Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community

ISSN: 1085-2352 (Print) 1540-7330 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wpic20

Gender and sex inequalities: Implications and

resistance

Kelly L. Hazel & Kerry S. Kleyman

To cite this article: Kelly L. Hazel & Kerry S. Kleyman (2019): Gender and sex inequalities:
Implications and resistance, Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, DOI:
10.1080/10852352.2019.1627079

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2019.1627079

Published online: 12 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 67

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wpic20
JOURNAL OF PREVENTION & INTERVENTION IN THE COMMUNITY
https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2019.1627079

Gender and sex inequalities: Implications

and resistance
Kelly L. Hazel and Kerry S. Kleyman
Department of Psychology, Metropolitan State University, St. Paul, MN, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Despite gains in some regions and countries for justice and Gender; GLBTQ;
equality, people around the world are still constrained by inequalities; women
patriarchal hetero orthodoxy and resultant inequality, discrim-
ination, oppression, and violence. For women in the U.S., pro-
gress towards equality has been often met with backlash,
stalling and/or rolling back any advances. The same is true for
the LGBTQ community. In this introduction to the second of
three issues focused on social inequalities, we discuss some of
the recent trends and research detailing the status of women
and LGBTQ, thus providing the context within which the
articles contained in this issue are situated. Research pre-
sented in the current issue examines many of the inequalities
that disrupt or hinder women and LGBTQ in society, and
describes potential solutions involving community interven-
tions, policy change, and political advocacy.

Introduction
Although the world has seen great strides toward gender/sex equality, a
wide gap still remains and unfortunately may be widening. The World
Economic Forum (WEF, 2017) annually evaluates the world’s progress
toward gender inequality in economic participation and opportunity, edu-
cational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment. In
their most recent report, gender inequality continues to be a persistent
problem, with the gender gap in economic participation/opportunity; and
health/survival actually widening rather than getting better. WEF most
recently estimated that the overall global gender gap won’t be closed for
another 100 years (compared to 83 years estimated a year previously), and
more specifically, the economic gender gap won’t be closed for
another 217 years.
Western European countries are estimated to be the closest to reaching
gender equality at 61 years, with Iceland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and
Ireland all ranked within the top 10 closest to gender equality. In North

CONTACT Kelly L. Hazel [email protected] Metropolitan State University, St. Paul, MN, USA;
Kerry Kleyman [email protected] 700 East 7th St., 55106, USA.
ß 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 K. L. HAZEL AND K. S. KLEYMAN

America, estimates indicate it may take 168 years to close the overall gender
gap, the longest of all the regions analyzed. The United States was ranked
49th overall, slipping four spots from previous years, though was compara-
tively ranked high for education (1st) and economic opportunity (19th).
However, it fell way behind in political empowerment (96th) and health/
survival of women (82nd).

Economic participation and opportunity

Women are more likely than men to be living at or below poverty. In the
US, 14% of women and 27% of female led households (compared to 11%
of men, 13% of male households) reported incomes that were below pov-
erty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016b). These gender disparities in poverty are a
direct outcome of gender inequalities in economic participation and oppor-
tunity. Across the globe, many women remain economically dependent on
men. Women are barred from owning land and their control over house-
hold economic resources and spending is limited. Women are more likely
to be unemployed and more likely to work in positions in which they don’t
get paid (e.g. contributing family worker). When they are employed,
women are more likely than men to be concentrated in industries and
occupations with low wages, long hours, and no social protections (United
Nations Statistics Division, 2015). Women are less likely than men to hold
management positions. Indeed, women hold only 5.2% of CEO positions
and 21.2% of board seats in S&P 500 companies (Catalyst, 2018). In regard
to wages, women earn between 70 and 90% of what a man earns in most
countries (United Nations Statistics Division, 2015).
In the US, women represent 47% of the workforce (DeWolf, 2017) and
own 11.6 million businesses (National Association of Women Business
Owners, 2018). Women with children (under 18 years) are the primary
earners for 40% of households with children (DeWolf, 2017). Since 1996,
women’s college attainment rates have outpaced men’s (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2016a). Yet, in regards to pay, women in general still earn only
82% (median full-time, weekly earnings) compared to White men
(Hegewisch & Williams-Baron, 2018). The gender wage gap is further com-
plicated when race/ethnicity is considered; Asian women earn 93%,
Hispanic women earn 62% and Black women 68% compared to White
men. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research has estimated the wage
gap in the US in general is likely not to close until 2059; and in some states
not until the 22nd Century (Anderson, Milli, & Kruvelis, 2017). For women
of color, they will have to wait longer; 2124 for Black women, and 2233 for
Hispanic women (Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2016).
 JOURNAL OF PREVENTION & INTERVENTION IN THE COMMUNITY 3

