Identify the issue: Recognize sexism

Example hero paragraph text.

Learn to recognize covert forms of sexism and discrimination commonly referred to as gender microaggressions

Learn to recognize overt sexism and gender discrimination

“The world has never yet seen a truly great and virtuous nation because in the degradation of women the very fountains of life are poisoned at their source.”

— Lucretia Mott

Some displays of sexism and gender discrimination are easy to identify but hopefully do not occur often to female graduate students. For example, most people would agree that referring to a woman in a derogatory manner or denying her a work opportunity based on gender are examples of sexism and discrimination. Most universities have policies against these behaviors. See Sexual Harassment for more information.

More common forms of sexism and discrimination can be just as harmful, but they are so central to the experience of women and minorities that they often go unnoticed. In fact, sexism may be interpreted as a continuum of attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors that are discriminatory toward women. These can range from implicit biases that are largely unknown to those who possess them, to microaggressions, to expressed sexism, to sexual harassment. Below, you will learn about the variety of ways that sexism presents itself, as well as ways to identify and combat sexism.

Implicit bias occurs when we have attitudes toward a group of people or associate stereotypes with that population that are out of our conscious awareness and control. One common type of implicit bias is the unconscious stereotype that links men with ambition, success, and brilliance; this stereotype is particularly strong in the STEM field (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006).

Three major types of bias impact women in STEM:

Prove it again bias: women are expected to prove themselves time and time again to gain the same level of respect and recognition that men receive.
Tightrope bias: A narrow range of behaviors are considered acceptable for women in STEM; this may look like walking a tightrope between “masculine” and “feminine” characteristics.
Maternal wall bias: Motherhood may trigger negative assumptions about competence and commitment for women in STEM (Williams et al., 2016).

Here are some ways that bias may present itself for women in STEM doctoral programs:

Many people adhere to stereotypes about what a scientist should look like, associating masculine characteristics with the STEM field. One study revealed that when individuals are shown images of tenure-track STEM faculty members, feminine-presenting women were more likely to be viewed as early childhood educators than as scientists (Banchefsky et al., 2016).
Implicit gender bias may affect the hiring process of post-doctoral candidates in STEM fields. In one study, faculty members in STEM were given equivalent CVs with traditionally male and female names for a laboratory manager position. Both male and female faculty members rated the female student as less competent and hirable than male candidates (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012).
Hiring may also be impacted by implicit racial bias. In another study of biology and physics professors, faculty members were shown average CVs using the most common first and last names for various gender and racial groups. Male post-doctoral candidate CVs were evaluated more favorably than women’s. Moreover, Asian and White candidates were rated as more competent than Black candidates and more hirable than both Black and Latinx candidates. Women of Color were rated particularly low in this study, demonstrating the compounding effects of gendered racism (Eaton et al., 2020).
A meta-analysis of 100+ studies demonstrated significant bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) for women faculty, faculty of color, and other marginalized groups. While there is variability across disciplines, these biased evaluations could impact doctoral student teaching assistants (Kreitzer & Sweet-Cushman, 2021).
Gender bias may come through in letters of recommendation. One study in the fields of chemistry and biochemistry showed that, while positive language was used to describe both male and female candidates, more standout adjectives were used to describe male candidates; men in STEM were described as “the best qualified” and a “rising star” despite equivalent qualifications (Schmader et al., 2007).

It’s important to note that gender biases may go largely unknown to the faculty members or peers who are enacting them. One study showed that male faculty members in STEM negatively evaluate gender bias research, demonstrating a reluctance to recognize sexism in their departments (Handley et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it is important to understand and interrogate the existence of sexism in STEM. Gender bias results in gender gaps in STEM engagement; discrimination results in decreased sense of belonging and increased discomfort within one’s department (Moss-Racusin et al., 2018). See Climate for more details. It can also produce gender gaps in achievement, productivity, and hiring; see Delays and Setbacks.

Because bias is often unconscious, individuals may make hurtful comments or engage in discriminatory behaviors without realizing the impact of their actions. These are called microaggressions: habitual, implicit, discriminatory behaviors. The most harmful aspect of microaggressions is that both the perpetrator and victim usually do not consciously recognize when these behaviors occur. In the context of gendered racism, Women of Color are subjected even more frequently to these incidents (Hayes & Swim, 2013; Wilkins-Yel et al., 2019)). Microaggressions are usually not intentional, but, over time, the confidence-eroding and isolating effects of microaggressions can be very damaging.

