# data[].attributes.body
"Presidential Address: Geography and Feminism: Worlds in Collision?"

by Susan Hanson

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2563690

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Geography and feminism are two powerful intellectual forces at large today. Are they forces that can communicate effectively with each other to build a richer understanding of life on earth or are they two alien worlds in collision? I explore three core analytic traditions that I see as common to geography and feminism: finding significance in everyday life, appreciating the importance of context, and thinking about difference. With examples from local labor market studies, I then illustrate how the collision between geography and feminism has not ignited a destructive explosion but instead has illuminated how we think about gender, how we think about place, and how we think about work. I argue that because geography and feminism share certain intellectual traditions, the two areas of inquiry should, once they begin to open up to and learn from each other, not only transform each other but also contribute powerful new insights about the world.

Journal Information

The Annals of the American Association of Geographers is one of the world's foremost geography journals. It has been published since 1911 and currently has an Impact Factor of 2.799, ranking 8th out of 79 geography journals worldwide. The Annals contains original, timely, and innovative articles that advance knowledge in all facets of the discipline. Articles are divided into four major areas: Geographic Methods; Human Geography; Nature and Society; and Physical Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences. There are Editors responsible for each these themes. The Annals is published six times a year (January, March, May, July, September and November). One issue per year is a dedicated Special Issue drawing a diversity of papers from across the discipline under a single theme. Following tradition, the annual Presidential Address is published in Annals; Memorials for former AAG Presidents and exceptionally distinguished geographers are also published.

Publisher Information

Building on two centuries' experience, Taylor & Francis has grown rapidlyover the last two decades to become a leading international academic publisher.The Group publishes over 800 journals and over 1,800 new books each year, coveringa wide variety of subject areas and incorporating the journal imprints of Routledge,Carfax, Spon Press, Psychology Press, Martin Dunitz, and Taylor & Francis.Taylor & Francis is fully committed to the publication and dissemination of scholarly information of the highest quality, and today this remains the primary goal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Presidential Address: Geography and Feminism: Worlds in Collision? on JSTOR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Geography and feminism are two powerful intellectual forces at large today. Are they forces that can communicate effectively with each other to build a richer understanding of life on earth or are they two alien worlds in collision?

# data[].attributes.body
KQED podcast episode : "NPR's founding mothers: Shattering Glass Ceilings in the 1970s"

# data[].attributes.body
geography and feminism

# data[].attributes.body
Political Science-How sexism in the work place is unconstitutional  based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964-Title 9