Research has pointed to a number of factors to explain the gap, includ-

ing the “motherhood penalty” (Budig & Hodges, 2010; Hartmann, et al.,
2016), occupational segregation (Hegewisch, Phil, Liepmann, Hayes, &
Hartmann, 2010), compensation negotiation (Mazei et al., 2015), entitle-
ment (O’Brien, Major, & Gilbert, 2012), the “glass ceiling” (Catalyst, 2018),
the “glass cliff” (Mulcahy & Linehan, 2014), bias or discrimination in job
advertisements/hiring (Gaucher, Friesen, & Kay, 2011), performance evalua-
tions (Koch, D’Mello, & Sackett, 2015), workplace climate/harassment
(Hegewisch, Phil, Deitch, & Murphy, 2011), and leadership stereotyping
and role congruity (Catalyst, 2005; Eagly & Karau, 2002). Although
improvements in women’s educational attainment, employment experience,
and unions were important in closing the gender wage gap in earlier years,
industry segregation remains responsible for 50% of the wage gap seen
today (Blau & Kahn, 2016).

Education
Part of the explanation as to why industry gender segregation persists is
that women remain “underrepresented in Career and Technical Education
(CTE) programs that are nontraditional for their gender” (Institute for
Women’s Policy Research, 2013). Analyses show women are concentrated
in traditionally female and lower paying CTE programs in both secondary
and postsecondary educational settings. Further, women are still under-
represented in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)
programs. Although STEM fields are some of the most in-demand and
lucrative, women are less likely than men to pursue a college education in
these fields, and even less likely to pursue a graduate degree in STEM (Hill,
Corbett, & Rose, 2010). Gender stereotypes and bias in education and the
potentially hostile climate of academic departments continue to deter
women from these lucrative career opportunities.

Health and survival

Worldwide, access to and use of contraceptives, family planning, repro-
ductive and maternal health is improving. However, poor access to
information, early marriage, and lack of decision-making power continue
to increase women and girls’ exposure to sexually transmitted diseases,
unwanted pregnancies and the risk of unsafe abortions (United Nations
Statistics Division, 2015). In the US, teen pregnancy in youth
15–19 years old dropped 47% between 2007 and 2015 to 22.3 births per
1000 (CDC, 2017a). Yet, the US rate is one of the highest among indus-
trialized Nations (Sedgh, Finer, Bankole, Eilers, & Singh, 2015). Further,
the teen pregnancy rate for Black and Hispanic teens is twice that of
4 K. L. HAZEL AND K. S. KLEYMAN

non-Hispanic White teens, and the rate for American Indian/Alaska

Native is one and a half times more than White teens (CDC, 2017a).
Rates of STDs among youth similarly reflect these ethnic disparities
(CDC, 2017c). Therefore, it is important for sex educators to develop
more culturally responsive sexuality education practices (Szlachta &
Champion, 2020, this issue).
Women are constantly bombarded with media advertisements that sexu-
alize their bodies, and media images of extremely thin models with impos-
sibly perfect hair and skin. The influence of media, television, movies, etc.
has led to increased prevalence of body dissatisfaction and eating disorders
globally (Makino, Tsuboi, & Dennerstein, 2004). A major factor in the
development of eating disorders is the internalization of the thin Western
beauty ideal (Stice, Gau, Rohde, & Shaw, 2017). Research has shown that
women and girls who are exposed to thin ideal models in the media are
more likely to feel dissatisfied with their own bodies (Grabe, Ward, &
Hyde, 2008). This dissatisfaction can lead to dieting, negative affect, and
eating disorder symptomology. Although historically, the thin-ideal was pri-
marily a White cultural phenomenon, women of color are increasingly held
to White standards. Recent research with adolescents found that Asian
American girls reported the highest levels of body dissatisfaction, and
African American girls the least (Bucchianeri et al. 2016). Further, accultur-
ation and the resultant contact with Western beauty ideals, has been shown
to shift the beauty standard for immigrant women, resulting in body dissat-
isfaction (Thomas & Kleyman, 2020, this issue) and eating disorders
(Stark-Wrobleski et al., 2005).
Violence toward women, including femicide, intimate partner violence
(IPV), rape, and human trafficking, continues to impact women’s health
worldwide (United Nations Statistics Division, 2015). Women across the
world experience physical, sexual, psychological and economic violence
often leading to long-term physical, mental and emotional health prob-
lems. Violence and abuse also make it difficult for women to pursue
educational opportunities or to perform their jobs (Riger et al., 2000).
Globally, IPV is the most common form of violence (United Nations
Statistics Division, 2015). Unfortunately, too often IPV ends in death. It
is estimated that two-thirds of victims of intimate partner or family
homicides are women.
In the US, homicide is one of the leading causes of death for women
under the age of 45. Half of all female homicides is due to IPV (CDC,
2017b). In 35% of non-IPV cases, suspects were most often friends, family
members, and acquaintances. For too many women, there are too many
barriers and too few options of escape from the violence. And when
women do seek help, it is often unavailable. After concluding their annual
 JOURNAL OF PREVENTION & INTERVENTION IN THE COMMUNITY 5