Can you think of incidents where, in comparison to men,

Your contributions were devalued?
Your ideas were taken less seriously?
People expected you to do poorly?
Other people got credit for your ideas?
You felt like you were treated with condescension?
You felt excluded socially?

If you answered yes to many of the questions above, you might be experiencing gender-based microaggressions. See Recognize Microaggressions for more information about these acts and the experiences of women with other marginalized identities.

Self-test

A. A male student disagrees with a female peer.
B. A female student spends more time with other female students than fellow male students.
C. A female student is continually excluded from her male classmates’ study sessions.
D. A female professor chooses not to collaborate with one of her male department members.

C is the correct answer,

While they reflect interplay between gender and work/school dynamics, answers A, B, and D, are more examples of personal preference. Answer C is a clear example of a micro-inequity, and how it can have a significant effect on someone’s performance and functioning within a particular environment.

Sometimes, sexism may be so covert that it is veiled under attitudes that appear positive on the surface. Benevolent sexism consists of seemingly positive yet condescending attitudes toward women, particularly from those who embrace traditional gender roles. Benevolent sexism may present itself through paternalism (protectiveness toward women); complimentary gender differences (flattering beliefs about women’s morality and sweetness); or heterosexual intimacy (the belief that women rely on men’s love). While these attitudes may be interpreted by some as kind or chivalrous, they ultimately convey negative implicit messages about women. Namely, benevolent sexism implies that women are weaker, more fragile, or less competent than men (Glick & Fiske, 2001; Kuchynka et al., 2018).

The chart below demonstrates the differences between benevolent and hostile sexism:

Benevolent sexism

Expressions or behaviors that seem positive but represent condescending attitudes toward women and have negative implications about their capabilities and characteristics.

Have you ever been…

treated as if you need more assistance than men do?
treated as if you are weaker than men?
treated as if you need a man’s help?
treated as if you are more vulnerable than men?
treated as if you cannot take care of yourself?
treated as if you are a “nice girl”?
treated as if you are innocent?
treated as if others expected you to be sweet and friendly?
treated as if you are more morally pure than men?

Hostile sexism

Overtly negative, angry, or harmful attitudes or behaviors toward women, particularly those who exist in male-dominated spaces.

Have you ever been…

subjected to offensive comments?
treated in an insulting manner?
harassed or threatened?
the target of obscene sexual comments or gestures?
the target of insulting jokes?
accused of using your gender to your advantage?
treated in an angry manner?

Some research indicates that women in STEM are likely to encounter benevolent sexism. Whether sexism is hostile or benevolent, the accumulation of experiences laced with sexism has negative consequences for women’s success in a STEM doctoral program.

Even when members of a disadvantaged or marginalized social group believe their group faces discrimination, they often do not believe they are personally disadvantaged. For example, many women will report that they live in a sexist society but are less likely to believe or recognize that they have personally experienced sexism.

Members of racial minority groups are also less likely to report that they have personally faced discrimination and more likely to report that their racial group is discriminated against as a whole. This finding is referred to as the “denial of personal disadvantage,” or the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. Several explanations have been posed for the denial of personal disadvantage. Some women may view recognizing personal experiences of sexism as acknowledging themselves as victims, which can be damaging to feelings of self-worth (Lindsey et al., 2015).

Even when women recognize that they have experienced sexism or discrimination, they often choose not to confront or report the perpetrator (Becker et al., 2014; Swim & Hyers, 1999). Women are more likely to report sexism if it is overt rather than subtle and when they believe it will ensure their personal safety.

Additionally, women may not report sexism when it happens to others due to fear of backlash or belief that others will step in instead. The latter is known as diffusion of responsibility (Lindsey et al., 2015). Overall, women may be afraid of the social consequences, they might believe that confronting discrimination will not make a significant difference in their experience, or they might not believe that they have the personal resources necessary to successfully confront the perpetrator. Some factors help predict whether a woman will choose to confront sexism, such as:

An optimistic outlook on life
Confidence in personal abilities and resources
Positive appraisals of the consequences of confronting sexism

Microinterventions can be used to intervene and challenge microaggressions. See Recognize Microaggressions for examples of microinterventions. See Sexual Harassment for more information on reporting. Several other CareerWISE Coach modules can help improve your confidence in your personal abilities and resources. For example, see Coping & Self-Efficacy, Build on Your Strengths, How You Think, Keep a Positive Perspective, and Academic Resilience.

