Racializing gender: Public opinion at the intersection

Erin C. Cassese, Tiffany D. Barnes, Regina P. Branton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

32 Scopus citations

Abstract

Efforts to understand the political implications of categorical prejudices-like racism and sexism-are complicated by the intersectional nature of social groups. Evaluating attitudes toward members of a single social category (e.g., African-Americans) in isolation can produce misleading conclusions, as racial cues commonly coincide with gender cues and create meaningful subgroups (McConnaughy and White 2014). The idea that different subgroups of women experience distinctive forms of discrimination is reflected in the concept of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy suggests that black and Hispanic women experience discrimination differently from white women or men of color because they simultaneously belong to a low-status gender group and a low-status racial/ethnic group (King 1988; Levin et al. 2002; cf. Sidanius and Veniegas 2000). As a result, women who are racial or ethnic minorities face a cumulative discrimination that extends beyond racism or sexism alone (King 1988; Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach 2008).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-26
Number of pages26
JournalPolitics and Gender
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 17 2015

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gender Studies
  • Sociology and Political Science

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Racializing gender: Public opinion at the intersection'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this