# data[].attributes.body
sexism in the work place

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
¹ Twenty-five items relating to the ways that men may interrupt sexism were submitted to an exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with promax rotation. KMO and Bartlett's test indicated that the items were sufficiently related to proceed with the factor analysis. The analysis yielded four factors that explained 58.56% of the variance for the set of variables. Factor 1 was labeled "direct interrupting" with the following items loading strongly: I would report what happened, I would tell my colleague that what happened is a reportable offense, I would pursue a conversation with my colleague about what happened, I would try to educate my colleague about the implications of what happened, I would question my colleague about what happened, I would tell my colleague in the moment that what happened was inappropriate, I would make a note of what happened, I would tell my colleague later that I don't think what happened was okay, I would give the candidate career advice later. Factor 2 was labeled "unassertively react" with the following items loading strongly: I would use sarcasm to indicate my concern, I would try to express my concern non-verbally, I would use humor to express my concern, I would sigh and comment under my breath, I would show signs of disgust, I would show signs of surprise. Factor 3 was labeled "redirect" with the following items loading strongly: I would redirect the conversation to the candidate's qualifications, I would keep the conversation focused on the task at hand, I would remind my colleague that the candidate is qualified. Factor 4 was labeled "do nothing" with the following items loading strongly: I wouldn't say a thing, I would do nothing, I would hide my emotions, I would consider it inappropriate for me to do or say something, I would ignore my colleague in the moment, I would expect someone else to take responsibility for doing something. One item did not load strongly on any factor and was dropped.
² Multiple regression was carried out to investigate the impact of individual factors on men's endorsement of directly interrupting in response to a sexist comment. Results indicated that the model explained 44% of the variance after controlling for race and organizational rank and that the model was a significant predictor of directly interrupting, F(6, 1315) = 199.04, p < .001. Commitment ( b = .28, t = 11.04, p < .001), confidence ( b = .25, t = 8.23, p < .001), awareness ( b = .14, t = 5.44, p < .001), and impact ( b = .22, t = 5.96, p < .001) significantly contributed to the model.
³ Multiple regression was carried out to investigate the impact of organizational factors on men's likelihood of doing nothing in response to a sexist comment. Results indicated that the model explained 41% of the variance after controlling for race and organizational rank and that the model was a significant predictor of doing nothing, F (5, 1316) = 213.77, p < .001. Silencing ( b = .40, t = 9.67, p < .001), combativeness ( b = .19, t = 4.23, p < .001), and futility ( b = .23, t = 10.86, p < .001) significantly contributed to the model.
⁴ Emily Shaffer, Negin Sattari, and Alixandra Pollack, Interrupting Sexism at Work: How Men Respond in a Climate of Silence (Catalyst, 2020).
⁵ Peter Glick and Susan T. Fiske, " The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 70, no. 3 (1996): p. 491-512; Janet K. Swim and Laurie L. Cohen, " Overt, Covert, and Subtle Sexism: A Comparison Between the Attitudes Toward Women and Modern Sexism Scales," Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 1 (1997): p. 103-118.
⁶ Lilia M. Cortina, " Unseen Injustice: Incivility as Modern Discrimination in Organizations," Academy of Management Review, vol. 33, no. 1 (2008): p. 55-75; Swim and Cohen.
⁷ Note that sexism intersects with other axes of inequalities and discriminations such as racism, ageism, and classism in shaping individual experiences and underprivileges. Anthony G. Greenwald and Mahzarin R. Banaji, "Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes," Psychological Review, vol. 102, no. 1 (1995): p. 4-27; Catalyst, What Is Unconscious Bias? (December 11, 2014).
⁸ Brenda L. Russell and Kristin Y. Trigg, " Tolerance of Sexual Harassment: An Examination of Gender Differences, Ambivalent Sexism, Social Dominance, and Gender Roles," Sex Roles, vol. 50, nos. 7/8 (2004): p. 565-573.
⁹ Business Fights Poverty, " Gender Equality is Everyone's Business: Engaging Men As Allies to Advance Gender Equality Across The Value Chain," (February 2020); Sandrine Devillard, Tiffany Vogel, Andrew Pickersgill, Anu Madgavkar, Tracy Nowski, Mekala Krishnan, Tina Pan, and Dania Kechrid, The Power of Parity: Advancing Women's Equality in Canada, (McKinsey Global Institute, June 2017).