Any sexism you face in your doctoral program is not your fault; rather, it is a symptom of systemic bias toward marginalized groups, including women. Therefore, even if you choose not to confront or report sexism that you encounter, you are not in the wrong. It is important to weigh the benefits and consequences of challenging sexism, then make the decision that feels right to you.

When you encounter challenges in your program, you may be tempted to attribute those challenges to your own shortcomings. You may feel like you have to work twice as hard as your male peers to receive the same recognition as men, and this may cause you to question your place in STEM. When you have these experiences, consider what institutional factors could be at play. Reflect on how sexism, racism, or other forms of discrimination may be contributing to your experiences. This may reduce some of the self-blame you feel and allow for increased self-compassion.

Becker, J. C., Zawadzki, M. J., & Shields, S. A. (2014). Confronting and reducing sexism: A call for research on intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 603-614. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12081

Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27(3), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276484027003008

Eaton, A. A., Saunders, J. F., Jacobson, R. K., & West, K. (2020). How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates. Sex Roles, 82(3), 127-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01052-w

Gervais, S. J., & Vescio, T. K. (2012). The effect of patronizing behavior and control on men and women’s performance in stereotypically masculine domains. Sex Roles, 66(7-8), 479-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0115-1

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(3), 530-535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311414832

Handley, I. M., Brown, E. R., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Smith, J. L. (2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510649112

Hayes, E. R., & Swim, J. K. (2013). African, Asian, Latina/o, and European Americans’ responses to popular measures of sexist beliefs: Some cautionary notes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(2), 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313480044

Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining!: The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272010

Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C.T. (2004). A stress and coping perspective on confronting sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(2), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00133.x

Keum, B. T., Brady, J. L., Sharma, R., Lu, Y., Kim, Y. H., & Thai, C. J. (2018). Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale for Asian American Women: Development and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(5), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000305

Kuchynka, S. L., Salomon, K., Bosson, J. K., El-Hout, M., Kiebel, E., Cooperman, C., & Toomey, R. (2018). Hostile and benevolent sexism and college women’s STEM outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(1), 72-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317741889

LaCosse, J., Sekaquaptewa, D., & Bennett, J. (2016). STEM stereotypic attribution bias among women in an unwelcoming science setting. Contemporary Sexism & Stereotypes, 40(3), 378-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316630965

Lindsey, A., King, E., Cheung, H., Hebl, M., Lynch, S., & Mancini, V. (2015). When do women respond against discrimination? Exploring factors of subtlety, form, and focus. Journal of Applied Social Psychology., 45(12), 649–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12326

Logel, C., Walton, G. M., Spencer, S. J., Iserman, E. C., von Hippel, W., & Bell, A. E. (2009). Interacting with sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1089-1103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015703

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109

Oswald, D. L., Baalbaki, M., & Kirkman, M. (2019). Experiences with benevolent sexism: Scale development and associations with women’s well-being. Sex Roles, 80(5), 362-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0933-5

Stangor, C., Swim, J. K., Van Allen, K. L., & Sechrist, G. B. (2002). Reporting discrimination in public and private contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.69

Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say?!: Women’s public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 68-88. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1370

Taylor, D. M., Wright, S. C., Moghaddam, F. M., Lalonde, R. N. (1990). The personal/group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167290162006

Wilkins-Yel, K., Bekki, J.M., Bernstein, B.L., & Reed, A. (2019). Intersectional perspectives: Interpersonal contributors to moments of doubt for graduate women of color in STEM. Proceedings of the 2019 CoNECD (The Collaborative Network for Engineering and Computing Diversity) Conference. https://peer.asee.org/31774

The Good, the Bad, the “Only”

The pros and cons of being the only woman in a department and the importance of setting boundaries and knowing your own limitations

Standing Out as a Woman

An alternative way to approach being the only woman in a given situation

Seeking Support Outside the Department

How to refute sexist comments and challenge gendered assumptions

Keep Looking for Faculty Support

The importance of finding the right advisor to support your research goals

Is the Effort Worth the Outcome?

Explains when to confront a problem and when it may be better to maneuver around it

Dealing with Inappropriate Events

Suggestions for how to deal with sexist comments