing women's roles in private and public life (Jütten, 2016). This manifests itself in the everyday sexual harassment of women. Women are inappropriately touched at the workplace, girls as young as the age of 8 get cat-called (Bates, 2016), and rape is considered acceptable when the female victim is drunk, wears revealing clothing or does not clearly say no (Margolis, 2016). Essentially, this is legitimized structural and physical violence

legitimized through cultural violence: “The cultural representation of glamorized degradation has created a situation among the young in which boys rape girls and girls get raped as a

normal course of events” (Wolf, 1990: 55). In sum, sexual objectification normalizes sexual

intimidation and harassment.

This section demonstrated how sexual objectification is a way to guarantee the

domination over the subordination of women by diminishing their autonomy and agency by reducing them to sex objects to serve the sexual interest of men (Jütten, 2016). Furthermore, sexual objectification makes sexual harassment acceptable, which affects women’s well-being and safety. Objectification through beauty standards and sexuality do not only prescribe physical appearance, but also behaviour. It will now be explained in what ways hegemonic femininity regulates and constrains women’s behaviours and actions.

4.1.3 Feminine Niceness

Hegemonic femininity prescribes women to be communal (Rudman & Glick, 2001). Women are stereotyped as being nicer than men and held to higher standards of niceness (Eagly & Mladinic, 1994). Due to feminine niceness, women are expected to be kind, loving, warm, thoughtful, and sensitive towards other’s feelings (Prentice & Carranza, 2002; Rudman & Glick, 2001). Women internalize these expectations, as they “learn in adolescence to suppress ‘unladylike’ emotions, including anger, learn to be ‘nice and kind,' and avoid conflict to preserve relationships” (Tolman, 2006: 76). As can be seen, hegemonic femininity prescribes

(25)

25

women to behave in communal ways and to suppress behaviour that does not conform to this norm.

Although on the surface the stereotyping of women as nice, warm and loving is

seemingly positive, it is benevolent sexism embedded in hegemonic femininity to ensure the superior position of men. A system of social inequality like sexism typically is “maintained through a paternalism in which the lower status group is stereotyped as communal” (Rudman & Glick, 2001: 744). Assigning communal traits to the subordinated group guarantees the position of the dominant group, as maintenance of their position demands these traits from subordinates (Ridgeway & Erickson, 2000). Hence, prescribing feminine niceness to women through hegemonic femininity reinforces their subordinated position.

This section has reviewed three key aspects of sexism against women, namely beauty

standards, sexual objectification, and feminine niceness. These manifestations of sexism were analyzed through the theoretical framework to understand the everyday experience of sexism by women as social injustice. Equally important is the sexism against men, which I will turn to now.

4.2 Sexism and Men

The dominant position of men is guaranteed through hegemonic masculinity, prescribing qualities men are to enact, “including being assertive and exerting power over others, protecting and providing for female partners, having irrepressible sexual desire for women, and avoiding feminine behaviours or attitudes such as emotional expressions of connection with or sexual desire for men” (Tolman et al., 2016: 3). In essence, hegemonic masculinity expects men to demonstrate their manhood to themselves and others by being tough, hard and exerting power over others (Tolman, 2006). This conceptualization of what ‘real men' ought translates into various forms of sexism.

Sexism against men still often gets neglected, as women are more frequently

subjected to sexism and men hold the dominant position of power (Benatar, 2012).

Nonetheless, this position comes at a cost. First, hegemonic masculinity hinders the ability to display vulnerability, as this is considered feminine (Tolman, 2006), and the display of feminine-associated behaviour by men threatens male dominance (Forbes et al., 2007). Second, the perception of men as tough legitimizes physical violence by and against men (Benatar, 2012). Men are seen as naturally violent and aggressive (Hooks, 2004), resulting in a backlash whereas men find themselves at the receiving end of violence (Benatar, 2012). These manifestations of sexism severely affect men’s mental and physical health (Courtenay,

(26)

26

2000). Section 4.2.1 will focus on the relation between hegemonic masculinity and

vulnerability and its consequences. Section 4.2.2 will address the regulation of hegemonic masculinity through violence, resulting in the acceptance of violence enacted by men as well as against men. As vulnerability and violence are most relevant for the analysis, the thesis narrows it focus to these two elements, while recognizing that other forms of sexism against men exist. Similarly, as the section on women, the everyday experience of sexism by men will be perceived through a lens of social injustice using the established theoretical

framework.