¹⁰ This study builds on Catalyst's research series, initiated in 2009 on engaging men in gender initiatives, which gave birth to Catalyst's MARC (Men Advocating Real Change) program for engaging men across industries in efforts to remove gender inequities in the workplace.
¹¹ Shaffer, Sattari, and Pollack.
¹² Council on Foreign Relations, Women's Workplace Equality Index (2018).
¹³ Melissa Moyser, Women and Paid Work, (Statistics Canada, 2017).
¹⁴ Devillard et al.
¹⁵ See, for example, Cheryl R. Kaiser and Carol T. Miller, " A Stress and Coping Perspective on Confronting Sexism," Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2 (June 2004): p. 168-178; J. Nicole Shelton, Jennifer A. Richeson, Jessica Salvatore, and Diana M. Hill, " Silence Is Not Golden: The Intrapersonal Consequences of Not Confronting Prejudice," in Stigma and Group Inequality: Social Psychological Perspectives, ed. Shana Levin and Colette van Laar (New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers); Janet K. Swim and Lauri L. Hyers, " Excuse me-What Did You Just Say?!: Women's Public and Private Responses to Sexist Remarks," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 35, no. 1 (1999): p. 68-88.
¹⁶ Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, Kathryn A. Morris, and Stephanie A. Goodwin, " The Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) Model: Applying CPR in Organizations," Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 7, no. 3 (September 2008): p. 332-342.
¹⁷ Benjamin J. Drury and Cheryl R. Kaiser, " Allies Against Sexism: The Role of Men in Confronting Sexism," Journal of Social Issues, vol. 70, no. 4 (2014): p. 637-652.
¹⁸ The quotes presented in this table come from a separate online survey conducted by Catalyst to learn about men's and women's on-the-ground encounters with sexist incidences in the workplace and their reactions to such situations. A sample of 150 men and women in the US, Canada, UK, and other countries completed the survey. The quotes are not specific to Canada and are only used to provide real examples for the four categories of behaviours that emerged from our analysis of survey data in Canada.
¹⁹ Non-management (including entry-level) employee in resources, utilities, and energy working in Australia.
²⁰ First-level manager in resources, utilities, and energy working in Ireland.
²¹ Second-level manager in manufacturing working in the United States.
²² First-level manager in manufacturing working in the United States.
²³ This scale was composed of 24 items assessing the behaviours that men would likely engage in when hearing a colleague making a sexist remark. These 24 items were divided into four subscales: Directly interrupt, redirect, unassertively interrupt, and do nothing. Participants responded to each item on a 1 ("not at all likely") to 6 ("extremely likely") scale.
²⁴ Interrupting sexism behaviours were measured on a 1 ("not at all likely") to 6 ("extremely likely") scale. Participants whose average on each subscale was 4 or higher were categorized as having a high likelihood of their behaviours falling within that subscale category.
²⁵ Sarah Fotheringham and Lana Wells, Tomorrow's Men Today: Canadian Men's Insights on Engaging Men and Boys in Creating a More Gender Equal Future (University of Calgary, Shift: The Project to End Domestic Violence, 2019).
²⁶ Fotheringham and Wells.
²⁷ Shaffer, Sattari, and Pollack.
²⁸ Glick and Fiske.
²⁹ Four items measured the likelihood that men would interrupt sexism in a way that is consistent with benevolent sexist beliefs. Example items include: "I would tell my colleagues to think about if this were their mother or daughter" and "I would ask my colleague to be more protective toward women." Scale responses ranged from 1 ("not at all likely") to 6 ("extremely likely"). An average of these 4 items was created for each participant and scores 4 or higher were considered as having a high likelihood to engage in the behaviour.
³⁰ Kathleen Connelly and Martin Heesacker, " Why is Benevolent Sexism Appealing?: Associations with System Justification and Life Satisfaction," Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol 36, no. 4 (August 2012): p. 432-443.
³¹ Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau, "Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders," Psychological Review, vol. 109, no. 3 (2002): p. 573-598.
³² Connelly and Heesacker.
³³ Matthew D. Hammond, Chris G. Sibley, and Nickola C. Overall. " The Allure of Sexism: Psychological Entitlement Fosters Women's Endorsement of Benevolent Sexism Over Time," Social Psychological and Personality Science, vol. 5, no. 4 (September 2013): p. 422-29.
³⁴ Multiple regression was carried out to investigate the impact of individual factors on men's endorsement of directly interrupting in response to a sexist comment. Results indicated that the model explained 44% of the variance after controlling for race and organizational rank and that the model was a significant predictor of directly interrupting, F(6, 1315) = 199.04, p < .001. Commitment ( b = .28, t = 11.04, p < .001), confidence ( b = .25, t = 8.23, p < .001), awareness ( b = .14, t = 5.44, p < .001), and impact ( b = .22, t = 5.96, p < .001) significantly contributed to the model.
³⁵ The commitment to confronting scale was developed by J. Nicole Shelton, Jennifer A. Richeson, Jessica Salvatore, and Diana M. Hill, " Silence Is Not Golden: The Intrapersonal Consequences of Not Confronting Prejudice," Stigma and Group Inequality, (2006): p. 79-96.
³⁶ This scale was developed by Cheryl R. Kaiser and Carol T. Miller, " A Stress and Coping Perspective on Confronting Sexism," Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2 (June 2004): p. 168-178.
³⁷ To assess the personal benefits one may receive from interrupting sexism, we created a three-item measure. The scale has good internal consistency, α =.812.
³⁸ Adapted from Kaiser and Miller.
³⁹ Commitment to confronting sexism was measured by 5 items, which were averaged to create a composite and then dichotomized. Scale responses ranged from 1 ("not at all") to 6 ("very much"). The percentage presented here reflects scores averaging a 4 or higher.
⁴⁰ Commitment significantly predicted directly interrupting, b = .54, t (1491) = 30.25, p < .001. A chi-squared analysis was conducted to test the difference in percentages. The observed values were significantly different than expected values, (1, 1493) = 311.02, p <.001.
⁴¹ Confidence was measured on a 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 6 ("Strongly Agree") scale. Six items were averaged to create a composite score and then dichotomized. To dichotomize confidence in confronting sexism, scores averaging 4 or higher were considered as indicating "high confidence".
⁴² Confidence significantly predicted directly interrupting, b = .64, t (1491) = 23.15, p < .001. A chi-squared analysis was conducted to test the difference in percentages. The observed values were significantly different than expected values, (1, 1493) = 187.09, p <.001.
⁴³ The personal benefits scale was measured on a 1 ("Not at all") to 6 ("Very much") scale. Three items were averaged to create a composite score and then dichotomized. Scores averaging higher than 4 were considered to be high.
⁴⁴ Thirteen items measured the perceived benefits to the common good. Responses to the scale ranged from 1 ("Not at all") to 6 ("Very much"). A composite score was created by computing an average of all items and then dichotomized. Scores averaging 4 or higher were considered to indicate a high belief in the benefits to the common good.
⁴⁵ Personal benefits significantly predicted directly interrupting, b = .51, t (1491) = 24.28, p < .001. A chi-squared analysis was conducted to test the difference in percentages. The observed values were significantly different than expected values, (1, 1493) = 186.51, p <.001.
⁴⁶ Belief in the common good significantly predicted directly interrupting, b = .73, t (1491) = 24.10, p < .001. A chi-squared analysis was conducted to test the difference in percentages. The observed values were significantly different than expected values, (1, 1493) = 244.71, p <.001.
⁴⁷ Sarah J. Gervais, Amy L. Hillard, and Theresa K. Vescio, " Confronting Sexism: The Role of Relationship Orientation and Gender," Sex Roles, vol. 63 (2010): p. 463-474.
⁴⁸ Jennifer J. Kish-Gephart, James R. Detert, Linda Klebe Treviño, and Amy C. Edmondson, " Silenced by Fear: The Nature, Sources, and Consequences of Fear at Work," Research in Organizational Behaviour, vol. 29 (2009): p. 163-193; Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison and Frances J. Miliken, " Speaking Up, Remaining Silent: The Dynamics of Voice and Silence in Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 6 (August 2003): p. 1353-1358; James R. Detert, Ethan R. Burris, and David A. Harrison, " Do Your Employees Think Speaking up Is Pointless?" Harvard Business Review, May 26, 2010.
⁴⁹ Eight items measured perceived organizational silence. Responses to this scale ranged from 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 5 ("Strongly Agree"). A composite score was created by computing an average of all items and then dichotomized. Scores averaging 3 or higher were considered to indicate high organizational silence. Scale adapted from Elif Daşcı and Necati Cemaloğlu, "The Development of the Organizational Silence Scale: Validity-Reliability Study," Journal of Human Sciences, vol. 13, no. 1 (2016): p. 33-45.
