The Effect of Feminist Identification on the Perceived Authenticity of Male Allies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male allies are often described as essential to reducing gender inequity. However, some men may become allies through benevolent sexist beliefs. While some women recognize this as a suboptimal form of allyship, others may interpret it as authentic. We investigated whether the type of allyship (egalitarian vs. benevolent sexist) influences women’s perceptions of authenticity and whether women’s feminist identification moderates this effect. Women (N = 132) undergraduate students completed a pre-screening survey including a measure of feminist identification. They read about and rated the authenticity of a male ally who exhibited egalitarianism or benevolent sexism in his effort to increase women representation in a male-dominated club. Women perceived the egalitarian ally as highly authentic regardless of their feminist identification. However, higher feminist identification was associated with higher perceived authenticity for the benevolent sexist ally. Results are discussed in terms of how feminist identification can influence women’s perceptions of men who help.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".