ABSTRACT

Though feminist theory asserts that women’s sexuality influences their general relationship with heterosexual men, the leading psychological measure of women’s attitudes towards heterosexual men, the Ambivalence towards Men Inventory (AMI), has not yet accounted for sexual orientation as a meaningful individual difference. In this current United States-based research (N = 318), we revisited the AMI to examine women’s attitudes towards heterosexual men as a function of women’s sexual orientation (i.e. lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual). Drawing from feminist and psychological theories of attitudes towards men, we 1) tested competing hypotheses regarding whether lesbian and bisexual women or heterosexual women would be highest in hostility, and 2) hypothesised that heterosexual women would hold more benevolent attitudes than lesbian and bisexual women. When controlling for feminist identity, lesbian women held more hostile attitudes towards heterosexual men, specifically on subscales of Resentment of Paternalism and Heterosexual Hostility. However, there were no differences in benevolence towards heterosexual men between groups. We discuss hostility as a reaction to gendered oppression and the utility of benevolence in modern times. Testing the AMI with a sexually diverse sample reveals nuanced understandings of intergroup relations and demonstrates a need to establish more inclusive measures of gendered attitudes.

摘要

尽管女权主义理论断言女性的性取向会影响她们与异性恋男性的一般关系，但衡量女性对异性恋男性态度的主要心理指标，即对男性的矛盾心理量表(AMI)，尚未将性取向视为有意义的个体差异。在这项当前基于美国的研究中（N= 318），我们重新审视了 AMI，以检查女性对异性恋男性的态度与女性性取向（即女同性恋、双性恋或异性恋）的关系。借鉴女权主义和心理学对男性的态度理论，我们 1) 测试了关于女同性恋和双性恋女性或异性恋女性是否敌对程度最高的相互竞争的假设，以及 2) 假设异性恋女性比女同性恋和双性恋女性持有更仁慈的态度。在控制女权主义身份时，女同性恋者对异性恋男性持有更多敌意态度，特别是在对家长式作风和异性恋敌意的怨恨分量表上。然而，不同群体之间对异性恋男性的仁慈没有差异。我们将敌意视为对性别压迫的反应以及现代仁慈的效用。用性别多样化的样本测试 AMI 揭示了对群体间关系的细致入微的理解，并表明需要建立更具包容性的性别态度衡量标准。