In this research project, Murphy, Sutton, Douglas & McClellan (2011) explore the role of benevolent and hostile sexism in prohibitions imposed on pregnant women. They argue that benevolent sexists are likely to exert control over women’s choices in an attempt to ‘be protective of them’ while hostile sexists are likely to exert control that is aimed at disempowering women. These findings have important implications for understanding the cultural forces behind the legal and economic treatment of pregnant women. These include the trend to indict women for manslaughter after their foetuses have died on the grounds that they failed to protect the foetus, even when their deaths were accidental or caused by someone else.
More about Professor Robbie Sutton
Full text of paper
Related coverage: BBC News
About
Discrimination against pregnant women is evident in many ways. Among these are restrictions in hiring, negative consequences in career progression following maternity and socially imposed restrictions on diet and exercise (Murphy, Sutton, Douglas & McClellan, 2011; Silver-Greenberg & Kitroeff, 2018).
A quick online search about pregnancy restrictions aptly paints the picture: articles about what foods and drinks to avoid, how to manage exercise, mobility and travel during pregnancy and other taboos. In the ‘the everyday sexism project’ a female professional describes how colleagues consistently pressure her not to travel to work by bike because she is pregnant.
Some of these taboos may not only be physically harmful to the mother and baby (e.g., disallowed exercise, be forced to stay at home- Gélis, 1991; Meyer-Rochow,2009) but may also have negative psychological consequences for the mother. For instance, research has shown that in Western cultures, pregnant women who do not adhere to “conventional prohibitions may experience confusion, guilt and stigma” (Murphy, Sutton, Douglas & McClellan, 2011, p.812). At the same time, pregnant women who continue to work or pursue careers in typically masculine fields may be discriminated against (Hebl, Glick, Singletrary & Kazama, 2007).
Research has attempted to understand the reasons underlining socially-construed prohibitions towards pregnant mothers (i.e., that extend beyond medical advice). One line of research proposes that one reason for this may be aversion to risk. Another line of research, however, argues that such prohibitions are rooted in sexist attitudes. For example, Gavaghan (2009) argues that ‘‘singling out one sex for particular monitoring and lecturing from healthcare professionals….is, on the face of it, a straightforwardly sexist policy’’ (p. 302).
Programme and methodology
Two experimental studies
• Study 1: 148 students from a UK University were given questionnaires in return for 10 GBP.
Questionnaires: Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (e.g., ‘‘Most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them’’) ; Endorsement of proscriptions (e.g., ‘Pregnant women should not…’’)
• Study 2: 124 undergraduate students at an English university
Questionnaires: Ambivalent Sexism Inventory ; Judgements concerning proscribed behaviours (7 behaviours: eating blue-veined cheese, drinking alcohol, smoking, drinking tea or coffee,drinking tap water, working out at the gym, and eating seafood)
• Participants indicated whether these behaviours are “unsafe to the mother”, “unsafe to the baby”, deserving of punishment”.
• General positivity or negativity towards women
• Participants indicated their feelings to-ward ‘‘women generally’’, and ‘‘pregnant women generally’’ (feeling thermometer)
• Participants also rate their feelings toward ‘‘pregnant women who, against health advice, drink moderate levels of alcohol’’- most salient and controversial of proscriptions
Key findings
• Hostile and benevolent sexism were positively associated with endorsement of proscriptive statement (Study 1)
• Hostile (but not benevolent) sexism was positively associated with punitive attitudes toward proscribed behaviours during pregnancy (Study 2)
Impact
• Findings offer new and important insight into the link between sexism and pregnancy proscriptions
• Important potential implications for media and policy regarding pregnant women refraining from usual activities
• Important implications for equality and human rights policies towards the derogation and stigmatisation women may face when pregnant
• Important implications for healthcare regarding the stigmatisation of women during pregnancy
• Findings stimulate further research