4.2.1 Vulnerability

Patriarchal mores teach a form of emotional stoicism to men that say they are more manly if they do not feel, but if by chance they should feel and the feelings hurt, the manly response is to stuff them down, to forget about them, to hope they go away. [...] The masculine pretense

is that real men feel no pain.

- Bell Hooks (The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love, 2004: 5-6)

The words above by Bell Hooks illustrate an important manifestation of sexism against men: it forbids men to display anything considered vulnerable. Hegemonic masculinity is “the maintenance of control, and the expression of feelings and vulnerabilities is thought to undermine a sense of self-control” (Arxer, 2011: 400). To maintain a position of dominance, men are expected to be tough at all times (Hooks, 2004).

In the everyday experience, this means men need to suppress ‘weak’ emotions such as

sadness of fear, or the expression of feelings and affection to be considered ‘real men’

(Hooks, 2004). Hegemonic masculinity prescribes men to channel these painful emotions in a way that assures their manliness and dominance, such as anger and aggression (Hooks, 2004; Courtenay, 2000). Furthermore, it disallows men to emotionally connect with one another. As a consequence, they avoid opportunities to develop social skills such as being a supportive listener (Leaper & Friedman, 2007), or how to communicate their feelings to others (Benatar, 2012). For example, boys refrain from using same-sex friendships for emotional support and reinforce emotional stoicism through these relationships. They joke about fears or try to lighten problems (Oransky & Marecek, 2009). All in all, hegemonic masculinity bars men from emotionally connecting with themselves and other men.

Ensuring male dominance through hegemonic masculinity by pressuring men to

(27)

27

2000). Embracement of dominant masculinity by male adolescents, predicts depressive symptoms (Rogers, DeLay & Martin, 2016), and puts men at an increased risk of suicidal thinking (Pirkis, Spittal, Keogh, Mousaferiadis & Currier, 2016). In like manner, men embracing hegemonic masculinity are reluctant to seek psychological help (Yousaf, Popat & Hunter, 2015). This is structural violence in its purest essence: It affects men to such an extent that it can result in depressive or suicidal thought, merely to ensure a status of superiority. As hegemonic masculinity prescribes male toughness, it legitimizes men as violent. In turn, this justifies violence against men. The relation between hegemonic masculinity and violence will be discussed below.

4.2.2 Acceptance of Violence

To ensure the dominant position of men, hegemonic masculinity prescribes them to be assertive and exert power over others (Tolman et al., 2016). In combination with male toughness, this results in a perception of men as naturally violent (Hooks, 2004). To take things further, male violence is praised and encouraged through benevolent sexism. For example, men use violence to demonstrate their manhood (Hooks, 2004) or to externalize problems to conform to hegemonic masculinity (Klein, Wölfling, Beutal, Dreier & Müller, 2017). Overall, male violence as maintenance of hegemonic masculinity is naturalized through cultural violence and encouraged as it is a manifestation of benevolent sexism.

Validation of male violence results in a backlash, whereas men also find themselves at

the receiving end of violence (Benatar, 2012). For example, physical violence against men is judged as less damaging than to women, and men and women tend to be more aggressive and violent towards a man compared to a woman (Benatar, 2012). The acceptance of violence against men puts them at an increased risk of disease, injury or death (Courtenay, 2000). It is superfluous to explain how this is structural violence. As can be seen, the relation between hegemonic masculinity and violence is a two-way street. On the one hand, men are

encouraged to be violent to exert power over others but also results in greater hostility towards men. Through cultural violence, violence by and against men is normalized.

Before closing, it is interesting to note that while women have challenged hegemonic

masculinity, men have not engaged in similar efforts. “Young men […] are not similarly incited to remake their masculine identities, to become more feminine or incorporate more womanly attributes such as empathy and vulnerability because masculinity per se is not being made visible or problematized” (Budgeon, 2014: 326). The failure to recognize hegemonic masculinity as damaging to men likely contributes the negligence of sexism against men.