⁵⁰ Combative culture was measured using the Masculinity Contest Culture scale. Peter Glick, Jennifer L. Berdahl, and Natalya M. Alonso, " Development and Validation of the Masculinity Contest Culture Scale," Journal of Social Issues, vol. 74, no. 3 (September, 2018): p. 449-476; Natalya M. Alonso, " Playing to Win: Male-Male Sex-Based Harassment and the Masculinity Contest," Journal of Social Issues, vol. 74, no. 3 (September 2018): p. 477-499.
⁵¹ Perception of futility was measured by participants' endorsement that their efforts "wouldn't make a difference anyway." This item was adapted from Kaiser and Miller.
⁵² A climate of silence was measured by eight items on a 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 5 ("Strongly Agree") scale. The items were averaged to create a composite and then dichotomized. Scores averaging 3 or higher were considered as indicating "high silence."
⁵³ Organizational silence significantly predicted doing nothing in response to sexism, b = .68, t (1491) = 28.48, p < .001. A chi-squared analysis was conducted to test the difference in percentages. The observed values were significantly different than expected values, (1, 1493) = 258.13, p <.001.
⁵⁴ Kish-Gephart et al.
⁵⁵ Kish-Gephart et al.
⁵⁶ Maria Vakola and Dimitris Bouradas, " Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Silence: An Empirical Investigation," Employee Relations, vol. 27, no. 5 (October 2005): p. 441-458.
⁵⁷ Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison and Frances J. Milliken, " Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World," Academy of Management Review, vol 25, no. 4 (October 2000): p. 706-725.
⁵⁸ Sonya Fontenot Premeaux and Arthur G. Bedeian, " Breaking the Silence: The Moderating Effects of Self-Monitoring in Predicting Speaking Up in the Workplace," Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 6 (September 2003): p. 1537-1562.
⁵⁹ Combative culture was measured using 12 items on a 1 ("Not at all true of my organization") to 5 ("Entirely true of my organization") scale. An average was calculated to create a composite score and then dichotomized. Scores averaging a 3 or higher were considered to be indicative of a highly combative culture.
⁶⁰ Robin J. Ely and Michael Kimmel, " Thoughts on the Workplace as a Masculinity Contest," Journal of Social Issues, vol. 74, no. 3 (September 2018): p. 628-634.
⁶¹ Jennifer L. Berdahl, Marianne Cooper, Peter Glick, Robert W. Livingston, and Joan C. Williams, " Work as a Masculinity Contest," Journal of Social Issues, vol. 74, no. 3 (September 2018): p. 422-448.
⁶² Glick, Berdahl, and Alonso; Alonso.
⁶³ Combative culture significantly predicted doing nothing in response to sexism, b = .70, t (1491) = 25.88, p < .001. A chi-squared analysis was conducted to test the difference in percentages. The observed values were significantly different than expected values, (1, 1493) = 210.35, p <.001.
⁶⁴ Please note that the aspects of masculine norms, values, and practices presented in this table were derived based on our analysis of qualitative data gathered from our 27 interviews.
⁶⁵ Jeanine Prime and Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, Engaging Men in Gender Initiatives: What Change Agents Need to Know (Catalyst, 2009).
⁶⁶ Sophie L. Kuchynka, Jennifer K. Bosson, Joseph A. Vandello, and Curtis Puryear, " Zero‐Sum Thinking and the Masculinity Contest: Perceived Intergroup Competition and Workplace Gender Bias," Journal of Social Issues, vol. 74, no. 3 (September 2018): p. 529-550.
⁶⁷ Perceptions of futility were measured using one item on a 1 ("Strongly Disagree") to 6 ("Strongly Agree") scale. Responses were then dichotomized with scores 4 or higher indicating a high perception of futility.
⁶⁸ Perception of futility significantly predicted doing nothing in response to sexism, b = .44, t (1491) = 22.84, p < .001. A chi-squared analysis was conducted to test the difference in percentages. The observed values were significantly different than expected values, (1, 1493) = 182.97, p <.001.
⁶⁹ James R. Detert, Ethan R. Burris, and David A. Harrison, " Do Your Employees Think Speaking up Is Pointless?" Harvard Business Review, May 26, 2010.
⁷⁰ Detert et al; Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison, Sarah L. Wheeler-Smith, and Dishan Kamdar, " Speaking Up in Groups: A Cross-Level Study of Group Voice Climate and Voice." Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 96, no. 1 (2011): p. 183-191.
⁷¹ Detert et al.
