# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UN's Global Goal No.5 works to address gender inequalities that are rife in every aspect of societies around the world. Join the movement by taking action here to empower women and girls in achieving their true potential.
Europe's leading human rights organisation has just adopted the first-ever international legal instrument to stop sexism.

The Council of Europe - which includes 47 member states, 28 of which are members of the European Union - has officially recognised that sexism is "widespread and prevalent in all sectors and all societies," and is now calling on states to stop it.

The council adopated a recommendation to prevent and combat sexism last week.

These recommendations are essentially a list of guidelines for member states to be exploring within their own societies. They are intended as a springboard to identify and define an issue, and lay out some ideas about how member states can now be tackling those issues.

A very significant part of the recent recommendation includes what is reportedly the first-ever internationally agreed upon definition of the term "sexism."
Take action: Tell World Leaders to Redouble Their Efforts by Amending Laws to Prevent Sexual Violence
And here it is! Sexism is defined as: "Any act, gesture, visual representation, spoken or written words, practice, or behaviour based upon the idea that a person or a group of persons is inferior because of their sex, which occurs in the public or private sphere, whether online or offline."

The recommendation also stressed that sexism is a manifestation of "historically unequal power relations" between men and women - which leads to discrimination and prevents the full advancement of women in society.

#CoE's Caterina Bolognese sets out purpose and aims behind the organisation's adoption of first-ever international legal instrument to stop #sexism. By this definition of sexism "we name it, we define it and we talk about how to address it." https://t.co/E54TC46KLz pic.twitter.com/G1hyeKW43B
- Council of Europe (@coe) March 28, 2019

It adds that sexism is "widespread and prevalent in all sectors and all societies and ... sexism and sexist behaviours are rooted in and reinforce gender stereotypes."

A particularly interesting point - especially for anyone who's been accused of being "too sensitive" when it comes to calling out everyday sexism - is that the recommendation makes the link between sexism and violence against women and girls.

Acts of everyday sexism, it says, are "part of a continuum of violence that create a climate of intimidation, fear, discrimination, exclusion, and insecurity which limits opportunities and freedom."

It seems a bit unbelievable that we've managed to get to 2019 without an internationally recognised definition of sexism. So we asked Jacqui Hunt, the European director of Equality Now, an NGO that works to protect the rights of women and girls, why a definition is so important.

"What's important is that this resolution recognises the issue [of sexism] is a problem in all walks of life, blocking women and girls from achieving their potential," Hunt said. "The definition indicates some of the impact this has on women and girls, why this is a problem, and that this has to be addressed."

One significant advantage of having a clear definition of sexism is that it forces more general recognition that sexism is a problem, and helps explain exactly what that problem is, what causes it, and how it can be addressed.

"I think it's because we're all victims of sexism and we're all blinded by sexism," said Hunt. "We're all influenced by the environments in which we're brought up and if you think about it and examine it closely there's sexism all over, and you don't even realise that you're subjected."

"We're living through these stereotypes so you don't examine how rife it is," she added. "So I think there has to be general recognition that this is a problem, and how stereotypes and sexism fit into that."

"But the devil is in the detail, and until you know what it [sexism] looks like, where misogyny and sexism is all pervasive, it's difficult to understand where you could have that real focus," added Hunt.

This is, of course, not the first time that international efforts have been made to tackle sexism and sexist behaviours. The UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are a great example of a global front in the fight.

SDG No.5 exists to tackle gender inequalities, and other issues that stem from stereotypes, lack of empowerment, and lack of inclusion, added Hunt.

"There has been growing recognition that this is an issue, and to encapsulate it and remind people [through defining the problem] is a very good way of starting to take it seriously," continued Hunt. "Once you recognise it and see it, it's a good springboard to take it seriously and look at how you are going to address it."

The recommendations adopted by the Council of Europe come as a direct result of movements like #MeToo and #TimesUp, which have really shone a light on the fact that sexism is persistent and all-encompassing.

The council's Committee of Ministers have been very careful to highlight that sexism is rife in all different walks of life - from education, to advertising and media, the justice sector, culture, and sport, to name a few.

Among some of the actions included in the recommendation are legislative reforms to condemn sexism; define and criminalise sexist hate speech; and provide appropriate remedies for people who have experienced sexist behaviour.

It's not just women and girls who are negatively impacted by sexism either, of course. For example, one of the many issues highlighted in the recommendations, according to Hunt, are the unequal roles child-raising and child caring roles we have in our society.

"Sexism is very obvious in a lot of laws, for example, that child marriage is possible. That's pretty obvious" she said. "But then you look at things like the fact only women can claim maternity pay when they have a child. Great that they can get that, but why only women?"

"The resolution has pointed out the unequal child-raising roles and child caring roles, and so it's looking also at the family and seeing how we can balance those roles to give all parents the equal right to spend time with their children," she continued.

Perhaps most importantly, however, is the fact that the Council of Europe represents dozens of governments, and those governments had to come together to discuss the resolution. The idea is that each of those governments will now be able to take their learnings home with them, and start addressing sexism in their own countries.

The recommendation also calls on member states to monitor their progress in implementing the guidelines, and to tell the Council of Europe's Gender Equality Commission about the measures they have taken and the progress they have achieved.

Hunt added: "It's a growing realisation that actually our societies are embedded in sexism, and it's a very good beginning on how to address it, to then take action to move forward."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
There's Finally an Internationally Agreed Upon Definition of Sexism. Here's Why That Matters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UN's Global Goal No.5 works to address gender inequalities that are rife in every aspect of societies around the world. Join the movement by taking action here to empower women and girls in achieving their true potential. Europe's leading human rights organisation has just adopted the first-ever international legal instrument to stop sexism.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 8 Internalized sexism (Peer Reviewed Article) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 8 Internalized sexism (Peer Reviewed Article) 

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 6 Interpersonal, Institutional and Internalized Sexism

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 6 Interpersonal, Institutional and Internalized Sexism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sexism occurs on three levels namely, institutionalized sexism, interpersonal sexism and internalized sexism. Institutionalized sexism occurs when sexism is woven into political, social, and economic institutions. Interpersonal sexism occurs on a more individual scale within interpersonal interactions.

What is institutional sexism?

Institutional sexism refers to gender discrimination reflected in the policies and practices of organizations such as governments, corporations (workplaces), public institutions (schools, health care), and financial institutions.

What is the difference between patriarchy and sexism?

This is a form of discrimination against women atthe conceptual level. If sexism is discrimination at the level ofspeech and action, and patriarchy is structural oppression thenphallocentrism is a form of conceptual male domination.
Which definition best describes institutional sexism quizlet?
Which definition best describes institutional sexism? The consequences of laws, customs, and practices that discriminate against people because of their sex.
Which of the following is an example of institutional discrimination?
Examples of institutionalized discrimination include laws and decisions that reflect racism, such as the Plessy vs. Ferguson U.S. Supreme Court case. The verdict of this case ruled in favor of separate but equal public facilities between African Americans and non-African Americans.

Which of the following is an example of institutional sexism?

An example of institutional sexism is the differential pay rate between men and women, even when occupying the same role: National statistics show that in the United States, on average, women make $0.77 for every $1.00 men earn.

Which definition best describes institutional sexism?

What definition best describes institutional sexism?
Which definition best describes sexism?
Which definition best defines sexism? An attitude, action, or institutional structure that limits a person on the basis of sex.
What is institutional sexism and how to deal with it?
Institutional sexism is the prejudice against one of the genders, mostly women by the means of the set rules and stereotypes. For example, a certain job can be done only by men, which is sexual discrimination. There are certain differences between institutional and individual sexism.

What is sexism at the individual level?

Individual level: People can have internalized sexism, which refers to sexist beliefs about a person's own sex or gender. This may cause them to discriminate against others who belong to the same group. Discrimination does not have to be obvious or intentional to be damaging.

What is an example of internalized sexism?

Examples include catcalling, verbal insults, and abuse. Individual level: People can have internalized sexism, which refers to sexist beliefs about a person's own sex or gender. This may cause them to discriminate against others who belong to the same group.

What is hostile sexism and why is it dangerous?