(28)

28

Possibly, it is more difficult for men to challenge hegemonic masculinity. Men engaging in feminine-considered behaviour are more severely judged, as this is more threatening to the power structure than women enacting masculine-attributed qualities (Leaper & Friedman, 2007). This is to say that problematizing hegemonic masculinity might be more difficult for men than it is for women.

Concluding this subsection, I have demonstrated that sexism affects the everyday

experience of men. As hegemonic masculinity prescribes men to be tough and controlling to guarantee domination over women, all considered vulnerable is discouraged, while male violence is encouraged and violence against men legitimized. These forms of sexism are considered normal, justified through cultural violence, but nonetheless have severe

consequences. Men may hold the dominant position, but sexism as structural violence affects men’s physical and mental well-being as well.

Thus far, this chapter illustrated the materialization of sexism in the everyday

experience of men and women. As a result of hegemonic femininity, women need to live up to idealistic beauty ideals, are sexually objectified, and conform to feminine niceness as it assures the subordination of women to men. Male dominance is guaranteed through hegemonic masculinity, resulting in an inability for men to display vulnerability, the

naturalization of men as violent, and legitimization of violence against men. Everyday sexism affects us all, but some are more vulnerable than others. As I now will show, adolescents in particular form a vulnerable group to become subjected to sexism.

(29)

29

5. Sexism and Adolescents

Adolescence marks a period of rapid developmental changes, and personal identity becomes an increasingly important indicator of well-being (DeLay et al., 2017). The formation of a personal identity is an individual as well as a social process, with gender playing a significant role (Steensma, Kreukels, de Vries & Cohen-Kettenis, 2013). Confirmation to hegemonic gender is one way to increase one’s sense of self-worth or acceptance (Polce-Lynch et al., 2000). Peers, who become significantly important during adolescence, intensify the pressure to conform to hegemonic gender, as conforming leads to an enhanced social status, while defying gender norms leads to stigmatization and exclusion (Oransky & Marecek, 2009; Leaper & Friedman, 2007; Adler, Kless & Adler, 1992). These points considered, adolescents form a vulnerable group with regards to sexism. It is essential for the analysis to gain a full understanding of how hegemonic gender affects adolescents’ personal development and how hegemonic gender is regulated through peer relationships. Section 5.1 will outline hegemonic gender in its relation to adolescence, whereas Section 5.2 focuses on the role of peers during adolescence in relation to hegemonic gender.

5.1 Hegemonic Gender and Adolescence

In line with gender’s interference with personal development, previous research suggests that a slight gender intensification occurs during adolescence (Steensma, Kreukels, de Vries & Cohen-Kettenis, 2013). Sex differences in masculine personalities seem to increase (Galambos, Almeida & Petersen 1990), the male and female brains increasingly diverge, leaving some of these differences only present after adolescence (Lenroot & Giedd, 2010), and adolescents who spend their youth time in gender social contexts, tend to show more gender-typical personality qualities and interests (Diamond & Butterworth, 2008). This implies that gender plays an important role during adolescence and that adolescents tend to conform to hegemonic gender. The increased impact of hegemonic gender during

adolescence results in a greater vulnerability to be subjected to sexism.

Lower-level educated students, in particular, should receive extra attention. This group tends to display more sex-stereotypical behaviour than their higher educated peers (Vanwesenbeeck, 2011), but their emotional and physical development also tends to be further than higher-level educated adolescents (van de Bongardt et al., 2013) and hold stricter views of femininity and masculinity (van der Vlugt, 2017: Appendix B). Considering the relatively fast personal development combined with the display of sex-stereotypical behaviour, it is reasonable to assume that lower-level educated adolescents are extra

(30)

30

vulnerable in relation to sexism. Besides the fact that they nonetheless will experience sexism, it is likelier that they will perceive these situations as normal, failing to recognize it as sexism. Accordingly, the likelihood that sexism interferes with their personal development increases.

However remarkably, relatively little is known about the experience of sexism and its

effects regarding this group. Dutch organizations like Rutgers or GGD have carried out qualitative research, but this only contained a small piece of information on sexism and hegemonic gender. Furthermore, it does not generate in-depth information (de Graaf et al., 2012). Before turning to a description of the methods used to gather qualitative data regarding the experience of everyday sexism by lower-level educated adolescents, the regulation of hegemonic gender through peer relations will be discussed. As peers play an important, if not the most important, role during adolescence, they have a significant influence in the enactment of hegemonic gender and the reproduction of sexism.

5.2 Hegemonic Gender, Peers and Adolescence

Relationships with peers become increasingly important during adolescence (Polce-Lynch, Myers, Kliewer & Kilmartin, 2001), and being perceived as popular by peers contributes to one’s sense of self-worth (Alder, Kless & Adler, 1992). One way to enhance popularity status is by conforming to feminine or masculine standards (Urwin, 2016). “Boys and girls arrange themselves into cliques and into strata within cliques according to their perceptions of each other as relatively popular or unpopular. The determinants of popularity vary greatly between boys and girls, with gender-appropriate models relevant to each” (Adler, Kless & Adler, 1992, 170). Adler, Kless and Adler (1992) found that important indicators of popularity for boys were athletic ability, coolness, toughness, and success in cross-sex relationships. In contrast, girls gain popularity through the socio-economic status of their parents, physical

attractiveness and social skills. These indicators of popularity coincided with the

aforementioned qualities associated with hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity, indicating that embracement of hegemonic gender results in a higher perceived status of popularity amongst peers. From this point of reference, popularity is a manifestation of benevolent sexism.

As embracement of hegemonic gender is rewarded, in like manner violation of these

hegemonic mandates is faced with hostility. Defying hegemonic gender “often result in punishment and other negative consequences that can take the form of isolation, bullying or violence” (Tolman et al., 2016: 4). For example, boys face homophobic name-calling for showing effeminate behaviour such as crying (Oransky & Marecek, 2009), whereas girls who

(31)

31

show sexual assertiveness get stigmatized through slut-shaming (Armstrong et al., 2014). Additionally, adolescents can predict the consequences for challenging gender norms and anticipate on this. Guillet, Sarrazin & Fontayne (2000) found girls to disengage in sports considered unfeminine out of the fear of being ostracized. All in all, in line with the

mechanism of hostile sexism, peers exclude and stigmatize that deviate hegemonic gender. Also, the fear of facing hostile sexism itself already can regulate or constrain adolescents’ behaviour.

In sum, hegemonic gender plays a significant role during adolescence, interfering with

personal development. Furthermore, hegemonic gender is regulated through peer

relationships, whereas popularity and social exclusion are manifestations of benevolent and hostile sexism.

So far, the thesis has argued that sexism is social injustice. Sexism expresses itself in benevolent and hostile forms. They are equally harmful, as both contribute to a sustained unequal distribution of power. As the social theory of gender explains, these power dynamics are embedded in hegemonic gender, whereas hegemonic masculinity is the qualities

considered manly ensuring the domination of men over the subordination of women. In like manner, hegemonic femininity is the traits considered womanly, again guaranteeing the dominant position of men (Connel, 1995) Using Galtung’s (1969, 1990) notions of structural and cultural violence, it has been shown that sexism is violence by reducing people’s agency and negatively influences their potential. Perceiving sexism through a lens of structural violence demonstrates how power mechanisms regulate and constrain people’s behaviour, actions, and thoughts (Tolman et al., 2006). Structural violence is legitimized through cultural violence, as symbolic practices normalize and naturalize hegemonic gender. Hence, sexism becomes the norm. These complementary theories serve as the theoretical foundation through which one can place everyday sexism into a system of social injustice. The chapters above have provided examples of how sexism materializes in daily practices and interactions, how this constrains men and women, and how this fits within the set out theoretical framework. The accounts of the everyday experienced sexism by Dutch lower-level educated adolescents will be analyzed in a similar manner. The thesis has argued that due to their vulnerable position, this group should receive extra attention. Nonetheless, research of their perceptions and experience with everyday sexism is scarce, and knowledge about the impact of sexism on Dutch lower-level educated adolescents is lacking. Therefore, my thesis addresses the

(32)

32

RQ1: How do lower-level educated adolescents in the Netherlands perceive and experience everyday sexism?

RQ2: How does everyday sexism influences the personal development of lower-level educated adolescents in the Netherlands?