⁷² A moderation analysis was performed to examine the impact of a combative culture, work costs, and their interaction on doing nothing. The overall model was significant, R ² = .43, F (3, 1489) = 375.24, p < .001. The main effect of combative culture was significant, b = .38, t (1489) = 11.65, p < .001. The main effect of work costs was also significant, b = .32, t (1489) = 13.22, p < .001. These main effects were qualified by a significant interaction, b = .16, t (1489) = 8.89, p < .001. Simple slopes indicated that where work costs are high, the link between combative climates and doing nothing is exacerbated - when work costs are high, b = .59, t (1489) = 14.37, p < .001; but when work costs are low, b = .18, t (1489) = 4.47, p < .001. The relationship between organizational silence and doing nothing was also moderated by work costs. The model was significant, R ² = .44, F (3, 1489) = 388.22, p < .001. The main effect of organizational silence was significant, b = .42, t (1489) = 13.98, p < .001. The main effect of work costs on doing nothing was also significant, b = .29, t (1489) = 11.51, p < .001. The main effects were qualified by a significant interaction, b = .12, t (1489) = 7.04, p < .001. Tests of simple slopes indicated that where work costs are high, the link between organizational silence and doing nothing is exacerbated - when work costs are high, b = .57, t (1489) = 14.96, p < .001; but when work costs are low, b = .27, t (1489) = 7.60, p < .001. We also investigated whether work costs moderated the relationship between the perception of futility and doing nothing. The overall model was significant, R ² = .41, F (3, 1489) = 343.06, p < .001. The main effect of a sense of futility was significant, b = .23, t (1489) = 11.19, p < .001. The main effect of work costs was also significant, b = .39, t (1489) = 17.10, p < .001. The main effects were qualified by a significant interaction, b = .05, t (1489) = 4.68, p < .001. Simple slopes tests revealed that in organizations where work costs are high, the link between a sense of futility and doing nothing is exacerbated - when work costs are high, b = .30, t (1489) = 11.64, p < .001; but when work costs are low, b = .16, t (1489) = 6.46, p < .001.
⁷³ Catalyst's model of inclusive leadership identifies curiosity, humility, and courage as main elements of leading inward. For more details, see Dnika J. Travis, Emily Shaffer, and Jennifer Thorpe-Moscon, Getting Real About Inclusive Leadership: Why Change Starts With You (Catalyst, 2019).
⁷⁴ Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison and Frances J. Milliken, " Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World," Academy of Management Review, vol. 25, no. 4 (October 2000): p. 706-725.; Maria Vakola and Dimitris Bouradas, " Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Silence: An Empirical Investigation," Employee Relations, vol. 27, no. 5 (October 2005): p. 441-458.
⁷⁵ Myrtle P. Bell, Mustafa F. Özbilgin, T. Alexandra Beauregard, and Olca Sürgevil, " Voice, Silence, and Diversity in 21st Century Organizations: Strategies for Inclusion of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Employees," Human Resource Management, vol. 50, no. 1 (February 2011): p. 131-46.
⁷⁶ Andrew Arnold, " Why Robots Will Not Take Over Human Jobs," Forbes, March 27, 2018; Lauren Pasquarella Daley, Women and the Future of Work (Catalyst, 2019).
⁷⁷ Northwestern School of Education and Social Policy, " Team-Based Rewards Structures and Their Impact on Team Trust."

About Catalyst

Catalyst is a global nonprofit working with some of the world's most powerful CEOs and leading companies to help build workplaces that work for women. Founded in 1962, Catalyst drives change with pioneering research, practical tools, and proven solutions to accelerate and advance women into leadership-because progress for women is progress for everyone.

The findings, views, and recommendations expressed in Catalyst reports are not prepared by, are not the responsibility of, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding organizations.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. The foregoing license extends solely to the report used in its entirety. The individual photographs, images, and icons are owned by iStock. Downloading, extracting or using any individual photographs, images or icons separate from the report as a whole is prohibited.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Interrupting Sexism at Work: What Drives Men to Respond Directly or Do Nothing? (Report)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1 Twenty-five items relating to the ways that men may interrupt sexism were submitted to an exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with promax rotation. KMO and Bartlett's test indicated that the items were sufficiently related to proceed with the factor analysis.

# data[].attributes.body
something to do with psychology.
psychological concept of gender? maybe
distractors effecting peoples ability to work (psych)

# data[].attributes.body
against the discrepancy

# data[].attributes.body
sociology: social construct of sexism -->
glass ceiling, glass escalator, glass cellar