People who perpetuate hostile sexism want to preserve men's dominance over women and people of other marginalized genders. They typically oppose gender equality and may also oppose LGBTQIA+ rights, seeing these things as a threat to men and the systems that benefit them. Hostile sexism is dangerous.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the main difference between interpersonal and institutional sexism?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sexism occurs on three levels namely, institutionalized sexism, interpersonal sexism and internalized sexism. Institutionalized sexism occurs when sexism is woven into political, social, and economic institutions. Interpersonal sexism occurs on a more individual scale within interpersonal interactions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick and Fiske 1996, 1997) suggests that sexism takes two forms: an overt hostility as well as a subtle benevolence. We examined benevolent sexist behaviors and developed a 25-item Experiences with Benevolent Sexism Scale. Exploratory factor analysis (Study 1, U.S. college sample of 489 women) and confirmatory factor analysis (Study 2, online sample of 216 women) revealed three subscales of benevolently sexist experiences: Heterosexual Intimacy, Protective Paternalism, and Complementary Gender Differences. Women reported experiencing benevolently sexist events more frequently than overtly hostile sexist events; however, they perceived the hostile events to be more distressing and sexist (Studies 1 and 2). Experiencing Protective Paternalism was positively associated with self-doubt and negatively associated with self-esteem (Studies 1 and 2), and psychological well-being (Study 2). However, experiencing Complementary Gender Differentiation was negatively associated with self-doubt and positively associated with self-esteem (Studies 1 and 2), psychological well-being, flourishing, and submission to authority (Study 2). Finally, women in romantic relationships reported more benevolently sexist experiences than did those not in romantic relationships and the frequency of those experiences was positively associated with perceptions of the partner's benevolently sexist attitudes (Study 2). The results highlight that women frequently experience sexism, ranging from overtly hostile to a subtle benevolence, and the different types of benevolent sexism each have unique associations with women's well-being.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

References

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 User's guide. Chicago IL: Small Waters Corporation.

Google Scholar

Baalbaki, M., & Oswald, D. L. (2017, March). College women write about sexism: What does it look like? Where does it happen? How do they respond? Poster presented at the 2017 Association for Women in Psychology Meetings, Milwaukee, WI.

Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (2015). Measures of self-esteem. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 131-157). London, UK: Academic Press.

Chapter Google Scholar

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001a). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 115-188). San Francisco: Academic Press.

Google Scholar

Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1997). Discrimination against women: Prevalence, consequences, remedies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Google Scholar

Pettijohn, T. F., & Walzer, A. S. (2008). Reducing racism, sexism, and homophobia in college students by completing a psychology of prejudice course. College Student Journal, 42, 459-468.

Google Scholar

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender. New York: The Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

Ullman, J. B. (1996). Structural equation modeling. In B. Tabachnick & L Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed., pp. 709-812). New York: Harper Collins.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Steve Franzoi and Kristine Chapleau for their helpful comments on this manuscript and feedback on item development. Thank you to Brooke Magnus for her assistance with the confirmatory factor analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Psychology, Marquette University, PO 1881, Milwaukee, WI, 53201, USA

Debra L. Oswald, Maha Baalbaki & Mackenzie Kirkman

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debra L. Oswald.

Ethics declarations

This study was approved by the institutional review board at Marquette University and conforms to the APA research ethics. All authors have read and approve of submitting the manuscript to Sex Roles. This manuscript has not been published, in any part, elsewhere. This manuscript has not received any grant funding.

Electronic supplementary material

About this article

Cite this article

Oswald, D.L., Baalbaki, M. & Kirkman, M. Experiences with Benevolent Sexism: Scale Development and Associations with Women's Well-Being. Sex Roles 80, 362-380 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0933-5
Download citation

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

Sexism

Benevolent sexism

Women

Well-being

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Experiences with Benevolent Sexism: Scale Development and Associations with Women's Well-Being - Sex Roles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick and Fiske 1996, 1997) suggests that sexism takes two forms: an overt hostility as well as a subtle benevolence. We examined benevolent sexist behaviors and developed a 25-item Experiences with Benevolent Sexism Scale. Exploratory factor analysis (Study 1, U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 5 Institutional Sexism in Higher Education leadership roles

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 5 Institutional Sexism in Higher Education leadership roles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rhodes Business School and Registrar Rhodes University Makhanda/Grahamstown, South Africa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1636-9972

Literature on the challenges and marginalisation of women in higher education and leadership has focused mostly on the voices of women in understanding their experiences. The structural and cultural milieu of the higher education landscape has continuously been put forward as part of a complexity of contributing factors to the challenges. In exploring literature, the author found little that brings men's voices to the discourse. Seeking the voices of men in leadership, was with the understanding that in occupying positions of power and influence, they are strategically positioned and have agency in transforming the structural and cultural milieu. The article focuses on challenges experienced by women on a trajectory to the highest levels of higher education leadership, and engages with men's perspectives on the higher education structural and cultural milieu. The focus is on areas that women have highlighted as barriers within this milieu. The article engages with the conversations with men, including vice chancellors, undertaken as part of a research project, to explore whether there is a common view and understanding of the higher education environment and women's experiences and challenges in this context. Further, whether men in leadership exercise their agency in influencing and challenging the status quo. The article concludes that though there may not necessarily be a divergence in perspectives regarding the milieu and women's experiences therein, this may only be at an empirical/observed level. The deeper, underlying structures and mechanisms that retain the status quo have neither been recognised nor engaged. There is also the danger of complacency and lack of exercising agency in disrupting the status quo, which may contribute to the lack of change. The findings also foreground a wrestling with a myriad of challenges as experienced within the higher education sector, contributing to the lack of prioritising a focus on women towards leadership.

Keywords: Men's perspectives, women and leadership, higher education, deeper structures and mechanisms in higher education, policies in higher education, mentoring and support, old boys' and young boys' network, complacency, agency.

The purpose of this article is to review men's perspectives on structural challenges within higher education that have been identified by women as challenging towards their ascension to senior/executive leadership in the uppermost echelons of University leadership, including that of registrar, deputy vice chancellor and vice chancellor. As reflected in literature, the need for research and a focus on the continuing scarcity of women in leadership positions in various societal domains, despite constituting the majority of the population in most countries, is still pertinent and relevant (Surawicz 2016; Monnapula-Mapesela 2017; Gallagher and Morison 2019; Shinbrot et al. 2019). The patriarchal nature of society continues to perpetuate leadership as male dominated, with slight variations in South African public universities' statistics as reflected in the executive positions. Figure one below reflects the continued poor representation of women as vice-chancellors within these institutions. As is the case internationally, South African women have increasingly accessed higher education and more women graduate than men. Between the years 2012-2017, at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level, women in South African public universities have been in the majority (Council on Higher Education 2019). Despite this, women still occupy positions mostly within middle management, and barriers are still experienced at senior/executive levels (Surawicz 2016; Monnapula-Mapesela 2017; Gallagher and Morison 2019; Shinbrot et al. 2019).

Figure 1 - Click to enlarge

Figure one represents the number of women as vice-chancellors over the period 2007 to 2021. Of the twenty-six vice-chancellors, a desktop review indicates that six were women, a total percentage of 23 per cent. In 2020, 2019 and 2016 the percentage was 15.38 per cent (4 of 26). Up until 2020 there was a drop in percentage since a desktop review conducted by Moodly (2015), where in 2014, 16 per cent (4/25) of vice-chancellors were women. In 2007, of the twenty-three vice-chancellors, three were women (13%).

In comparison to a 2015 desktop review of university websites conducted (Moodly 2015), a desktop review of South African universities' websites conducted in 2019 reflected that the number of women in the traditional positions of Deputy Vice-Chancellors (DVC) Research and Academic (also known as Teaching and Learning), as well as the number of women as registrars have increased. The number of women in the position of DVC Research had increased from five (5) in 2013/14 (in twenty-three public universities) to ten (10) in 2019 (in twenty-six public HEIs), and for DVC Academic, it had increased from six (6) in 2013/14 (in twenty-three public HEIs) to eleven (11) (in twenty-six public HEIs), in 2019. In the position of registrar, which was also traditionally a male-occupied space, the number of women was nine (9) at the time of the desktop review in 2019 (in twenty-six public HEIs), in comparison to four (4) in 2013/2014 (in twenty-three HEIs). Of the twenty-six registrars in 2019, only 35 per cent were women. More than 20 years into democracy, we have yet to reach the 50 per cent mark in all positions as highlighted.

The analytical framework is seated within the context of Bhaskar's critical realism (1989), Archer's social realism (1995; 2000) and Rawls' theory of social justice (1971. As outlined by Archer (2000, 59-60), Boughey and McKenna (2017, 964) and Monnapula-Mapesela (2017), an understanding of both Bhaskar's conception of reality as layered, and Archer's theory of an "explanatory framework" of a "morphogenetic approach" is important in analysing and interpreting the phenomenon under study. Bhaskar's theory of differentiated levels of reality comprising experienced and observed ("empirical") level, and a deeper level of "actual" events, and the still deeper level of what is "real", where "the structures and mechanisms" interplay reflect that what humans experience at the "empirical" level needs to be analysed and interpreted within the framework of the "actual" and "real" levels (Boughey and McKenna 2017, 964). Archer (2000) argues that though this form of understanding is important, in itself it is not sufficient. She purports that "agency" (the human element) plays a critical role in "morphogenesis ... those processes which tend to elaborate or change a system's form, structure or state" and "morphostatis ... those processes in a complex that preserve (a system) unchanged" (Archer 2000, 60).

The study is further contextualised, as part of a broader research project within the social justice framework of Rawls (1971). Whereas Bhaskar and Archer speak to issues of realism and agency respectively, the context of social inequalities and the need to address such is not necessarily fully encompassed within these theories. Literature reflects that there is not necessarily a shared understanding of the term social justice (Chipkin and Meny-Gilbert 2013). Social justice as advocated by Rawls in 1971 (as cited in Ballenger and Austin 2007) and cited in Moodly (2015) and Moodly and Toni (2017c), is an "ethical framework", allowing equal access and fair opportunities to all under conditions which facilitated "equality of fair opportunity". Neier (2015, 47) states that "social justice may be defined primarily as distributive justice". In this it considers "social and economic rights" to the extent that it benefits society.

The social justice framework facilitates a compelling argument for the consideration of, at the very least, equal representation of women and men in leadership. This is framed, within the South African milieu, by a majority female population within an oppressive and continual patriarchal system, as reflected in the continued and escalating abuse of girl-children and women. Nkanjeni (2019a) cites Statistics SA statistics on crime, and the World Health Organisation respectively, reflecting that "about 3000 women were murdered (in 2018) - or one every three hours - which is more than five times higher than the global average". Nkanjeni (2019a) further cites Times Live, that "the murder rate for women more than doubled between 2016 and 2016/17" after declining between 2000 and 2015. The tragic focus on the brutal deaths of Uyinene Mrwetyana, Leighandre Jegels, Jesse Hesse, Janika Mall and Meghan Cremer, to name but a few as highlighted in social and mainstream media in South Africa in 2019 (Nkanjeni 2019b; Bonorchis 2019; Carolus 2019), put names and faces to the statistics. The national outcry and marches as reflected at public universities and within the general society across the country in September 2019, was a clarion call to stop the abuse of girl-children and women. By perpetuating the predominant perspectives of women as incapable and incompetent within leadership through a continued patriarchal system, the absence of women as role models (Moodly and Toni 2015a), continue to perpetuate the narrative that girl-children cannot aspire to roles of leadership and be role-models in this regard.

THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP FOR WOMEN IN HIGHER EDUCATION: IDENTIFYING AND NEGOTIATING CHALLENGES

The following section reflects on the cultural and structural challenges identified both in the literature, as well as in qualitative research by Moodly and Toni (Moodly 2015; Moodly and Toni 2015a; 2015b; 2017a; 2017b; 2017c; 2019), as challenges to women on a trajectory to leadership in higher education.

Consistently, literature reflects structural and cultural aspects of the higher education milieu as negatively experienced by women in both academia and towards a pathway of leadership. Interestingly, Gallagher and Morison (2019, 1) point out that "historically" "all institutions were developed by, and for, men". They further state that it is only in the "mid-20 th century" that women's access to universities was facilitated by "societal change". Women's "journeys" to leadership are "very different" to, and mostly later than those of "many male counterparts" (Gallagher and Morison 2019, 1) and is attributed to various factors, including the traditional expectation of prioritising family responsibilities (Gallagher and Morison 2019; Shinbrot et al. 2019). As such, women do not necessarily reach the same milestones as men at the same chronological age.

Gallagher and Morison (2019, 4), argue that "embedded in organisational culture are perceptions of leadership behaviours" mostly associated "with masculine behaviours". A further challenge is that the behaviour traits found to be "attractive in men", are viewed "negatively" when displayed by women. The "negative consequences" for women ("and men") who "act outside of expected gender norms" is also highlighted by Shinbrot et al. (2019, 122). They further cite Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs and Tamkins (2004), who state that "women are often less well-liked and more belittled" when seen as "successful leaders" particularly in "maledominated fields". It is further reflected that, though this may not be generalised, women bring a more servant-leadership form which has as yet not been fully embraced as an effective style of leadership at senior levels. This form of leadership is influenced by the traditional societal roles expected of women, including the role of "child-bearing and caregiving to their own families (and), extended families" and often extends into the workplace (Toni and Moodly 2019, 186). It is further characterised by a "caring and service-oriented style", being "sensitive" and using "gentle persuasion" (Moodly and Toni 2017b, 163). In contrast, Kolb (1999) as cited by Shinbrot et al. (2019, 122), states that there is "evidence" that "perceptions have shifted towards androgynous leadership styles, where there is a balance of both masculine and feminine characteristics". Despite this, Shinbrot et al. (2019, 122 and 129) conclude that "rising to leadership positions remains difficult for women and most organizations remain fundamentally gendered" and androgynous leadership has as yet not been completely embraced". Their research findings further reflect that women continue to experience societal patriarchal structures of "masculine values, power and dominance".

According to Acker (2006 cited in Shinbrot et al. 2019, 122), one of the reasons for men's success in rising to leadership in organisations, is that "networking" in these spaces "favors men". The authors further cite Morgan and Martin (2006), who observe that "powerful networks tend to be occupied by men, where trust and rapport are built through traditionally male activities like golfing or hunting". The authors also indicate that "research shows that people tend to hire employees that are similar to them, a phenomenon known as homosocial reproduction". They further state that the "hiring process" is "often commanded by ... men" and as such perpetuates the gendered cultures of organisations, influencing the degree to which women are included in and acknowledged for leadership (Shinbrot et al. 2019, 122-123). Surawicz (2016) linked this to the glass-ceiling phenomenon in which women experience "bias" directly related to a male-dominated institutional culture.

Family responsibilities and work-life balance

Family life, despite changing societal attitudes in this regard, is still viewed as the primary domain of women as care-givers (to children and within the family) (Gallagher and Morison 2019; Shinbrot et al. 2019). Gallagher and Morison (2019, 4) indicate that "research suggests that women are often attracted" to professions that facilitate the balancing of work and family life. As women are still expected to play the predominant nurturing role in family life, it is observed that a career that leads itself to balance in this regard, is often more attractive to women. One such career is dentistry, which offers reasonable working hours, no on-call responsibilities, and flexible hours, amongst other attractive attributes, thereby contributing to a professional and family life balance. Gallagher and Morison (2019, 3) observe that though the profession of dentistry in itself is considered attractive to women, this may not necessarily be the case in dentistry in "academia" and the accompanying "challenge of professional leadership". The work-life balance appears more challenging for women in roles of leadership than in professional careers. This may be due to the expectations of prioritising family responsibilities over one's leadership aspirations. Shinbrot et al. (2019,123), cite Cheung and Halpern (2010) who state that "women who have no children are more likely to achieve leadership positions". Shinbrot et al. (2019, 124) conclude that women's access to resources including finances and to influential decision-making, continued to be limited due to the "gender norms" expecting that women prioritise family and childrearing in a "work-life family balance". Surawicz (2016, 1434) argues that the "biological clock" is "often out of sync with the academic clock" which creates "tension between academic activity and other aspects of life".

