Sex Roles

, Volume 16, Issue 5–6, pp 265–277 | Cite as

New wave or second stage? Attitudes of college women toward feminism

  • Claire M. Renzetti
Article

Abstract

The attitudes of female subjects toward gender roles, gender inequality, and the women's movement were measured using a 24-item attitudinal inventory. Subjects tended to hold nontraditional but only moderately feminist attitudes toward gender roles. They were, however, highly aware of gender inequality and supportive of the women's movement, although they were also reluctant to identify themselves as feminists. T tests revealed that subjects most supportive of feminism were advanced students (juniors and seniors) and students who had personally experienced discrimination. But when personal experience of sex discrimination was controlled for, the strength of the relationships between class level and gender role attitudes, and between class level and support for the women's movement, diminished. Students who had personally experienced sex discrimination are less traditional and more feminist in their gender role attitudes, and show stronger support for the women's movement, regardless of their class level, than students who have not had such experiences. These findings are interpreted and their implications for the future of the women's movement are discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bayer, A. Sexist students in American colleges: A descriptive note. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1975, 37, 391–397.Google Scholar
  2. Bolotin, S. Views from the post-feminist generation. New York Times Magazine, October 1982, 29–31, 103–116.Google Scholar
  3. Dempewolff, J. A. Some correlates of feminism. Psychological Reports, 1974, 34, 671–676.Google Scholar
  4. Friedan, B. The second stage. New York: Summit Books, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. Jacobson, M. B. You say potato and I say potato: Attitudes toward feminism as a function of its subject-selected label. Sex Roles, 1981, 7, 349–354.Google Scholar
  6. Jacobson, M. B., & Koch, W. Attributed reasons for support of the feminist movement as a function of attractiveness. Sex Roles, 1978 4, 169–174.Google Scholar
  7. Komarovsky, A. Women in college. New York: Basic Books, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. Kramer, B. Untitled chapter. In R. Rowland (Ed.), Women who do and women who don't join the women's movement. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. Mason, K. O. Sex role attitude items and scales from U.S. sample surveys. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, 1975.Google Scholar
  10. Smith, M. D., & Self, G. D. Feminists and traditionalists: An attitudinal comparison. Sex Roles, 1981, 7, 183–188.Google Scholar
  11. Taylor, V. The future of feminism in the 1980s: A social movement analysis. In L. Richardson & V. Taylor (eds.), Feminist frontiers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. Thorton, A., Alwin, D. F., & Camburn, D. Causes and consequences of sex-role attitudes and attitude change. American Sociological Review, 1983, 48, 211–227.Google Scholar
  13. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstracts of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire M. Renzetti
    • 1
  1. 1.St. Joseph's UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations