Sexism and Rape Myth Acceptance: The Impact of Culture,Education,and Religiosity

Abstract

This study explores the influence of education and religiosity on sexist attitudes towards women and rape myth acceptance in two samples totaling 399 participants from the United States and Italy. Both samples completed a demographic questionnaire that assessed age, area of residence, and racial and gender identification. Three questions about religiosity and three about education were included, as well as the Attitudes Towards Women Survey and the Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression. In the Italian pool, 44 held at least a bachelor’s degree, 108 had completed some college, and 29 completed high school at most, while the United States pool consisted of 83, 123, and 12, respectively. Average self-reported levels of religiousness were M = 3.87 (SD = 3.05) in Italy and M = 5.10 (SD = 2.76) in the United States. In both samples, religiosity was a strong predictor of both sexism and rape myth acceptance, while education was only related to rape myth acceptance and with less strength than religiosity. Moreover, country of residence was an important influence for sexist beliefs along with both religiosity and education; however, for rape myth acceptance, country did not have a significant impact.

Keywords

Culture religion education sexism rape myth acceptance Italy United States

Introduction

Sexual assault is a global epidemic. More than 1 in 10 women have been subject to forced sexual acts worldwide. Serious concerns arise for victims who have been sexually assaulted as they are at heightened risk for physical, mental, sexual, and reproductive health problems (World Health Organization, 2017). Moreover, less than 40% of the women who are victims of violence seek help (United Nations Women, 2018). Many reasons have been cited for the statistic that the majority of women do not report their assault, among them: believed the assault was not important enough, believed it was a personal matter, or did not want to get the perpetrator in trouble (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, 2018). Clearly, sexual assault is a violent crime deserving of criminal consequences: why do so many people hold faulty beliefs about it?

Much research has explored different factors that contribute to rape culture and the minimalization of the seriousness of sexual assault. Two factors that are frequently discussed in the literature are rape myth acceptance and sexist ideologies. Rape myth acceptance (RMA) occurs when individuals accept faulty beliefs about sexual assault such as she asked for it, or if she did not physically fight back it was not rape. Sexist ideologies can include hostile and benevolent beliefs and actions such as deliberately refusing to hire a woman to do a stereotypically male job or making sure a woman does not have too many tasks at work in order to not stress her. Although research is somewhat inconsistent, it has suggested previously that higher educational attainment is associated with fewer rape myth beliefs and less sexist attitudes, perhaps due to exposure to new ideas and experiences with diverse individuals of all genders (Glick, Lameiras, & Castro, 2002; Kassing, Beesley, & Frey, 2005; Mikołajczak & Pietrzak, 2014; Nadeem & Sahed, 2017). Religiosity has also been investigated as a predictor of RMA and sexist attitudes. It has been suggested that specific views and literature such as those that promote female submission and see women as temptresses of men influence unhealthy ideologies about women (Burn & Busso, 2005; Edwards, Turchik, Dardis, Reynolds, & Gidycz, 2011; Franiuk & Shain, 2011; Yancey & Kim, 2008). Less is known, however, how education and religion impact RMA and sexism cross-culturally, particularly in countries with the majority of the population identifying as religious, such as Italy and the United States.

Sexism and rape myths

Ambivalent sexism has been consistently defined in previous literature as encompassing both the constructs of benevolent and hostile sexism and defined by Glick and Fiske (1997) as “the ‘stick and carrot’ that keep women in line in a patriarchal society” (Chapleau, Oswald, & Russell, 2007, para. 3). Hostile sexism, exemplified as the stick, implies derogation of women who do not follow traditional gender roles, while benevolent sexism, the carrot, concerns rewards for women who do not challenge male domination and who “know their place” (Glick & Fiske, 1996).

On the other hand, the concept of rape myths has been introduced in the social science realm in order to identify patterns of false social and cultural beliefs underlying sexual violence and aggression towards women (Edwards et al., 2011). Some examples of rape myth ideologies encompass the beliefs that husbands cannot rape their wives, women enjoy sexual violence, women ask to be victims of sexual violence, women are less desirable after they have experienced sexual violence, and that many sexual violence claims are false reports (Edwards et al., 2011; Sierra, Santos-Iglesias, Gutiérrez-Quintanilla, Bermúdez, & Buela-Casal, 2010).

Research has consistently shown the two constructs to be related. According to a study conducted in Spain and England by Durán, Moya, Megías, and Viki (2010), victim blaming has been found to be related to the observer’s hostile sexism levels and, in the case of acquaintance rape, to the perceived levels of benevolent sexism of the perpetrator. Results by Sierra and colleagues (2010) showed that overall hostility levels are related to RMA as well, while both Chapleau and team (2007) and Aosved and Long (2006) reported that sexism against both men and women was the single strongest predictor of RMA, the latter study theorizing this relationship to be influenced by culture-specific standards of masculinity.

Both sexism and RMA, when rooted in a society, have incredibly harmful consequences. Together, they set in place a belief system that create a culture of victim blaming and likely contribute to both the lack of reporting by the victims and the subsequent problematic postreporting experience that many victims share, such as being asked patronizing question insinuating their responsibility in the assault they just suffered. Therefore, because of the potential role sexism and RMA have on the occurrence of sexual assault, victim blaming, and the overall well-being of both survivors and possible targets, understanding predictors of them becomes essential to change the current culture surrounding sexual assault. Two variables that have been consistently linked to both sexism and RMA are education and religiosity.

Education

Although most academic settings have been consistently found to perpetuate gender disparity, often unknowingly (Guzzetti, Young, & Fyfe, 2013; Stockdill & Danico, 2012; Stoll, 2013), research has found education to affect overall degrees of sexism and RMA, although not consistently. A study by Glick and colleagues (2002) conducted in the Galician region of Spain found that higher levels of educational attainment were the strongest predictor of less sexist attitudes. Education was also found to be negatively correlated to hostile sexism in men and benevolent sexism in women by Mikołajczak and Pietrzak (2014), although was later insignificant when controlled for religiosity. In addition, Nadeem and Sahed (2017) found that in a sample of students from Lahore, Pakistan, those with more educated parents and with higher income reported were less likely to hold high RMA levels, possibly because of the better educational opportunities and therefore further exposure to critical thinking their background might have provided. Finally, Kassing and colleagues (2005) found better educated people to reveal less stereotypical gender attitudes.

Ideology and religion

Several ideologies have been long studied in relation to sexism and RMA. A particular subcategory often examined is social ideologies, which is defined as shared knowledge based on culture-specific social systems and influencing norms of behavior (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). They embrace a whole spectrum of intercorrelated beliefs, such as Social Domination Orientation, System Justification, and religiosity and political orientation. Studies have consistently found relations between social ideologies and constructs such as sexism and rape myth beliefs. As highlighted by Edwards and colleagues (2011), rape ideologies stem from a patriarchal structure, and attitudes towards rape are more tied to the observer’s belief system, often heavily influenced by one’s cultural norms, than to the victim’s features (Duff & Tostevin, 2015; Kaplan & Miller, 1978).

One belief which is likely to heavily influence one’s social justice system has been found to be religion (Jost et al., 2014). Religion has been observed to structure gender relations in religious communities, as it defines who is meant to pursue different behaviors (Eason, 1986). Burn and Busso (2005) found intrinsic religiosity, extrinsic religiosity, and scriptural literalism to be positively associated with benevolent sexism. Scriptural literalism, in particular, can perpetuate unhealthy views of women in all major denominations, as the religious patriarchal structure typical of most religions comes not only from historical tradition but from sacred texts as well (Edwards et al., 2011; Franiuk & Shain, 2011; Yancey & Kim, 2008). In the Judeo-Christian tradition, what Christians refer to as the Old Testament deals with themes such submission and, therefore, the legitimization of marital rape, false sexual aggression accusations, and women’s inability to teach and speak in public. Traditions play their role too: in Jewish tradition, women are banned from religious rituals that could distract them from their domestic duties, and in Orthodox rituals, men thank God for not having made them women (Dashefsky, Lazerwitz, & Tabory, 2003; Gaunt, 2012). In fact, scholars have suggested that institutionalized patterns of oppression towards women present in institutionalized religion stems partially from the sexist interpretation of religious symbols (Franiuk & Shain, 2011; Ruether, 1982, 2014). In light of this, religion and resistance to sexist ideologies are not to be considered incompatible, a concept furtherly supported by studies of Feminist Theology (Bello, 2004; Ruether, 2014; Świerczek, 2017).

In particular, Christianity, practiced by a sizeable portion of the population in both countries in consideration, has taken several steps in the direction of gender equality and rape prevention. More recent revisionist currents have emphasized teachings regarding the eschatological reversal, more commonly referred to as “the last shall be first and the first will be last” (see Matthew 20:16), in terms of women bound by the patriarchy, and the teaching of the basileia vision of all-inclusive love (Hilkert, 1995; Shussler Fiorenza, 1994). Moreover, since the late 20th century, several Protestant sects have been accepting women ministers, promoting internal gender equality as well (Niemela, 2011). Several actions have also been initiated in terms of addressing sexual assault, by both stressing the need for clergy to learn about this issue and promoting learning materials for faith leaders (Esworthy & Pearl, 2018; Fortune & Enger, 2005).

The Italian situation

Eurydice (2010) referred to gender inequality in Italy as an issue but not a concern. On the other hand, Italy ranked 82nd in the 2017 Global Gender Gap Report (World Economic Forum, 2017) with a score of .692 of 1. An IstitutoNazionale di Statistica [ISTAT] report (2018) of the same year seems to support this stance, at least in economic terms, as only 49% of women were employed, confirming the gender gap to have remained substantially unaltered since 2001 (Jansen, 2015).

The current state of education is a contributing factor to the gender gap, particularly as it regards labor force and earnings. contributed to. Several studies have indicated that the Italian educational system indirectly perpetuates sexist stereotypes through genderized curricula, linguistic sexism, and gender segregation of programs (Biemmi, 2010, 2015; Businaro, 2011; Dello, 2013). Although the educational gender gap was recognized by the Ministry of Education, University and Research, the issue is far from resolved. This could also be due to the lack of recognition of the problem by faculty and by the absence of institutionalization of gender and women’s studies as the main focus of any university departments or graduate programs (Bazzoni & Cossutta, 2016; Bellafronte, 2003; Biemmi, 2015).

However, education is not the only culprit for the pervasiveness of sexism in the Italian community, as media further advances the perpetuation of sexist gender stereotypes—especially after Silvio Berlusconi’s introduction of commercial TV promoting machismo and celebrating female nudity and passiveness (Gribaldo & Zapperi, 2012; Gutierrez & Boselli, 2009; Kodilja, 2013; Nadeau, 2011; Ragnedda, 2014). Moreover, Italy’s religious and political situation of the past 20 years might have had an effect on the social perception of sexism. In a country where 88% of its population has been raised Christian and that has been called “the historic heartland of Catholicism” (Pew Research Center, 2018a, p.104), the Vatican’s biological view of gender and roles associated to it (McIntosh & Finkle, 1995; Pontificio Consiglio per la Famiglia, 2003) had an impact. It can be argued that it partially caused the idea of a “gender ideology” to be used as grounds by several realities to utilize trivialization, alarmism, and, often, hate speech to combat, among other things, nontraditional gender roles (Ottaviano, 2017). Moreover, as right wing authoritarianism has been found to be correlated to sexism (Cinicola, 2015), the focus of the current government on traditional values and social order might also have had an influence.

On the other hand, Italy’s modern history of organized response to its sexism is somewhat lacking. Similarly to the United States, Italian feminism had three recognized waves, the last one spiking around 2009, and today being suggested as the fourth (Bonfiglioli, 2010; Magaraggia, 2015; Reckitt, 2017; Zanardo, 2009), this movement have polarized public opinion and are facing a strong backlash by the right-leaning political establishment and the Catholic Church (Tobío, 2015). With 21% of women aged between 16 and 70 years reporting having suffered a form of sexual violence (ISTAT, 2014), studying factors contributing to sexism and RMA in Italy is therefore of the utmost importance.

The United States situation

According to the United States Census Bureau (2017), the share of women in the workforce in 2016 amounted to 58%. Moreover, in 2017, women as a group were still earning 82 cents to a man’s dollar; this ratio has remained basically untouched in 13 years, with minority women being affected the most (Hagewish & Williams-Baron, 2018; United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). Although economic achievements do not tell the whole story about women’s status in the United States, these trends are reflective of a broader culture.