Need to establish allies, support structures and mentoring

Shinbrot et al. (2019, 124) observe that men play a critical and pivotal role as "integral allies, partners and resources" in affecting "gender change". The authors discern the importance of identifying and understanding "who tends to become a male ally". They purport on the basis of studies, that "men who are motivated by social responsibility and the desire to help others ... are more likely to become allies of women". Being able to identify challenges such as "sexism" against women though, and acting upon and "confronting" these, are not necessarily "a foregone conclusion" as various factors can impact on the decision to take such action. These, according to Shinbrot et al. (2019), can include the risk and cost associated with speaking out, the negative "branding" or perception as a "trouble -maker". The authors further argue that "men have their own power relations, which disrupt their perceived ability to make a difference". Acting outside of perceived "gender norms" may also impact on "mental distress" (Sandfort, Melendez and Diaz 2007, as cited by Shinbrot et al. 2019, 124). Shinbrot et al. (2019) conclude that there is a need for men and women to "make strategic alliances" towards supporting a balance in leadership towards sustainable development, but that the ability to facilitate such could be more challenging in the "South" (inclusive of South Africa) as opposed to the "Global North" where "hegemonic masculinities are shifting more rapidly".

Surawicz (2016, 1433) refers to the lack of women achieving senior and executive leadership positions, despite attaining academically, as "the leaky pipeline". She maintains that the "glass-ceiling" phenomenon is still a reality as women are pressured by "leaky pipeline" issues including "work-life integration and the need for leadership development". Surawicz (2016) further proposes several forms of support for women, including the provision of "adequate mentoring and leadership training" which could help both women and men. Support efforts within institutions should be both "top-down and bottom-up" according to Surawicz (2016, 1435), inclusive of "financial and administrative support". In her view "professional societies" within fields of expertise should also form part of support and networking structures, that amongst others, "sponsor programs that promote opportunities for women ... and facilitate networking". Surawicz (2016, 1436) also advises that a system of multiple mentors may assist as both family and professional support systems, and that a peer support system should be included in such a structure. Role models and leadership development form part of this structure.

Lack of implementation of policies, legislation and practices

Policies promoting access and equity to women have been prevalent, in areas of South African society. These include, amongst others, the Education White Paper 3 (Republic of South Africa 1996); the National Plan for Higher Education (Department of Education 2001) and the Women Empowerment; the Gender Equality Bill (Republic of South Africa 2013). Policy in itself does not translate into equitable practices as researchers continue to study inequities and imbalances in relation to women within societies globally. Surawicz (2016, 1434 and 1436) argues that "academic policies" should be "fair" and regularly reviewed to consider the family-work life balance as experienced by women. She suggests that "flexible work policies and part-time work" could alleviate the work-family life tension that women often experience (Surawicz 2016, 1434 and 1436).

THE ROLE OF MEN IN ACHIEVING GENDER EQUALITY AND JUSTICE

Hendra, Fitzgerald and Seymour (2013) recognise that men and boys hold power disproportionately within society, arguing that this power should be used in a transformative agenda. Men in positions of power should direct this towards challenging and influencing the structural imbalances and inequality in power relations within society. Men are called upon to use their positions to stimulate "rethinking and transforming gender stereotypes and traditional norms of masculinity and femininity" (Hendra et al. 2013, 112). In highlighting the critical role of men and boys in fighting for gender equality, the authors cite the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995) which "encouraged men and boys to fully participate in actions to support gender equality, and emphasized the principle of shared power and responsibility between women and men at home, in the workplace, and in the wider national and international communities". They further indicate that numerous men's organisations and networks were formed "as agents towards gender equality" (2013, 112), at the same time lamenting that "men and boys remain a largely untapped resource for the pursuit of gender equality" (2013, 112). Contextualising and arguing that this falls on men and boys as part of a broader community, Hendra et al. (2013) purport that the former has a duty and responsibility in actively transforming society in relation to equal rights of women and girls. It is because of these gender inequalities, that there is violence against women and girls which is perpetuated in their view, by the imbalance in power relations. "Freedom from violence is the right that underpins all other rights. Violence, or the threat of violence, is the primary means through which power is exerted over others. It facilitates and perpetuates discrimination, in addition to being a manifestation of discrimination" (Hendra et al. 2013, 112).

Fronteddu (2013) states that whereas in the past, matters pertaining to women's equality were perceived as issues as addressed by women, there has been a changing view that all have responsibility in this regard. The inextricable role of men and boys in matters of inequality has increasingly been recognised and Fronteddu (2013) cites various commissions and campaigns which have affirmed men and boys as co-responsible with women for the promotion of gender equality. Some of the commissions and campaigns highlighted by Fronteddu (2013) include, the 2004 United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), the 2006 Council of the European Union which adopted conclusions on men and gender equality, and the European Commission's Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015.

The scarcity of women in leadership and as role models perpetuate the narrative of women as unable to lead and to be role-models towards which girl-children and women can aspire. Shinbrot et al.'s (2019, 120) research reflect that women are in fact the major contributors to "sustainable development" being "stewards of natural resources" and affirm the role of women as leaders and key role-players in societal survival. As previously indicated, and as assumed as common-sense, given the socio-economic context of our society, women should be occupying spaces within senior/executive leadership at the very least, in equal proportion to men. This, given the increased proportionality of women in society and the multiplicity of implications for, amongst others, the socio-economic viability and sustainability of the country. Not only is it an injustice to women, but the economic ramifications in continuing the disproportionate status quo reflected in the continued lack of development and capacitation of women as part of the leadership of higher education and the workforce within various economic sectors, has been reiterated in research as of dire consequence to sustainability and the survival of societies (Shinbrot et al. 2019). Consistently argued by Moodly (2015) and Moodly and Toni (2015a; 2015b; 2017a), is that women in leadership are needed as role models to inspire girl-children and women within societies which continue their oppression. How much more powerful a message when women who facilitate liberation of girl-children and women, occupy the spaces of leadership within the domain of higher education (a tool of liberation) and who serve as role models. The challenge is to continually contest and break down structural barriers within higher education that inhibit women towards leadership, and to develop structures that support a trajectory towards women's leadership. Men in leadership play a pivotal role as persons of influence and authority in this regard (as reflected in literature such as Shinbrot et al. 2019). The focus of this article is to gain insight into perspectives of men in senior/executive leadership on structural barriers that women face within higher education institutions as outlined in the literature, given the dearth of literature on male perspectives. The aim is to ascertain if there is congruence between women's lived experiences and men's perceptions of these structures so as to identify pathways that may contribute towards redressing the inequities within senior/executive leadership.

A qualitative approach was followed focused within the interpretative paradigm (Cresswell 2012), with interviews with six men in university leadership. The initial targeted groups were vice-chancellors (all men at the time of the research) and deputy vice-chancellors at four universities in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Deans and campus rectors were also identified. The open-ended engagement allowed flexibility for further probing (Okeke and Van Wyk 2015), with content and thematic analysis bringing to the fore not only areas as reflected in literature, but also areas that had not been highlighted or foregrounded, or even mentioned by women in the author's previous research.

PROFILES OF THE SAMPLE GROUP

In line with confidentiality and protecting the anonymity of interviewees, it is only revealed that the men were within the age ranges of 40-60+, and mostly black African. All occupied senior/executive positions within the Eastern Cape-based universities.

The research was limited to four universities and six men in leadership. Findings thus cannot be generalised. Gender identification and race in their complexities, and the impact on leadership were not explored. The author acknowledges the various complexities around the identification of binaries and non-binaries in terms of gender, as well as the discourses in this regard. The experiences of women along racial classifications as reflected in literature, is also acknowledged though not explored.

ENGAGING WITH THE FINDINGS

When reflecting on responses, participants are referred to as A, B, C, D, E and F as a form of anonymity in line with research ethics.

Gendered spaces and the old boys network/club

The responses reflected that the old boys' club/network was still prevalent within institutions, and although it had morphed from its original form, it was mostly a male form of networking (as opposed to female). One participant understood it to be an "incoko" (informal/social gathering space where caucusing took place) where men got together around "braais" (barbeques) and discussed matters pertaining to the formal workplace. He was also of the view that these informal structures thrived more on campuses with smaller settings, where it was easier for persons within a limited geographical space to influence decisions within the institution. To him, this was not something prevalent on the campus where he was part of the leadership. Though arguing in his context, that geographical space and proximity of persons in this space determined the existence and influence of informal structures such as the old boys' network, the engagements with most of the respondents confirmed that such informal structures were both still in existence and prevalent outside and within institutions.

For Participant B there were "definitely gendered male centred networks in the institution". He stated that power "did not just happen" but was "reproduced" in a "buddy-buddy set of relations". Though it was often "racialised" it also ran across "linguistic lines" and was "cross-cultural". It was a "patriarchal space" with "almost a kind of conspiracy ... or a convergent ... across the racial boundaries when it comes to male(s)". "Maleness in an institution and male cultures often thrive on the notion of power that emphasises force ... and domination ... or positional power of authority". He stated that caution should be exercised not to "stereotype" as "not all males function" in this manner. Each institution may differ in its "notion of gender" but historically in his institution, it was a culture that "asserted law and order authority" with a "regimented system of control". This was also used as a way to "silence people in the organisation".

Participant C's view was that there was a "correlation between institutional culture" and male-centred networks, evident in some faculties where they were "stubbornly unable ... or ... even unwilling to accelerate pathways for women's advancement" in their fields. "When you look at the spread of gender distribution in those faculties then it will be quite clear that something is wrong". On a question as to how the university navigated these spaces, participant C stated that the "biggest problem was transformation". Though there were "shifts at the top" as all the Deans were "black", he would have wanted to see more "demographic diversity". The institution still had "a long, long way to go" in terms of transformation and he was "not so confident" that they were "near successful in disrupting those networks". This would need a change in institutional culture. Disruption, if it happened was "politically" and at the time when "issues are brought to ... attention". Thus, "the ability to shift the system around not just in numbers but (also) in cultural changes" associated with the disruptions had not been as successful. He indicated that institutional culture could not be extricated in this pattern as it was this that "reproduces the inequalities". He stated that "unless you break down the sources of ... inequality ... you are not going to tackle the problem ... because human beings will still continue to do exactly the same as they have done".

Participant C indicated that not only did the "old boys' network ... exist" but part of this was "young boys' (network)". The younger men were "co-opted to those kinds of ... informal structures" and as such the "outcomes" that were favoured would be attained, through also incorporating the younger men, who "served under them". These forms of clubs were "not declared", nor did they have "constitutions" and normally operated "outside of the formal structures", such as at "social gatherings" like the "golf course". Though participant D was not certain if the "old boys" network existed within his institution, he was of the view that there was "a time ... a formal ... and informal university" with the latter "calling the shots". What happened in the "formal" had been "concluded in the informal" and though he had no "empirical evidence" he was of the opinion that a structure "outside (of) the formal structure" drove the institution. He was of the view, that given the "patriarchal nature of society", that such a structure was predominantly male (though he could not say if women were part of such a structure).

Participant F indicated that he imagined that it existed, "even in a tearoom conversation which may be exclusionary ... social spaces". He mentioned, as examples, conversations of "cricket and you know nothing about cricket ... so you feel excluded". His views reflected those of participant A that geographically smaller spaces were fertile grounds for such structures. It was in these structures "outside of the formal meeting structures" where issues were discussed. He was also of the view that it was "more likely men than women" in these social spaces, and that in "certain departments there was not a single woman" and that it would take "a significant culture change if there were to be a woman academic in those departments". The more homogenous the structure, the more challenging it was for someone perceived as an outsider to penetrate such a space, and "these kinds of networks served as useful support structures for those within them. Not only did it enable exchange of views, but it was a space to ask each other questions and advice" and so these networks were "quite strong". The power and influence of such structures were quite obvious in the formal settings of university meetings, as you could "tell when certain individuals have a discussion on an issue ... they are not ... engaging for the first time on those ... they do exchange views on issues outside of the formal structures".

The views expressed mostly reflect consensus that the old boys' club/network is a reality within institutions, and though it may have morphed somewhat, it is perceived as still predominantly male, and exists amongst those with power and influence. It is within these informal and social spaces that informal decisions are taken and formalised within the institutional structures. It still facilitates positional power and thus the dominant gendered discourse which favours a masculine institutional culture. Breaking down and challenging such networks, is part of the challenge of transforming the institutional culture. The responses reflect that though the participants were mostly aware of such formations, they did not necessarily challenge such, or reflect on these. The deeper layers of such formations and their bolstering of the status quo had not been engaged. Reflecting on the responses in relation to Bhaskar's and Archer's theories of critical and social realism respectively, though there appears to be a conscious awareness of these formations, the grappling with such and the deeper impact of such on institutional culture in relation to women had not been engaged. Recognising such formations as perpetuating gender inequalities, especially in relation to women and challenging the status quo towards social justice is not apparent in the responses of most participants. A deeper understanding of the extent of the impact of such formations on women's experiences was also not immediately evident, though it is acknowledged that there was only one session of engagement with each participant.

Structures that promote women's trajectory to leadership

Whereas most participants indicated that there were no formal structures that supported women on a trajectory to leadership, two pointed to formal programmes aimed at developing women in academia in their respective institutions. These strengthened opportunities towards academic progress, and it could be argued that these were also enablers towards academic leadership. Participant A's responses reflected challenges in attracting qualified and competent persons, not only women, to the university, as well as into leadership positions. It was for this reason that the institution did not necessarily focus on the recruitment of women into executive leadership. Though there was acknowledgment for the need to recruit women, the over-arching justification for lack of focusing on equity in terms of gender, was the shortage of interest in these positions by experienced, suitably qualified persons in general. Aside from the challenge to attract women, there were also no structures that facilitated the preparation of women within the university towards such positions. This rationale appeared more of a justification for the retention of the status quo, an acceptance that an argument of geographical location and accompanying resource shortages would be sufficient grounds for understanding the lack of agency. It also appeared to be the justification for an absence of an internal focus to develop structures that support women on such a trajectory. In this regard it is argued, there was no exercise of agency to influence the status quo both externally and from within, but that a complacency has set in, with the unuttered narrative that the institution's situation should be understood. It is this complacency that needs to be shaken, as the argument could echo across the sector, each leader justifying their institution's position and the lack of exercising their agency. Most participants stated that there were structures within the academic and research spheres that focused on the promotion of women, but at a "system-wide level", and in "institutional leadership", and in "administration", such structures were absent. This acknowledgement reflects that conceptualisation around the trajectory of women and support structures in terms of this, has not clearly been visualised. The focus and emphasis within institutions have not been to the extent of challenging the lack of structures supporting women, rather than an attempt at justifying the lack of such focus. The danger in allowing this narrative to dominate this space, is what contributes to apathy, a resignation to the challenges, rather than an opportunity for looking at different pathways to follow. In terms of Bhaskar's theory of differentiated levels of reality, at an empirical, observed level, there is a lack of structures supporting women which can be ascribed to challenges as experienced within these institutions. However, the question can be asked as to whether there are not deeper actual and real levels where structures and mechanisms exist as barriers to supporting women towards leadership? And that it may be these underlying structures and mechanisms that have resulted in the absence of such support systems? Archer's theory argues that not only should there be the recognition of such underlying mechanisms and structures, but the exercising of agency in disrupting such is needed. There appears to be a deeper reality of morphostatis, and a lack of movement towards addressing social justice, reflected within the empirical, observed level of a lack of systems and support structures for the promotion of women. Unless we agitate for an awakening from this sense of justification of lack of agency, towards a recognition of and agency towards disrupting the deeper structures and mechanisms, women will continue to be in the minority within positions of leadership. The focus has to be on agency towards an enabling environment and the agitation for structures in this regard.

Participant A was not certain that there were institutional policies and plans that encouraged the employment and development of women. He referred to national imperatives and the Department of Labour's equity imperatives that the institution generally was aware of, but pointed to the general challenge of attracting staff as a challenge to focus on equity targets. Participant B indicated that the institution had not necessarily taken into consideration "the social and other responsibilities" of women. Using a "household context" as an example, he indicated that this was not taken "into account", in possibly adapting academic and administrative support towards women and career-pathing. He stated that in considering support for women in terms of policies and plans, there was also a need to consider the "reconstruction of social relations, given the multiple forms of relations women (and men) formed". The "traditional patriarchal assumptions about women's social responsibilities" had to be reconstructed and he questioned the extent to which the university's "policies and strategies" created "more flexible environments for shared responsibilities" "between couples ... having to share responsibilities of child-rearing and other kinds". He indicated that policy at his institution did not necessarily consider the deconstruction of the traditional "family concept" and thus there were "normative assumptions" that were "built" into policies "based on very traditional notions of male-dominated households". He was of the opinion that the policy structure at the institution was fundamentally flawed in this regard and women at the institution had "also agitated" against this over a period of time. There had, however, not been "an alternative conception of what families could be" and policy in this regard, had not been addressed.

Participant E indicated that though policies and plans were in place, these were not necessarily particular to women. Instead, these policies covered "a whole range of people who had (previously) been excluded, inclusive of women". He pointed to women leaders who guided the trajectory of the institution in their roles on Council and in the Chancellorate, even though they were not directly involved in the operational structures. Their influence in their oversight capacity impacted on the trajectory of the university in terms of policy and practice. This reiterates the researcher's argument that women need women as role models and as agents of transformation in higher education leadership. Participant E, acknowledges that the impetus for addressing a change in policy and practice was the representation of women on Council and within the Chancellorate exercising their agency and advocating for women in leadership. He also indicated that five directorates under his supervision were headed by women, and together with them he ensured that policies moved in the direction of capacitating and supporting women. The increased number of women in senior administrative positions, ensured that support for women was addressed in terms of formal structures.

Participants generally agreed on the need for policies and plans to promote women in terms of opportunities for them to develop and play a greater role in leadership. Participant B also stated that programmes should consider the non-linear and non-chronological life cycle continuum that women follow in terms of career pathing (the many commitments women have and the interrupted nature of their journey with family and other commitments). Participant F indicated that there was a need to "invest" in the promotion of women into leadership positions and that councils of universities had to be encouraged "to give priority and preference to women in filling positions of deputy vice-chancellor and vice-chancellor". He was supportive of a "mechanism of identifying (women) academics at faculty dean level, who (could) be supported and be given opportunities for self-development" so as to successfully compete for positions at the upper echelons of university leadership. His view was that "we cannot leave this thing to chance - we can't simply say that there are natural processes that will in the fullness of time help us to correct the glaring imbalance in the gender composition of the senior leadership of universities". However, it was a challenge that "required leadership ... at a vice-chancellor level" as the "normal processes that have always been followed" were likely to yield the "same profile of people that this process has delivered in the past". "Somehow, we need to disrupt these normal processes and find ways of ensuring that we bring women on board, not only because they are women - because they are just as good This advocacy for disruption of the status quo, is what is needed in the agency of men in leadership. Understanding the need for disruption of the status quo must be married to exercising agency in this regard. The deeper reality of the structures and mechanisms that maintain the status quo of social injustice has to be disrupted through those in leadership. Men who are in positions of power, need to recognise and disrupt the deeper structures and mechanisms at play. It may be that the challenges as manifested in the surface realities may diverge attention in this regard. The disproportionate power relations which perpetuate social injustice towards women and girl-children can only be disrupted through a recognition of the deeper realities and a conscious engagement in transforming such.

Mentoring and support structures for women

Respondent A stated that the university leadership recognised the need to develop the "next generation of leadership" though it was not necessarily "specific to women". The academic organogram was under review so as "to grow the next generation of leaders" and "grooming" was identified as a strategy, and as the discourse unfolded the issue of gender equity in leadership may become a focus point. Only one of the deans at the institution was female at the time, and represented less than ten percent of leadership at deanship. The question one could ask is, how does one support and develop women to executive leadership level, if there is still a deficit trajectory?

Respondent B indicated that mentoring at his institution was "unstructured" and "informal" but that he did "not know everything in the institution". Mentoring was "fragmentally promoted" and there was at the time thought of setting up a more concrete structure in this regard. He was of the view that the fragmented approach could not and did not "tackle the systemic challenge" and that there was a need for a "structure" that induced "an environment for the support of women at a much more systemic level". Respondent C indicated that there were no formal structures for mentoring women but that there was funding available as a mechanism to support mentoring, amongst other forms of support. He mentioned the nGap programme, a new Generation of Academic Programme supported by government, as a form of support, though acknowledged that this was not necessarily specific to women. He also stated that the "grant" (referring to the teaching and learning support funding) from the Department of Higher Education and Training also allowed for the support of women as part of the broader support of academics in their development. The challenge was that it was assumed that "the playing fields are level", which was not the case. Equal forms of support were given to both men and women because of this assumption. The responses of the three participants as mentioned, generally reflected that mentoring was not formally planned, nor structured and was not a focus as part of a planned strategy. Again, as previously stated, the deeper realities of the structures and mechanisms that maintain the status quo need to be recognised and challenged. The empirical reality is that it would appear that there is an assumption that women do not need any additional forms of mentoring and support structures. The realities of the challenges that are unique to women and girl-children have not been recognised and seemingly are not understood, hence the lack of differentiated support to women.

As in Shinbrot et al. (2019), this research concludes that women's (as previously interviewed) and men's responses on views towards women and leadership do not necessarily differ. Men were just as likely to agree that women have a "unique lived experience" and experienced a "male-dominated" institutional and family/societal culture (Shinbrot et al. 2019, 128). As further observed by Shinbrot et al., participants in the research had willingly participated (as in this project) and they may possess a level of "inherent" sympathy towards women. However, their responses may not necessarily be reflective of all men in leadership. Despite the understanding of women's challenges within the gendered spaces by the men as interviewed, there is a lack of appreciation of and engagement with the deeper realities of women's experiences of the mechanisms and structures of morphostatis, as explicated by Bhaskar and Archer. Though there is recognition of the empirical realities (as manifested in the old boys' club, the lack of mentoring and support structure, etcetera), the author argues that there may not be an appreciation of the depth of the actual and real underlying levels which maintain the status quo. Neither is there agency in engaging with these levels. The surface (empirical) reality thus dominates and clouds the deeper layers of reality. Thus, the challenge of geographical location, for example, was the argument of the majority of the respondents, as a reason for not being able to attract experienced academics of a competent research calibre, including black academics, let alone women in particular. Meaningful engagement with issues of social justice (and gender equality) and conceptualizing the differentiated levels of reality towards morphogenesis is clouded by the more immediate day-to-day challenges. Men (and women) in leadership need to step back and reflect on their role and responsibilities in addressing gender inequalities and the disproportionate power relations within our societies. Men in leadership, in particular need to recognise their roles in engaging with the inequalities within our societies, and their agency in disrupting such inequalities. In the absence of a morphogenetic approach in analyzing and interpreting the deeper layers which perpetuate and maintain social injustices in our societies, which amongst others, form barriers to women towards leadership, men would not be taking up their co-responsibilities in addressing gender inequality. It cannot be accepted that because of a general challenge in attracting black and senior academics to our institutions, this outweighs prioritising addressing the marginalisation of women. Part of the discourse should be to consider all of these challenges and not prioritise one over the other. It is this justification that puts us in the perilous condition of perpetuating the status quo. There has to be agitation towards challenging this perception. The reconstruction of social relations as indicated by participant B, speaks to the need for discourse around policy and the structure of policy and advocacy that influences what may still be deep underlying levels of normative assumptions on which policies are constructed. Leaders need to do more in exercising their agency as persons in positions of influence, in disrupting traditionally accepted processes. Leadership needs to agitate to explore ways of ensuring women are represented at the highest levels of leadership, through stimulating re-thinking around policy-planning and implementation, and the underlying notions that influence such.

Broader still, within the frameworks of critical realism and social realism, it is argued that there is a form of morphostasis in the lack of agency and the preserve therefore of what is described by Bhaskar, as the "real" layer of deep structural and cultural constructs that underpin the higher education milieu. Though there is acknowledgement and a sense of support for women on a trajectory of leadership, the form thereof is not of a conscious, decisive and concerted nature (a form of morphogenesis). Conscious awareness of their positions of influence and power in advocating for women towards leadership was not reflected in the discussions. The participants supported and understood equity principles and that women needed to be in the foreground of transformation of leadership. What was not apparent, was consciousness and their exercise of agency or that there was urgency in addressing the status quo. The challenge is that the complexity of the HE milieu is such that the prioritising of advocacy for women in leadership is lost in a myriad of challenges. The issues of finding academics, particularly black academics to occupy positions and as one participant indicated "a warm body in front of a lecture - that" (own emphasis) is the priority. Thus, the voices of the struggle and complexities of women in this milieu become but one of the many challenges. And that cannot be! In as much as we experience the challenges, there are (own emphasis) areas that can be addressed; such as the old boys' network and the subtle forms of it, review of policy underpinnings, and implementation of focused support structures and programmes for women in particular. Persons in leadership, both men and women, need to be held accountable for this. And those in leadership need to drive this. And here, the findings speak to all as part of our public higher education system.

Men in leadership should exercise their agency more conscientiously towards challenging institutional cultures that continue to inhibit the advancement of women towards leadership. Exercising agency, as purported by Archer and also argued by Monnapula-Mapesela (2017), moves our milieu from a state of morphostatis to that of morphogenesis. There is a danger in complacency in the acceptance of continuous challenges as justification for the lack of exercising agency more assertively. Failure to act may also reflect as failure in the redress of the marginalisation of the girl-child and women in our society, and failure in promoting social justice from a position of influence and power.

Archer, M. S. 2000. "Morphogenesis - Realism's explanatory framework. " In Being human, 59-94. Cambridge: CUP. [ Links ]

Bonorchis, R. 2019. "South African protests spread to Cape Town over murders of women." Daily Maverick 5 September 2019. www.dailymaverick.co.za (Accessed 5 September 2019). [ Links ]

Carolus, A. 2019. #AmInext: Surviving South Africa and its femicide epidemic. https://www.alltheprettybirds.com (Accessed 6 September 2019). [ Links ]

Cresswell, J. W. 2012. Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4 th Edition. Boston: Pearson. [ Links ]

Fronteddu, C. 2013. "The Role of Men in Gender Equality." https://timeforequality.org/news/the-role-of-men-in-gender-equality/ (Accessed 14 July 2020). [ Links ]

Moodly, A. and N. Toni. 2015b. "Women's voices of and on leadership in higher education." https://doi.org/10.20853/31-3-917. Paper presented at the Global Research and International Services (GRDS) 7th International Conference on Teaching, Education and Learning (ICTEL), 10-11 October 2015. Pointe aux Piments, Mauritius. [ Links ]

Moodly A. and N. Toni. 2019. "Intrinsic and extrinsic factors in empowerment of women towards leadership - a study in higher education (South Africa)." International Conference on Gender Research (ICGR19). E-Book ISBN 978-1-912764-16-7. E-Book ISSN - 2516-2810; Print version ISBN - 978-1-912764-15-0; Print version ISSN: 2516-2802: 407- 416. [ Links ]

Nkanjeni, U. 2019a. "Wrap|A; The details on SA's femicide protests and shutdowns." In News/South Africa Times Live. www.Eslive.co.za.cdn.ampproject.org. (Accessed 5 September 2019). [ Links ]

Nkanjeni, U. 2019b. "CrimeStats revisited: Murder, rape and violent crime - these are the numbers." In News/South Africa Times Live. www.timeslive.co.za. (Accessed 10 September 2019). [ Links ]

Toni, N. and A. Moodly. 2019. "Do institutional cultures serve as impediments for women's advancement towards leadership in South African higher education?" South African Journal of Higher Education 33(3): 176-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.20853/33-3-3137. (eISSN 1753-5913. [ Links ]).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Divergence of perspectives on women and higher education leadership? In conversation with men in leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rhodes Business School and Registrar Rhodes University Makhanda/Grahamstown, South Africa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1636-9972 Literature on the challenges and marginalisation of women in higher education and leadership has focused mostly on the voices of women in understanding their experiences. The structural and cultural milieu of the higher education landscape has continuously been put forward as part of a complexity of contributing factors to the challenges.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. It can lead to a wide range of harmful behaviors, from acts of violence to subtle comments that reinforce stereotypes.

All manifestations of sexism are harmful and have a negative impact on society. Women are most severely affected, but sexism also affects people of other marginalized genders. Less directly, it also harms men.

In this article, we describe the different types of sexism and give some examples that people may commonly encounter.

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination against a person or group based on their sex or gender. It primarily affects women and girls, and it is the root cause of gender inequity worldwide.

Sexist acts include any that frame one sex or gender as inferior. Sexism can be conveyed in:
Learn the difference between sex and gender.
People categorize sexism in several ways. Sexism can be:

These terms come from the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, a framework that researchers use to understand and measure the effects of this prejudice.

Sexism can operate on different levels in society. It can be:

The following sections describe these types of sexism in more detail.

This refers to beliefs and behaviors that are openly hostile toward a group of people based on their sex or gender. Misogyny, or the hatred of women, is an example of hostile sexism.

People who hold views that are hostile and sexist may view women as:

manipulative

deceitful

capable of using seduction to control men

needing to be kept in their place

These views may also apply to anyone with feminine traits and anyone who expresses their gender in a way that is associated with femininity.

People who perpetuate hostile sexism want to preserve men's dominance over women and people of other marginalized genders. They typically oppose gender equality and may also oppose LGBTQIA+ rights, seeing these things as a threat to men and the systems that benefit them.

Impact

Hostile sexism is dangerous. According to 2019 research, it is a risk factor for sexual harassment and gender-based violence.

A 2015 study found that men who endorsed hostile sexism were more likely to be physically abusive toward their partners, with alcohol use - another common risk factor - having less of an effect on rates of intimate partner violence among this group. This suggests that hostile sexism is a powerful driver of abuse in relationships.

A 2019 study in Indonesia also found a positive link between hostile sexism and sexual assault. People who endorsed hostile sexism were more likely to believe in "rape myths" that place the blame for sexual assault on the victim, not the perpetrator.

Examples

Examples of hostile sexism include:

using sexist language or insults

making threatening or aggressive comments based on a person's gender or sex

harassing or threatening someone for defying gender norms, online or offline

treating people as subordinates based on their sex or gender and punishing them when they "step out of line"

believing that some victims of sexual assault "ask for it" due to their behavior or clothing

engaging in physical or sexual assault

Benevolent sexism includes views and behaviors that frame women as:

innocent

pure

caring and nurturing

fragile and in need of protection

beautiful

A 2020 study involving participants in the United States and United Kingdom found that people who believed in humanity's dominance over nature and who saw women as being more closely connected with nature than men were more likely to exhibit benevolent sexism.

Impact

In comparison to hostile sexism, benevolent sexism can be less obvious. It is a more socially accepted form and is much more likely to be endorsed by men and women. However, despite its name, this type of sexism is not truly benevolent.

While benevolent sexism applies some positive traits to women and femininity, it still frames one sex or gender as weaker than another. These ideas can lead to policies and behaviors that limit a person's agency, or the ability of someone to make their own choices.

For example, the 2020 study found that men who endorsed benevolent sexism were more likely to support policies that limit the freedoms of pregnant women. Benevolent sexism also undermines girls' confidence in themselves and their abilities.

Examples

Some examples of benevolent sexism include:

basing a woman's value on her role as a mother, wife, or girlfriend

focusing attention and praise on someone's appearance rather than their other attributes

believing that people should not do things for themselves, such as manage money or drive a car, because of their gender

assuming that a person is a nurse, assistant, or secretary - not a doctor, executive, or manager - based on their gender

supporting policies that make it difficult for women to work, have independence, or deviate from traditional gender roles

This is a combination of benevolent and hostile sexism. People who engage in ambivalent sexism may vary between seeing women as good, pure, and innocent and seeing them as manipulative or deceitful, depending on the situation.

Some researchers argue that hostile and benevolent sexism support one another as part of a system.

Benevolent sexism offers women protection in exchange for them adopting a more subordinate role, while hostile sexism targets those who deviate from this. For this reason, some refer to the former as "Plan A" and the latter as "Plan B."

Some examples of ambivalent sexism include:

glorifying traditionally feminine behavior and demonizing "unladylike" behavior, in media coverage, for example

hiring someone because they are attractive, then firing them if they do not respond to sexual advances

differentiating between "good" women and "bad" women based on how they dress

This refers to sexism that is entrenched in organizations and institutions, such as:

the government

the legal system

the education system

the healthcare system

financial institutions

the media

other workplaces

When policies, procedures, attitudes, or laws create or reinforce sexism, this is institutional sexism.

Institutional sexism is widespread. It can be hostile, benevolent, or ambivalent. One of the clearest indicators is the lack of gender diversity among political leaders and business executives.

Another indicator is a gender pay gap. This refers to a difference in the average pay that women and men receive for similar work. In the U.S., according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a woman earns 82 cents for every dollar that a man earns. Overall, women earn less than men in almost every occupation.

This gap is wider for women with children and for Black, Latina, Indigenous, Asian, and Pacific Islander women.

This manifests during interactions with others. It can occur in the workplace, within relationships, among family members, and in interactions with strangers.

Examples of interpersonal sexism include:

telling someone to be more ladylike

judging someone for not fitting into stereotypes of femininity, such as by being caring or submissive

making inappropriate comments about someone's appearance

talking down to someone based on assumptions about their gender

engaging in unwanted sexual attention or touching

justifying sexist behavior by saying "boys will be boys"

Internalized sexism refers to sexist beliefs that a person has about themselves. Usually, a person adopts these beliefs involuntarily as a result of exposure to sexist behavior or the opinions of others.

Internalized sexism may cause feelings of:

It also causes people to unintentionally collude with sexism.

Research suggests that the lower rate of women working in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics may be due to internalized sexism. Studies have shown that sexist stereotypes affect academic performance. As many believe that boys are better than girls at math and science, this could cause a lack of confidence.

Some other examples of internalized sexism include:

making self-deprecating jokes about one's gender, such as "blonde jokes"

someone basing their self-worth on how desirable they are in the eyes of men

feeling ashamed of aspects of being female, such as having periods or female genitalia

feeling that it is essential to conform to gender ideals, even if this means harming oneself, through restrictive dieting, for example

There are many types of sexism. This prejudice and discrimination can be hostile and overt or seemingly benevolent and more subtly harmful.

Many countries that consider themselves to be tolerant instead perpetuate a mixture of types, forming a system of ambivalent sexism.

All types of sexism are harmful to the health of society. To stop sexism, it is crucial to understand how it manifests and then to challenge sexist attitudes and practices at all levels - from the internal to the institutional.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 types of sexism, examples, and their impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. It can lead to a wide range of harmful behaviors, from acts of violence to subtle comments that reinforce stereotypes. All manifestations of sexism are harmful and have a negative impact on society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SemEval-2023 Task 10: Explainable Detection of Online Sexism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Online sexism is a widespread and harmful phenomenon. Automated tools can assist the detection of sexism at scale. Binary detection, however, disregards the diversity of sexist content, and fails to provide clear explanations for why something is sexist. To address this issue, we introduce SemEval Task 10 on the Explainable Detection of Online Sexism (EDOS).

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 9 Internalized sexism and gaslighting

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 9 Internalized sexism and gaslighting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
-Mother to daughter about taking calculus class, from Stand & Deliver.
"The chubby girl? I think there's a pretty sizable ass there, yes, sir. Huge thighs."
-Female professional "trashing" a co-worker in front of her male boss, from Love Actually.
"I lived in a household where women were routinely treated as second class. For a long time, I bought into the negative stereotype and would make sexist and racist remarks about myself and other women. Only after I moved out did I realize that I had been bamboozled."
-Anonymous

Internalized sexism can be defined as the tendency of some women to regularly put down, make disparaging remarks about, and/or sabotage their own or other women's and girls' identity, potential, and success.

Often, those with internalized sexism are consciously or unconsciously socialized into believing that women are inferior and "the weaker sex," and should either indiscriminately please, or "take a backseat" in their relationships with men (especially the dominant male figures in their lives). Significantly, one of the most common expressions of internalized sexism is when some women routinely attack ("trash") other women and girls to marginalize their selfhood and power.

It is important to emphasize that many women with degrees of internalized sexism may not be consciously aware of their own disempowering words and actions (both toward themselves and other women). Many grew up around, are conditioned by, and have bought into the gender stereotypes and inequalities of family, society, institutions, religion, popular media, social media, and mass advertising. Some women even feel compelled to justify and defend gender inequalities. It is a classic example of gaslighting, where a perpetrator (in this case a gender-unequal society) convinces the victim that she is less than who she really is. The victim in turn gaslights oneself and other girls and women. Internalized sexism is a form of social and psychological brainwashing.

What are some of the most common signs of internalized sexism? Below are 10 characteristics, with references from my books, How to Let Go of Negative Thoughts and Emotions and Are You Highly Sensitive? How to Gain Immunity, Peace, and Self-Mastery!.

Some women may occasionally dabble in the following behaviors, which may not be a major issue. A woman with strongly internalized sexism will routinely engage in one or more of the pathologies (dysfunctions) below while remaining largely unaware of (or unconcerned with) the tangible and psychological damage done to oneself and other women and girls.
1. Regularly making disparaging remarks about one's own body and physical appearance. 2. Regularly making disparaging remarks about other women's and girls' body and physical appearance (body shaming). 3. Constantly engaging in negative social comparisons with other women and girls. Routinely viewing other women as competitors in social and family situations, especially for the attention and approval of men.
"I dyed my hair blond and enlarged my breasts to get men's attention - and to make other women jealous!"
-Anonymous

4. Routinely viewing other women as competitors/adversaries in professional situations, especially those who show great potential and promise, and/or those in highly visible leadership positions.
5. Making self-deprecating jokes/remarks based on negative gender stereotypes (i.e., "I'm a woman, so I'm bad in math.")

6. Making deprecating jokes/remarks about other women and girls based on negative gender stereotypes (i.e., "There goes another clueless female driver!")

7. Actively discouraging other women and girls from realizing their dreams and fulfilling their higher potential. (Deep down, those making such remarks may be jealous of other women doing what they themselves cannot.)

8. Applying a double standard favoring men and boys over women and girls (i.e., in child-raising, family relations, student treatment in school, employee treatment at the workplace, customer treatment in business, etc.)
9 Defending, justifying, and excusing individual acts of misogyny, mistreatment, and/or abuse, either toward oneself or toward other women (learned helplessness).
"It was my fault [that my husband beat me]."
-From The Godfather

10. Defending, justifying, and supporting societal, institutional, political, and/or cultural bias and oppression against women (internalized oppression). Blaming women for causing their own victimization.
For tips on how to handle internalized sexism related stress, whether from oneself or from others, see references below.
© 2020 by Preston C. Ni. All rights reserved worldwide. Copyright violation may subject the violator to legal prosecution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Signs of Internalized Sexism and Gaslighting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mother to daughter about taking calculus class, from Stand & Deliver. "The chubby girl? I think there's a pretty sizable ass there, yes, sir. Huge thighs." -Female professional "trashing" a co-worker in front of her male boss, from Love Actually. "I lived in a household where women were routinely treated as second class.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 7 Interpersonal sexism female and male co-workers (Peer Reviewed Article)

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 7 Interpersonal sexism female and male co-workers (Peer Reviewed Article)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Female and male coworkers: Masculinity, sexism, and interpersonal competenc...

# data[].attributes.headline
Article 10 Gender Gap in Tech Industry (Peer Reviewed Article)

# data[].attributes.subject
Article 10 Gender Gap in Tech Industry (Peer Reviewed Article)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exploring the Gender Gap in Tech Companies: Why Aren't There More Women?