Skip to main content

The Interpersonal Power of Feminism: Is Feminism Good for Romantic Relationships?

Sex Roles volume 57, pages 787–799 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Past research suggests that women and men alike perceive feminism and romance to be in conflict (Rudman and Fairchild, Psychol Women Q, 31:125–136, 2007). A survey of US undergraduates (N = 242) and an online survey of older US adults (N = 289) examined the accuracy of this perception. Using self-reported feminism and perceived partners’ feminism as predictors of relationship health, results revealed that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier relationships for women. Additionally, men with feminist partners reported greater relationship stability and sexual satisfaction in the online survey. Finally, there was no support for negative feminist stereotypes (i.e., that feminists are single, lesbians, or unattractive). In concert, the findings reveal that beliefs regarding the incompatibility of feminism and romance are inaccurate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Aronson, P. (2003). Feminists or “postfeminists”? Young women’s attitudes toward feminism and gender relations. Gender & Society, 17, 903–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attridge, M., Berscheid, E., & Simpson, J. A. (1995). Predicting relationship stability from both partners versus one. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 254–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D., & Klein, R. (1996). Radically speaking: Feminism reclaimed. Victoria, Australia: Spinifex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buschman, J. K., & Lenart, S. (1996). “I am not a feminist, but…”: College women, feminism, and negative experiences. Political Psychology, 17, 59–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. NY: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darlington, R. B. (1968). Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 161–182.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Beauvoir, S. (1952). The second sex. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faludi, S. (1991). The undeclared war against American women. New York: Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, S. (1970). The dialectic of sex: The case for a feminist revolution. NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S. Oskamp, & M. Costanzo (Eds.) Gender issues in contemporary society (pp. 173–196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frieze, I. H., Sales, E., & Smith, C. (1991). Considering the social context in gender research: The impact of college students’ life stage. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 371–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, P. A., Gottesdiener, M., & Abramson, P. R. (1975). Another put-down of women? Perceived attractiveness as a function of support for the feminist movement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 113–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1994). Preferring housewives to feminists: Categorization and the favorability of attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 25–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henik, A., & Tzelgov, J. (1985). Control of halo error: A multiple regression approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 577–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, D. C. (1992). How cultural systems become desire: A case study of American romance. In R. G. D’Andrade, & C. Strauss (Eds.) Human motives and cultural models (pp. 61–89). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 87–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (1976). Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, A. (2005). Female chauvinist pigs: Women and the rise of raunch culture. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Positive expectations in the early years of marriage: Should couples expect the best or brace for the worst? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 729–743.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millet, K. (1970). Sexual politics. NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misciagno, P. S. (1997). Rethinking feminist identification: The case for de facto feminism. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rhinhart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renzetti, C. M. (1987). New wave or second stage? Attitudes of college women toward feminism. Sex Roles, 16, 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, E. (2005). Young women, feminist identities and neo-liberalism. Women’s Studies International Forum, 28, 495–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment? American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2007). The F word: Is feminism incompatible with beauty and romance? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Heppen, J. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women’s interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1357–1370.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, D., Crocker, J., & Boike, K. R. (2005). Doing gender in the bedroom: Investing in gender norms and the sexual experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1445–1455.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (1988). Political generations and the contemporary women’s movement. Sociological Inquiry, 58, 4–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedikides, C., Oliver, M. B., & Campbell, W. K. (1994). Perceived benefits and costs of romantic relationships for women and men: Implications for exchange theory. Personal Relationships, 1, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigel, R. (1996). Ambition and accommodation: How women view gender relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R., Becker, M. A., Byrne, D., & Przybyla, D. P. (1993). Sexual attitudes of males and females as predictors of interpersonal attraction and marital compatibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1011–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R., Byrne, D., & Fielding, P. J. (1995). Interpersonal attraction as a function of extreme gender role adherence. Personal Relationships, 2, 161–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swim, J. K., Ferguson, M. J., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Avoiding stigma by association: Subtle prejudice against lesbians in the form of social distancing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. K. (1992). Reclaiming the mainstream: Individualist feminism rediscovered. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unger, R. K., Hilderbrand, M., & Madar, T. (1982). Physical attractiveness and assumptions about social deviance: Some sex-by-sex comparisons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 293–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vangelisti, A. L., & Daly, J. A. (1997). Gender differences in standards for romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R., & Wittig, M. A. (1997). “I’m not a feminist, but…”: Factors contributing to the discrepancy between pro-feminist orientation and feminist social identity. Sex Roles, 37, 885–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, A. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, “I’m not a feminist but…”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 423–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was partially supported by Grants BCS-0109997 and BCS-0417335 from the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, Tillett Hall, 53 Avenue E, Piscataway, NJ, 08854-8040, USA

    Laurie A. Rudman & Julie E. Phelan

Authors
  1. Laurie A. Rudman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie E. Phelan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurie A. Rudman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rudman, L.A., Phelan, J.E. The Interpersonal Power of Feminism: Is Feminism Good for Romantic Relationships?. Sex Roles 57, 787–799 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9319-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9319-9

Keywords

  • Feminism
  • Close relationships
  • Feminist stereotypes
  • Intergroup relations
  • Gender attitudes