In academia, pay trends along gender lines tend to mirror those of society at large, but at the same time it does not allow faculty and staff to easily juggle family and academic life. Although graduate enrollment has been more than 50% female for more than a decade, women accounted for only about 45% of PhDs awarded, and 20% of tenured professors (Monroe, Ozyurt, Wrigley, & Alexander, 2008). Thus, the standard for performance is strictly masculine: females often experience marginalization, discrimination, gendered devaluation, and unbreakable glass-ceiling effects while also having little possibility of appeal (Garavaso, 2009; Monroe et al., 2008). This means that, in addition to reducing sexism (Glick et al., 2002; Mikołajczak & Pietrzak, 2014; Nadeem & Sahed, 2017), education can also model for sexist stereotyping even during formative and compulsory years, as education in the United States is androcentric and heteronormative both in terms of behavioral norms and curriculum choices (Killian, 2013).

In addition, as more and more funds get channeled towards private and religious school funding and attendance at those institutions increases, new issues may arise (Cheuk & Quinn, 2018; McCarthy, 2016). In particular, a discourse on sexism can be challenging to discuss in faith-based schools of certain denominations (Lapayese, 2012). Moreover, according to research, religion has an impact on sexism even outside of the world of education. Although women comprise more than half of the religious population of the United States, currently estimated at 79%, the Protestant tradition of the United States has a history of institutional sexism that, although has been recognized and addressed upon by some denominations, still perpetuates sexist ideology (Roberts & Yamane, 2016; Streufert, n.d.; United States Department of State, 2017).

On the other hand, waves of feminism have been addressing sexism in the past decades (Reger, 2012). A notable recent effort is highlighted seen in Tarana Burke’s Me Too movement. In an attempt to counter the white-dominant and patriarchal rape culture in the United States with an empathic effort of self-reflexivity, Burke launched the Me Too campaign in 2006, and the famous #MeToo tweet by Alyssa Milano catapulted it into public consciousness in 2017. This jump provoked a domino effect of women of all backgrounds speaking up (Jaffe, 2018; Rodino-Colocino, 2018; Sayej, 2018). On the other hand, the movement has faced significant backlash, which may be indicative of heightened RMA. This backlash, however, is not supported by current sexual assault rates: one in three women and one in six men in the United States will experience sexual violence.

Current study

Previous research has investigated possible relationships among education, religiosity, sexism, and RMA with somewhat inconsistent findings. Moreover, the role of culture is often missing from these investigations. The current study extends previous research by incorporating a cross-cultural investigation into these important predictors of sexism and RMA in two countries with high percentages of religious individuals. More specifically, the present project addresses the following questions: (1) Does religiosity and educational attainment influence sexism and RMA in the Italian sample? (2) Does religiosity and educational attainment influence sexism and RMA in the American sample? (3) And finally, when controlling for religiosity and educational attainment, does country membership impact sexism and RMA? It is expected that in the American pool, religiosity will be a stronger predictor of sexism and RMA than education. Although the United States has a strong Protestant tradition, it is the nation with the most pluralistic religious presence in the world (Gaddy, 2008). In addition, based on the previous literature linking religiosity to gender stereotypical ideologies, and Italy’s recent political climate coupled with the far-reaching influence of religion into school and academia, we expect education to be a stronger predictor than religion.

Methods

Participants

An Institutional Review Board approved this study. All subjects were recruited through social media or Amazon Mechanical Turk and had to sign an online consent form to participate in the study. Participants had to be at least 18 years old and live either in Italy or in the United States; they received no compensation if they had been recruited through social media, while they obtained $0.01 if they had completed the survey through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Depending on the country of origin, participants were encouraged to take the questionnaires in either Italian or English, respectively.

The present sample included a total of 399 subjects. The Italian sample consisted of 181 participants ranging in age between 18 and 69 years (M = 27.75, SD = 13.08) (Table 1) and included 110 females, 68 males, and 3 nonbinary persons (Table 2). A total of 170 subjects identified themselves as white, 2 as Asian, and 9 did not report (Table 3). Five people had not completed high school, 24 had reached a high school diploma but had not pursued further education, 38 attended less than a full year of college, 70 completed one year of college or more but had not graduated yet, 25 had completed their bachelor degree, and 19 had completed some sort of graduate education (Table 4). Sixty-five reported an income in the same range or greater than the 2016 national median income which, according to ISTAT (2017), was €24.522 (as of December 6, 2017, equivalent to $28,937.24) (Table 5). A total of 116 participants considered themselves as religious (Table 6). Seventy-one defined themselves as either atheists or agnostics, 4 as spiritual but not adherent to a specific religion, 103 as Christians, 1 as Deist, 1 as Pagan, and 1 did not report (Table 7). Moreover, self-reported importance of religion to the respondent, measured continuously on a scale from 1 to 10, had an overall average of 3.87 (SD = 3.05).

In the American sample, 218 participants ranged from age 18 to 65 years (M = 29.46, SD = 11.13) (Table 1) and included 144 females, 69 males, and 5 nonbinary persons (Table 2). A total of 174 identified as white, 12 as multiracial, 14 as Asian, 11 as Black or African-American, 3 as Latin or Hispanic, 1 as Native American, and 2 did not identify themselves by race (Table 3). Two people had not completed high school, 10 had reached a high school diploma but had not pursued further education, 30 attended less than a full year of college, 93 completed one year of college or more but had not graduated yet, 53 had completed their bachelor degree, and 30 had completed some sort of graduate education (Table 4). A total of 107 people lived in the same range or above the 2016 median income of $59,039 (Semega, Fontenot, & Kollar, 2017) (Table 5). Furthermore, 111 participants considered themselves as religious (Table 6). Fifty-six defined themselves as either atheists or agnostics, 136 as Christians, 18 as subscribing to other religions, 7 as spiritual, and 1 did not report (Table 7). Self-reported religious intensity had an average of 5.10 (SD = 2.725).

Procedure

Data were collected over the course of 13 months. Participants were recruited via the web and therefore were able to take the survey using their electronic device of choice. In order to be able to submit the questionnaire, subjects had to complete all questions in the Attitudes Towards Women Survey (AWS) and Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression (AMMSA). The Italian and American participants’ results were usually separated by which version of the survey they took, depending on language. In one case, one Italian participant completed the English version, was individuated by the location of their university, and their results had to be manually transferred to the Italian sample. No other action was required from the participants.

Measures

All surveys were translated to Italian by a bilingual member of our research team and subsequently approved by another bilingual individual in higher education otherwise not involved in the study. Demographic information such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status were collected.

The AWS (Spence & Helmrich, 1978) is a 25-item survey based on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “agree strongly” to “disagree strongly,” with individual item lower scores indicative of a higher level of sexism. The AWS includes items such as “Intoxication among women is worse than intoxication among men” (Spence & Helmrich, 1978) and “On the average, women should be regarded as less capable of contributing to economic production than are men” (Spence & Helmrich, 1978). According to Daugherty and Dambrot (1986), its Chronbach alpha and Spearman split-half reliabilities were .89 and .86, respectively. Although it has been insinuated that the AWS focuses more on old-fashioned sexism rather than a more modern version of the construct, it is still one of the most used scales (Aosved & Long, 2006; McHugh & Frieze, 1997). Individual items were reverse coded and then summed together so higher scores equated with greater sexist beliefs. The total score was used in analysis.

The AMMSA scale (Gerger, Bohner, & Siebler, 2013) is a 30-item questionnaire which relies on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Its test–retest reliability coefficient amounts to r = .67, and the overall internal consistency reliability of the AMMSA scale scores has been reported to be α = .90 for the English version (Watson, 2016). Possible scores ranged from 30 to 210 points. Total scores were used in analysis, with higher scores being indicative of higher levels of RMA. Some of the items included in the AMMSA are “When a single woman invites a single man to her flat she signals that she is not averse to having sex” (Gerger et al., 2013), and “A man’s sexuality functions like a steam boiler—when the pressure gets too high, he has to ‘let off steam’” (Gerger et al., 2013).

Table 1.

Descriptives—Age.

	Min	Max	M	SD
Italy	18	69	27.50	13.08
US	18	65	29.46	11.13

Table 2.

Descriptives—Gender.

	Italy		United States
	N	%	N	%
Female	110	60.8	144	66.1
Male	68	37.6	69	31.7
Nonbinary	3	1.7	5	2.3

Table 3.

Descriptives—Race.

	Italy		United States
	N	%	N	%
Asian	2	1.1	14	6.4
Black	0	0.0	11	5.0
Hispanic/Latinx	0	0.0	3	1.4
Multiracial	0	0.0	12	5.5
Native American	0	0.0	2	.9
White	170	93.9	174	79.8
Not reported	9	5.0	2	.9

Table 4.

Descriptives—Educational attainment.

	Italy		US
	N	%	N	%
Less than a high school diploma	5	2.8	2	.9
High school diploma	24	13.3	10	4.6
Less than a year of college	38	21.0	30	13.8
Some college, no bachelor degree	70	38.7	93	42.7
Bachelor degree	25	13.8	53	24.3
Graduate degree	19	10.5	3	13.8

Table 5.

Descriptives—Socioeconomic status.

	Italy		US
	N	%	N	%
In range/over national income	87	48.1	113	51.8
Under national income range	94	51.9	105	48.2

Table 6.

Descriptives—Religious identity.

	Italy		US
	N	%	N	%
Yes	65	35.9	107	49.1
No	116	64.1	111	50.9

Table 7.

Descriptives—Religious doctrine.

	Italy		US
	N	%	N	%
Atheist/agnostic	70	38.7	56	25.7
Christian	102	56.4	136	62.4
Other creeds	2	1.1	18	8.3
Spiritual	6	3.3	7	3.2
Not reported	1	.6	1	.5

Data about education and religiosity were collected by three items concerning education and three about religiosity. Information about educational level was inquired through a multiple choices question: “What is your highest level of education?”. Religious intensity, on the other hand, was measured by a 10-point Likert-type scale: “From 1 to 10, how strongly affiliated to your religion are you?”.

Results

The current project investigates the influence of education and religiosity on sexism and RMA in an American and Italian sample. The descriptive data are presented first, followed by separate regression models for the Italian and American samples, and concludes with two separate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models with country as a predictor, religion and education as covariates, and sexism and RMA as outcomes.

Descriptives

Tables 8 and 9 present the means and standard deviations separately for each variable in the Italian and American sample.

Table 8.

Main variables means—Education and religiosity.

	Education				Religiosity
	Min	Max	M	SD	Min	Max	M	SD
Italy	Less than a high school diploma	Graduate degree	Less than a year of college	High school diploma	1	10	3.78	3.05
US	Less than a high school diploma	Graduate degree	Less than a year of college	High school diploma	1	10	5.10	2.73

Table 9.

Main variable means—Sexism and rape myth acceptance.

	Sexism				Rape myth acceptance
	Min	Max	M	SD	Min	Max	M	SD
Italy	27	76	37.20	8.06	35	173	89.49	29.25
US	28	89	42.04	12.15	33	198	87.20	35.03

Education showed considerable variability with participants endorsing educational attainment ranging from less than a high school degree to a graduate level degree (mean: less than a year of college). Religiosity also varied considerably: in the Italian sample, the mean was 3.7 (SD = 3.05), and in the American sample, the mean was 5.10 (SD = 2.73).

In the Italian sample, the score on the assessment of sexism was 37.20 (SD = 8.06). In the American sample, the mean = 42.04 (SD = 12.05). The overall mean score of RMA was 89.49 (SD = 29.25) in the Italian sample and 87.20 (SD = 35.03) for the American sample.

Influences on American sexism and RMA

In the first regression model in the American sample, education and religiosity were entered as predictors of sexism. According to the results, religiosity was a significant predictor of sexism, β = .25, p < .001, whereas education was not, β = −.10, p = .13, and 8% of the variance was explained.

In the second regression model in the American sample, education and religiosity were entered as predictors of RMA. In this model, both religiosity and education were significant predictors of RMA, βs = .21 and −.16, p < .05, respectively, with 7% of the variance explained.

Influences on Italian sexism and RMA

In the first regression model in the Italian sample, education and religiosity were entered as predictors of sexism. According to the results, religiosity was a significant predictor of sexism, β = .31, p < .001, whereas education was not, β = −.11, p = .11, and 11% of the variance was explained.

In the second regression model in the Italian sample, education and religiosity were entered as predictors of RMA. In this model, religiosity was a significant predictor of RMA, β = .13, p < .01; however, education was only suggestive: β = −.20, p < .10, respectively, with 6% of the variance explained.

Country’s influence on sexism and RMA

Two ANCOVA models were utilized to explore the role of country of residence on sexist attitudes and RMA. The independent variable was the country of permanent residence (America and Italy). Covariates were religiosity and educational attainment and the adjusted means are shown in Table 10.

Table 11 provides the results for the first ANCOVA with sexism as the dependent variable. After adjustment by the covariates, sexism varied significantly with country, F(1, 395) = 15.75, p < .001, partial η² = .04; religiosity, F(1, 395) = 30.65, p < .001, partial η² = .07; and education, F(1, 395) = 4.45, p < .05, partial η² = .01.

Table 10.

Adjusted means—Sexism and rape myth acceptance.

	Sexism		Rape myth acceptance
	M	SD	M	SD
Italy	37.56	.77	89.24	2.40
US	41.75	.70	87.24	2.18

Table 12 provides the results for the second ANCOVA with RMA as the dependent variable. After adjustment by the covariates, sexism varied significantly with education, F(1, 395) = 13.17, p < .001, partial η² = .03 and religiosity, F(1, 395) = 13.55, p < .001, partial η² = .03. The direct effect of country was insignificant: F(1, 395) = 13.75, p < .001, partial η² = .04.

Table 11.

Analysis of covariance—Sexism.

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Partial Eta Squared
Education	451.78	1	451.78	4.45*	.01
Religiosity	3111.49	1	311.49	30.65***	.07
Country	1599.16	1	1599.16	15.75***	.04
Error	40095.31	395	101.51

Table 12.

Analysis of covariance—Rape myth acceptance.

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Partial Eta Squared
Education	13109.56	1	13109.56	13.17***	.03
Religiosity	13489.76	1	13489.76	13.55***	.3
Country	438.43	1	438.43	.44	.00
Error	393182.87	395	995.40

Discussion

In the current study, three different questions were addressed regarding the relationships among education and religiosity and sexism and RMA: (1) Is education and religiosity predictive of sexism and RMA in an American sample? (2) Are these findings similar in an Italian sample? And finally, (3) does country of residence have a direct influence on sexism and RMA in a sample of both Americans and Italians? The present study’s results highlight three key findings. First, religiosity was a strong predictor of both sexism and RMA in the American sample. Education was only related to RMA and with less strength than religiosity. Second, these findings were similar for the Italian sample. Third, country residence was an important influence for sexist beliefs along with both religiosity and education; however, for RMA, country did not have a significant impact. Moreover, although both education and religiosity were significantly associated with rape myth, education demonstrated a stronger effect.

Results regarding RMA, in both the Italian and in the American sample pools, are somewhat unexpected. Although education and religiosity were found to be significant factors in Italy and the United States, as hypothesized by the researchers, it is important to note the influence of both constructs in both countries, albeit just suggestively in the case of religiosity in Italy.

No literature examining education as a singular factor for RMA was found, neither as it concerns either of the examined countries nor in a multicultural context, so the negative impact of education on RMA had not been expected by the researchers. The only exception was the possibility of RMA following the same trends as sexism, which would be explained by the documented relation between the two constructs (Aosved & Long, 2006; Chapleau et al., 2007; Durán et al., 2009; Sierra et al., 2010) but which does not mirror our findings, as education was not predictive of sexism. It is possible that this particular finding could be attributed the exposure, through further education, to intergroup contact with women who do not subscribe to gender stereotypes, as positive interaction with counter stereotypical women has been found to be predictive of lesser levels of RMA (Taschler & West, 2017).

As religious traditions have been found to endorse RMA, at least historically (Edwards et al., 2011; Franiuk & Shain, 2011; Yancey & Kim, 2008) and both Protestantism and Catholicism, in particular, have recently been found to be related to higher RMA (Barnett, Sligar, & Wang, 2018), the effect of religion on rape myth beliefs is not surprising. On the other hand, the only suggestive strength of its influence within the Italian sample could be partially explained by the omnipresence of religious values within Italian society, which could provide an exposure to traditional gender roles endorsed by the Vatican (McIntosh & Finkle, 1995; Pontificio Consiglio per la Famiglia, 2003) even as individuals do not actively identify as Catholic.

For sexism, our findings supported our hypothesis for the United States, but did not for Italy, as both countries saw religiosity as the only predictor. Different results between the two countries had been expected, due to variations in the relationship between the two countries' religious and secular institutions (McClay, 2007; Ottaviano, 2017). On the other hand, these findings lend support to the large body of preexistent literature (Burn & Busso, 2005; Glick et al., 2002; Mikołajczak & Pietrzak, 2014, Maltby, Hall, Anderson, & Edwards, 2010; Taşdemir & Sakallı-Uğurlu, 2010). Moreover, the fact that similar results were reached in spite of such a religious difference among the two countries can be explained presuming that those who self-report as more religious tend to make an active effort in shaping their values and principles with those proposed by their religion, rather than passively internalizing beliefs perpetuated by society. As Scriptures have been defined by the Catholic Church as the fundamental parameters of its belief (Pontificia Commissione Biblica, 2014), it is safe to assume that active adherence to religion in a Catholic country such as Italy includes a certain extent of scriptural literalism, which has been found to be linked to sexism (Burn & Busso, 2005).

Finally, the findings related to the third question somewhat challenge existent literature (Mosso, Briante, Aiello, & Russo, 2013). This finding could be explained by taking into consideration a limitation of this study, namely, the differences in overall religious makeup of both Italy and the United States and the sample used in this study. In particular, given the link between religiosity and sexism supported by both the literature and this current study (Burn & Busso, 2005; Glick et al., 2002; Mikołajczak & Pietrzak, 2014; Maltby et al., 2010; Taşdemir & Sakallı-Uğurlu, 2010), this trend could be affected by the Italian sample having a lower overall religious average than the American one.

Conclusion

In the current study, education and religious intensity were examined as possible predictors of sexism and RMA in Italy and the United States. According to the analyses, in the Italian sample, education was the only significant factor affecting RMA, religion only being a suggestive influence, and sexism was only affected by religion. In the United States sample, both religion and education affect RMA, while religion was the main contributor to sexism. The American pool had a higher mean on the sexism score, although the difference wasn't significant.

This article contributes to sexism and RMA literature in several ways. First, it supports the already existing literature on the interaction of religiosity and sexism. Second, it highlights the influence of education, and partially religiosity, on RMA. This is significant in light of the lack of literature linking educational attainment specifically to rape myth beliefs. Moreover, as this article presents a multicultural examination on the interaction of these constructs, it could be argued that the consistency in findings between the two countries could suggest the interplay of these constructs to be independent from certain cultural values.

Limitations and future directions

Limitations of the current study involve the use of self-reports. Future work would strengthen the findings and offer additional generalizability and validity by including other investigative methods not as prone to bias. Examining the relationship between educational attainment and RMA would further significantly contribute to the existent literature; additional research with a more diversified sample in terms of race and religious affiliation, especially if mirroring the actual makeup of Italy and the United States, would also offer additional understanding into how these key variables—religiosity and education—play out in terms of influencing sexism and rape myth beliefs. Furthermore, it would also be beneficial to not only investigate sexism as an overall construct but also to examine it in terms of hostile and benevolent sexism and its respective subcategories. Moreover, it is also important to extend research on male sexual assault as well, as it has been found that false, stereotypical beliefs lead to self-victimization in male rape victims (Kassing et al., 2005). Future research should focus on studying these constructs through a longitudinal lens in order to gain a more complete understanding of their development and interplay.

Footnotes

Article Notes

References

Aosved

A. C.

Long

P. J.

(2006). Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance, sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance. Sex Roles, 55(7–8), 481–492.

Barnett

Sligar

K. B.

Wang

D. C.

(2016). Religious affiliation, religiosity, gender, and rape myth acceptance: Feminist theory and rape culture. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(8). doi:10.1177/0886260516665110

Bazzoni

Cossutta

(2016). Start from your own situation’: A political analysis on the relationship between gender and education in an Italian University course. Gender and Education, 28(3), 465–470. doi:10.1080/09540253.2016.1167843

Bellafronte

(2003). Bambine (Mal) Educate. L’Identità di Genere Trent’Anni Dopo. (Poorly) educated girls. Gender Identity Thirty Years later. Bari, Italy: Palomar.

Bello

A. A.

(2004). “La Donna: Storia e Problemi.” “The Woman: History and Problems” In M. D'Ambra (Ed.), “On the Feminine. Anthropological and Religious Writings.” Troina, Italy: Città Aperta.

Biemmi

(2010). Educazione Sessista. Stereotipi di Genere nei Libri delle Elementari. Sexist Education. Gender Stereotypes in Primary School Textbooks. Torino, Italy: Rosemberg & Sellier.

Biemmi

(2015). Gender in schools and culture: Taking stock of education in Italy. Gender and Education, 27(7), 812–827. doi:10.1080/09540253.2015.1103841

Bonfiglioli

(2010). Intersections of racism and sexism in contemporary Italy: A critical cartography of recent feminist debates [Online]. Darkmatter, 6. Available from: http://www.darkmatter101.org/site/2010/10/10/intersections-of-racism-and-sexism-in-contemporary-italy-a-critical-cartography-of-recent-feminist-debates/

Burn

S. M.

Busso

(2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 423–418.

10.

Businaro, C. (2011). Good Practices for the Creation of Non-Sexist Didactic Materials: The Case of Nove Passi. In The Language, Languages and Women. Act from Bologna Day, January 16th 2009. Quaderni del CIRSIL (9). doi:10.6092/unibo/amsacta/2976

11.

Chapleau

K. M.

Oswald

D. L.

Russell

B. L.

(2007). How ambivalent sexism toward women and men support rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 57(1), 131–136.

12.

Cheuk

Quinn

(2018). Dismantling the wall between church and state: The case of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(3), 24–28. doi:10.1177/0031721718808260

13.

Cinicola

(2015). Sessimo Ostile e Sessismo Benevolo: Due Facce della Stessa Medaglia? Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism: Two Sides of the Same Coin? Psicologia Sociale, 3, 187–208.

14.

Dashefsky

Lazerwitz

Tabory

(2003). A journey of the ‘straight way’ or the ‘roundabout path’: Jewish identity in the United States and Israel. In Dillon

(Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of religion (pp. 240–260). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

15.

Daugherty

C. G.

Dambrot

F. H.

(1986). Reliability of the Attitudes toward Women Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46(2), 449–452.

16.

Dello Preite, F. (2013). Gender stereotypes and Prejudices. The Role of School and Faculty Competencies, 11(3), 207–211.

17.

Duff

Tostevin

(2015). Effects of gender, rape myth acceptance, and perpetrator occupation on perceptions of rape. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 5(4), 249–261. doi:10.1108/JCP-12-2014-0019

18.

Durán

Moya

Megías

J. L.

Viki

G. T.

(2010). Social perception of rape victims in dating and married relationships: The role of perpetrator’s benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62(7–8), 505–519. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9676-7

19.

Dyehouse

Pilat

(2016). The prevalence of rape myths among middle school students across gender and socioeconomic background. Journal of Youth Development, 11(3), 42–56.

20.

Eason

A. M.

(1986). Women in God’s army: Gender and equality in the early salvation army. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.web.bisu.edu.cn

21.

Edwards

K. M.

Turchik

J. A.

Dardis

C. M.

Reynolds

Gidycz

C. A.

(2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles, 65(11–12), 761–773. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9943-2

22.

Esworthy

Pearl

(2018). One in three: Preventing sexual violence in our communities. New Windsor, NY: We Will Speak Out.Us.

23.

Eurydice. (2010). Gender differences in educational outcomes: A study on the measures taken and the current situation in Europe – Italy. Brussels, Belgium: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.

24.

Fortune

M. M.

Enger

C. G.

(2005). Violence against women and the role of religion. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet— The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women.

25.

Franiuk

Shain

E. A.

(2011). Beyond Christianity: The status of women and rape myths. Sex Roles, 65(11–12), 783–791. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9974-8

26.

Gaddy

C. W.

(2008). “Part I: A religious-political perspective”. In C. W Gaddy & B. W. Lynn (Eds.), First freedom first: A citizen’s guide to protecting religious liberty and the separation of church and state (pp. 1–74). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

27.

Garavaso

(2009). Il Destino di Karen. Università e Donne nel Nord America [Karen’s fate. Academy and women in North America]. Diogene, 4(16), 44–43.

28.

Gaunt

(2012). “ Blessed is he who has not made me a woman”: Ambivalent sexism and Jewish religiosity. Sex Roles, 67(9–10), 477–487. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0185-8

29.

Gerger

Kley

Bohner

Siebler

(2013). Acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) Scale. Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science. Retrieved from www.midss.ie

30.

Giorda

M. C.

(2015). Religious diversity in Italy and the impact on education: The history of a failure. New Diversities, 17(1), 77–93. Retrieved from newdiversities.mmg.mpg.de/?page_id=1664

31.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

32.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x

33.

Glick

Lameiras

Castro

Y. R.

(2002). Education and Catholic religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles, 47(9), 433–441.

34.

Gribaldo

Zapperi

(2012). Lo Schermo del Potere. Femminismo e Regime della Visibilità. Verona: Ombre Corte.

35.

Gutierrez, M., & Boselli, O. (2009). Politics-Italy: Where Are the Women? -- Part 1. Global Information Network. Retrieved from http://aquinas.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/docview/457552844?accountid=8340.

36.

Guzzetti

B. J.

Young

J. P.

Fyfe

M. M.

(2013). Reading, writing, and talking gender in literacy learning. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.web.bisu.edu.cn

37.

Hagewish

Williams-Baron

(2018). The gender wage gap: 2017 earnings differences by race and ethnicity. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved from https://iwpr.org/publications/gender-wage-gap-2017-race-ethnicity/

38.

Hilkert

M. C.

(1995). Feminist theology—Key religious symbols: Christ and God. Theological Studies, 56(2), 341.

39.

Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. (2014). Il Numero delle Vittime e le Forme della Violenza. The Number of Victims and the Forms of Violence. Retrieved from: https://www4.istat.it/it/violenza-sulle-donne/il-fenomeno/violenza-dentro-e-fuori-la-famig/numero-delle-vittime-e-forme-di-

40.

Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. (2017). Condizioni di Vita, Reddito e Carico Fiscale delle Famiglie. Life Conditions, Income and Household Expenses. Retrieved from: https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/213867

41.

Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. (2018a). Le Molestie e I Ricatti Sessuali Sul Lavoro. Sexual Harassment and Blackmail in the Workplace. Retrieved from https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/209107

42.

Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (2018b). Tasso d’Occupazione. Occupation Rates. Retrieved from http://dati.istat.it/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=DCCV_TAXOCCU1

43.

Jaffe

(2018). The collective power of #MeToo. Dissent, 65(2), 80–87. doi:10.1353/dss.2018.0031

44.

Jansen

(2015). Carmen Covito’s ‘Tempo Parziale’: Mothering and work in Italy in a Nutshell. Journal of Romance Studies, 15(3), 33–48.

45.

Jost

J. T.

Hawkins

C. B.

Nosek

B. A.

Hennes

E. P.

Stern

Gosling

S. D.

Graham

(2014). Belief in a just God (and a just society): A system justification perspective on religious ideology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 34(1), 56–81. doi:10.1037/a0033220

46.

Kaplan

Miller

(1978). Effects of Jurors' identification with the victim depend on likelihood of victimization. Law and Human Behavior, 2(4), 353–361. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/1393838

47.

Kassing

L. R.

Beesley

Frey

L. L.

(2005). Gender role conflict, homophobia, age, and education as predictors of male rape myth acceptance. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 27(4), 311–328.

48.

Killian

(2013). “Feminist critiques of educational practices”. In Ainsworth

(Ed.), Sociology of education: An A-to-Z guide (pp. 280–282). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

49.

Kodilja

(2013). Che Tempo di Donna È? L’Identità di Genere Oggi tra Sessismo Moderno e Oggettivazione del Corpo. “What Time of the Woman Is It? Gender Identity Today Among Modern Sexism and Body Objectification.” In Serafin S. & M. Brollo (Eds.), Women, Politics and Institution: The Time of the Woman (pp. 51--62). Udine, Italy: Forum.

50.

Lapayese

Y. V.

(2012). Going against the grain: Gender-specific media education in Catholic high schools. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 15(5), 207–215.

51.

Magaraggia

(2015). “Il Moto Ondoso dei Femminismi: Abbiamo Avvistato la Quarta Ondata.” “Feminist Waves: The Fourth Wave Is in Sight”. In S. Magaraggia & G. Vingelli (Eds.), Gender and Political Participation (pp. 23--34). Milano, Italy: Francoangeli.

52.

Maltby

L. E.

Hall

M. M. L.

Anderson

T. L.

Edwards

(2010). Religion and sexism: The moderating role of participant gender. Sex Roles, 62(9–10), 615–622.

53.

McCarthy

(2016). Religious challenges to school voucher and tax benefit/scholarship programs. Peabody Journal of Education, 91 (4), 473–489.

54.

McIntosh

C. A.

Finkle

J. L.

(1995). The Cairo conference on population and development: A new paradigm? Population and Development Review, 21(2), 223–260.

55.

Mikołajczak

Pietrzak

(2014). Ambivalent sexism and religion: Connected through values. Sex Roles, 70(9–10), 387–399.

56.

McClay

(2007). Religion and secularism: The American experience. Key West, FL: Pew Forum Faith Angle Conference.

57.

McHugh

M. C.

Frieze

I. H.

(1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 1–16.

58.

Monroe

Ozyurt

Wrigley

Alexander

(2008). Gender equality in academia: Bad news from the trenches, and some possible solutions. Perspectives on Politics, 6(02), 215–233. doi:10.1017/S1537592708080572

59.

Mosso

Briante

Aiello

Russo

(2013). The role of legitimizing ideologies as predictors of ambivalent sexism in young people: Evidence from Italy and the USA. Social Justice Research, 26(1), 1–17.

60.

Nadeem

Sahed

(2017). Attitude of educated urban youth towards rape myths. Pakistan Journal of Women's Studies—Alam-e-Niswan, 24(1), 17.

61.

Nadeau

(2011). We are treated like Prosciutto. Newsweek, 157(17). Retrieved from http://aquinas.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/docview/862275264?accountid=8340

62.

Niemela

(2011). Female clergy as agents of religious change? Religions, 2(4), 358–371. doi:10.3390/rel2030358

63.

Ottaviano

(2017). An attack called defence: The communication strategy of ‘gender opponents’ in Italy. REM—Research on Education and Media, 10(2), 3–9. doi:10.1515/rem-2017-0008

64.

Pew Research Center. (2018a). Eastern and Western Europeans Differ on Importance of Religion, Views of Minorities, and Key Social Issues. Retrieved from pewresearch.org

65.

Pontificia Commissione Biblica. (2014). Ispirazione e Verità della Sacra Scrittura: La Parola che Viene da Dio e Parla di Dio per Salvare il Mondo. La Santa Sede. Inspiration and Truth from the Sacred Scriptures: The Word That Comes from God to Save the World. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_pcbible_it.html

66.

Pontificio Consiglio per la Famiglia. (2003). Lexicon. Termini Ambigui e Discussi su Famiglia, Vita e Questioni Etiche. Lexicon. Ambiguous and Discussed Terms on Family, Life and Ethical Matters. Milano, Italy: Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna.

67.

Ragnedda

(2014). Censorship and media ownership in the era of Berlusconi. GMJ: Mediterranean Edition, 9(1), 13–26.

68.

Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. (2018). Victims of sexual violence: Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

69.

Reckitt

(2017). Generating Feminisms: Italian feminisms and the “Now You Can Go” Program. Art Journal, 76(3–2), 101–111. doi:10.1080/00043249.2017.1418495

70.

Reger

(2012). Everywhere and nowhere: Contemporary feminism in the United States. Oxford, MS: Oxford University Press.

71.

Roberts

K. A.

Yamane

(2016). Religion, gender and sexuality. In K. A. Roberts & D. Yamane (Eds.), Religion in sociological perspective (pp. 276–308). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

72.

Rodino-Colocino

(2018). Me Too, #MeToo: Countering cruelty with empathy. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 15(1), 96–100. doi:10.1080/14791420.2018.1435083

73.

Ruether

R. R.

(1982). Feminism and patriarchal religion: Principles of ideological critique of the Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 7(22), 54–56. doi:10.1177/030908928200702207

74.

Ruether

R. R.

(2014). Sexism and misogyny in the Christian tradition: Liberating alternatives. Buddhist—Christian Studies, 34, 83–89.

75.

Sayej

(2018). Alyssa Milano on the #MeToo movement: ‘We’ew not going to stand for it any more’. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/dec/01/alyssa-milano-mee-too-sexual-harassment-abuse

76.

Semega

J. L.

Fontenot

K. R.

Kollar

M. A.

(2017). Income and poverty in the United States: 2016. Current Population Reports. Suitland, MD: United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-259.html

77.

Shussler Fiorenza

(1994). In memory of her: A feminist theological reconstruction of Christian origins. New York, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company.

78.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

79.

Sierra

J. C.

Santos-Iglesias

Gutiérrez-Quintanilla

Bermúdez

M. P.

Buela-Casal

(2010). Factors associated with rape-supportive attitudes: Sociodemographic variables, aggressive personality, and sexist attitudes. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 202–209.

80.

Spence

J. T.

Helmreich

R. L.

(1978). Masculinity & femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, & antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

81.

Streufert

M. J.

(n.d.). Our voices, our stories: Sexism in church and society. Chicago, IL: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

82.

Stockdill

B. C.

Danico

M. Y.

(2012). The Ivory Tower paradox: Higher education as a site of oppression and resistance. In B. C. Stockdill (Ed.), Transforming the Ivory Tower: Challenging racism, sexism Transforming the Ivory Tower: Challenging, homophobia in the academy (pp. 1–29). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

83.

Stoll

L. C.

(2013). What problem? Gender in the gender-blind classroom. In L. C. Stoll (Ed.), Race and gender in the classroom: Teachers, privilege, and enduring social inequalities (pp. 43–64). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

84.

Świerczek

(2017). The dilemmas of Christian feminism. The Person and the Challenges, 7(2), 139–149. doi:10.15633/pch.2187

85.

Taschler, M., & West, K. (2017). Contact with Counter-Stereotypical Women Predicts Less Sexism, Less Rape Myth Acceptance, Less Intention to Rape (in Men and Less Projected Enjoyment of Rape (in Women). Sex Roles, 76(7), 473--484. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0679-x

86.

Taşdemir

Sakallı-Uğurlu

(2010). The relationships between ambivalent sexism and religiosity among Turkish university students. Sex Roles, 62(7), 420–426.

87.

Tobío

(2015). Uneven paths: Women and welfare in Italy and Spain. Journal of Gender Studies, 26(2), 115–132. doi:10.1080/09589236.2015.1090304

88.

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2017. Report 1075. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/2017/pdf/home.pdf

89.

United States Department of State. (2017). Bureau of democracy, human rights and labor: International religious freedom report for 2017. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper

90.

United Nations Women. (2017). Facts and figures: Ending violence towards women. Retrieved from http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts- and-figures

91.

United States Census Bureau. (2017). Educational attainment in the United States: 2017. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/education-attainment/cps-detailed-tables.html

92.

Watson

L. C.

(2016). Exploring the psychometric properties of the Acceptance of Modern Myths about Sexual Aggression (AMMSA) Scale. Electronic Theses & Dissertations. 1339. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2410&context=etd

93.

World Economic Forum. (2017). Global gender gap Report 2017. Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2017/

94.

World Health Organization. (2017). Violence against women: Key facts. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

95.

Yancey

Kim

Y. T.

(2008). Racial diversity, gender equality, and SES diversity in Christian congregations: Exploring the connections of racism, sexism, and classism in multiracial and nonmultiracial churches. Journal for Scientific Study of Religion, 47(1), 103–111. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/20486889

96.

Zanardo

(2009). Il Corpo delle Donne Women's Bodies [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ilcorpodelledonne.net/documentario/