The above chapters provided a theoretical framework that serves as a foundation through which one can understand the everyday experience of sexism, how sexism materializes in the everyday experience, and how this refers to the underlying mechanisms explained through the theoretical framework. The next chapter will describe the methods and procedures used to operationalize the perception and experience of everyday sexism by Dutch lower-level

(33)

33

6. Methodology

Qualitative data on the everyday experience of lower-level educated adolescents was

gathered through interviews. For details about the interviews and participating adolescents I refer to Appendix A. I will now turn to a more detailed description of the used methodology and procedures.

6.1 Participants

Participants in this study were recruited through two schools in Den Helder and Amsterdam. In total seven girls and nine boys participated in the study. Their age ranged between 14 and 22. The average age for girls was 16,3 years and for boys 18,9 years. Nine participants had a lower-level high school education (vmbo), seven a lower-level college education (mbo). Of the participants, three were brought up in a mixed family, namely Surinamese-Barbadian, Dutch-English, and Dutch-Indonesian. Two of the participants stated to be bisexual. For all the minors, parental consent was requested before participation in the study. Participation in the study led to dismissing classes, something some participants perceived as a benefit for participating.

6.2 Materials

Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews, combined with techniques used in episodic interviewing. Within a semi-structured interview, there is a given set of questions, but there is also room to address new questions as the interview develops. This enables the interviewer to guide the conversation and collect the needed information while being able to go more into detail when interesting information comes up during the interview. Episodic interviewing is a form of narrative interviewing, whereas the “central aim is to understand, conceptualize, and theorize everyday information needs and information seeking of

individuals from their own perspective, and is most pertinent for studies which focus on disadvantaged or marginalized members of groups in society” (Bates, 2005, 17). These techniques were used in order to stay as close to the personal experiences and perceptions of everyday sexism as possible. Furthermore, gender and sexism can be difficult concepts to conceptualize. By using aspects of episodic interviewing, the aim was to make

conceptualisation of these constructs easier by staying within the personal experience of the participants.

(34)

34

6.3 Procedure

All students were interviewed individually by the researcher at their schools in closed off rooms. The interview procedure went as follows. First, the purpose of the interview was made clear. It was explained that the researcher wanted to gain more insight into the perception and experience of gender constructs and that the opinion and experience of the interviewee were relevant. It was checked with all participants if they understood the purpose of the interview and the relevance of their participation. The interview consisted out of three parts. The first part focused on the perception of the interviewee’s gender. These question focused on appearance, behaviour, attitude and sexual preference ascribed to femininity or masculinity. An example of a question is “How would you describe the looks of a typical man/woman?” The second part focused on the relationship between the sexes and sexism. Participants were asked about their perception of the similarities and differences between men and women, and if they thought there were (dis)advantages of being a man or woman. For instance, they would be asked: “Do you think there are things that are easier being a man/woman?” In the third part, participants were asked to recall situations related to sexism. This included feeling the pressure to act masculine/feminine, feeling treated differently due to one’s gender, and feeling pressured to behave or act a certain way because of one’s gender. Within this part, participants were asked to be as specific and detailed as possible. An

example is “What situation can you recall where you felt you had to act like a man/woman?” At the end of the interview, participants were asked about their experience with the interview.

6.4 Description Analysis

The data was analyzed using Butler’s (2005) technique for analyzing qualitative data. The transcribed interviews were read multiple times and interpreted by the researcher. Atlas was used to code passages from the interviews, to generate an overview of the passage per theme. Then, the selected passages were analyzed and overarching themes relating to perceptions on and experiences on sexism identified. After identification of the overarching themes, all interviews were read once again to make sure relevant data was not missing in the analysis. Once the overarching themes were identified, and relevant passages were linked to the themes, the important factors per theme were discovered. This is to say that for all themes, relevant factors that came up in the passages linked to this theme were explored. The researcher is aware that the presentation of the data is based on her interpretation, and thus

(35)

35

7. Results and Analysis

The result section is structured as follows: First, the construction of hegemonic gender based on the accounts of the adolescents will be discussed in Section 7.1. Section 7.2 analyses the general experience of hostile sexism. Third, gender-specific experiences of sexism will be outlined in Section 7.3 (female adolescents) and Section 7.4 (male adolescents). The regulation of hegemonic gender by peers is interwoven throughout the sections of experiences of everyday sexism, as this is inherent to benevolent and hostile sexism, and serves as a mechanism to make adolescents conform to hegemonic gender. The results will be analyzed using the ambivalent sexism theory, the social theory of gender, and Galtung’s notions of structural and cultural violence as an inclusive theoretical framework. Analyzing the results through this theoretical framework helps to put the everyday experiences of sexism and perceptions on hegemonic gender into perspective, as well as to understand these experiences as part of a broader system of social injustice.

The results are illustrated using passages which came up during the interviews. All the names that appear are pseudonyms. As there was a considerable difference in age, these are given between brackets. To improve readability, some dysfluencies have been removed. Because all the answers were in Dutch, they have been translated into English. In all cases, the most suitable translation has been applied.

7.1 Construction of Hegemonic Gender

As this section will demonstrate, adolescents held conflicting attitudes regarding hegemonic gender. First, all adolescents perceived more differences than commonalities between the sexes. This is in line with the binary construction of hegemonic gender, as it guarantees the dominant position of men over the subordination of women. In addition, the majority of adolescents held traditional attitudes by assigning certain division of job roles and professions to men and women. This indicates the persistence and strength of structural violence, and how effective cultural violence works to legitimize these views of hegemonic gender.

Contradicting these findings, all adolescents also voiced modern views by stating that gender should not constrain the way men and women desire to express themselves, resulting in conflicting attitudes towards hegemonic gender. Section 7.1.1 will discuss these results by outlining the main perceived differences between men and women, followed by Section 7.1.2, providing an account of traditional and modern attitudes held by the adolescents. These

findings will be put into perspective using the social theory of gender and structural and cultural violence.

(36)

36

7.1.1 Perceived Differences between Men and Women

In line with the social theory of gender, men and women were perceived as inherently different by the adolescents. The few shared similarities were same interests or skills, but overall a binary vision was voiced, describing men and women in terms that coincide with hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity. The analysis identified three main areas of differences: physical appearance, behaviour and ways of thinking, and approaching conflict situations. These differences will now be discussed in order.

Physical appearance was the most frequently mentioned difference between men and

women, as, the adolescents themselves stated, this was the easiest observable difference. In general, it was voiced that physical appearance is of greater importance for women than men and that women tend to be more insecure about their physical appearance. Differences in physical appearance came down to hairstyle (short for men versus long for women), the use of makeup for women and clothing style.

It is interesting to note that the dress code for adolescent women appears to be more

flexible in comparison with men. For example, Skylar (14) and Mia (14) perceived their clothing style as masculine but reconceptualised this as feminine by labeling themselves as ‘tomboys' even though they expressed an awareness that their clothing style was deviating the norm. In contrast, adolescent men cannot dress feminine: Jake (15) “Girls can just wear boys clothes I think. But a boy in a dress, that’s not possible really.”2 Boys engaging in cross-gender clothing practices were described as weird, different or gay. This seems to indicate that women are allowed to wear masculine-associated clothing, but that this is placed within a feminine frame to maintain the binary and thus not threaten hegemonic masculinity. This is in line with Schipper’s (2007) reasoning on pariah femininities. These are constructions of femininities that include a masculine quality but are compulsively constructed as feminine. By labeling themselves as ‘tomboys,' Skylar (14) and Mia (14) maintain their femininity while engaging in masculine practices. Men, on the other hand, seem not to have these opportunities to reframe their masculinity. Men engaging in feminine ways of dressing are ultimately undesirable. This can be explained by the higher status and power traditionally assigned to masculinity. Masculine qualities tend to be valued more and in general male adolescents are more likely to stay within hegemonic masculine roles (Leaper & Friedman, 2007). From the social theory of gender (Connell, 1995), it could be argued that women engaging in masculine practices are not threatening hegemonic masculinity as long as the

2_{Meisjes kunnen wel gewoon als jongens kleding hebben denk ik. Maar een jongen in een jurk, dat kan niet}

Sexism : perceptions and experiences of lower-level educated adolescents in the Netherlands