census, the National Network to End Domestic Violence (2017) reported

victims made nearly 12,000 requests for services (in 1 day) for programs
that were unable to provide services because they didn’t have the resources.
Unfortunately, when women find no way out, they may resort to killing
their abusive partners or family members (Leonard, 2002). Those who do
are met with an unbending legal system, more suitable for adjudicating
men’s behavior than women’s. Few courts readily take the woman’s history
of victimization into account “either in establishing culpability or in
sentencing” (Doyle, Khanna, & Grimstone, 2016). Many end up serving
lengthy prison sentences (Field, Cherukuri, Kimuna, & Berg, 2017). Sichel,
Javdani, Gordon, and Huynh (2020, this issue) in their examination of
women’s violence, argue that it is important to understand the “context of
gendered inequality” in order to understand women’s use of violence in
response to patriarchal oppression.

Political empowerment
Across the globe, women hold a minority of political and institutional deci-
sion-making positions. Gender norms and prejudices work to both reduce
the number of female candidates (about 30% are women) and contribute to
the obstacles faced by women in elections (United Nations Statistics
Division, 2015). Although the number of women heads of state continues
to grow, still only 38% of 146 nations have had a female leader for at least
one year (Geiger & Kent, 2017). In 2017, women were heads of state in
only 15 countries. Additionally, women were a small percentage of cabinet
ministers (18.3% in 2017) and parliamentarians (22.8% in 2016) (United
Nations Women, 2017). The judiciary remains primarily male, especially in
the higher levels (United Nations Statistics Division, 2015).
In the US, 31% of the population is white and male, yet White men hold
65% of all elected offices (Henderson, 2014b), including 70% of
Congressional seats (Bump, 2017). Women are 51% of the population, yet
hold only 19% of Congressional seats, and 21% of the Senate (Bump,
2017). It has been estimated that women won’t reach political parity in the
US until 2121 (Henderson, 2014a).
In the current issue, Grabe and Dutt (2020) describe and analyze a com-
munity intervention to decrease the social inequalities in political participa-
tion in Nicaragua and show how community interventions can disrupt the
traditional beliefs regarding gender, leading to higher levels of agency and
political efficacy in women. This liberation psychology perspective can help
empower women in facilitating more political participation and decision-
making among women.
6 K. L. HAZEL AND K. S. KLEYMAN

LGBTQ
Gender inequalites in employment, education, health/survival and political
empowerment aren’t the only ways in which our society’s inability to tran-
scend patriarchal ideologies impacts society. There continues to be persist-
ent and pervasive discrimination against LGBTQ people, including housing
discrimination (Friedman, et al., 2013; Johnson, Jackson, Arnette, &
Koffman, 2005; Lauster & Easterbrook, 2011), workplace discrimination
(Anastas, 2001; Fidas & Cooper, 2015; Kattari, Whitfield, Walls,
Langenderfer-Magruder, & Ramos, 2016; Pizer, Sears, Mallory & Hunter,
2012), victimization (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012; Meyer, 2012), and the cur-
tailment of basic human rights such as marriage and family adoption. This
discrimination often results in mental and physical health concerns (Pascoe
& Richman, 2009; Mayer et al., 2008) and estrangement from family
members (Beeler & DiProva, 1999; Potoczniak, Crosbie-Burnett, &
Saltzburg, 2009),
Research has shown that family acceptance of the LGBTQ individual is
related to greater self-esteem and social support, better health, and is
important for the prevention of depression, suicide and other self-harm
behaviors (Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2010). Leal, Gato &
Coimbra (2020, in current issue) investigated intergenerational (family)
solidarity through the lens of LGBT and gender. Intergenerational solidarity
was defined as the “mutual support between different family generations.”
Although exploratory, some interesting trends found were that LGBT indi-
viduals had lower levels of normative and affectual solidarity and higher
levels of conflictual solidarity. This suggests that societal stigmas associated
with LGBTQ may negatively impact family support and the benefits
derived from such support.
The recent battles over gay/lesbian marriage and family adoption have
fostered harsh rhetoric and intransigent negative beliefs regarding gay/les-
bian families. These beliefs, in turn, may erode LGBTQ families’ ability to
flourish and function in their communities. Curme et al. (2020, in current
issue) suggest that stereotypical beliefs of the traditional family potentially
bias adoption placements, thus leading to many children without homes.
The authors investigated the effect of five different family structures (e.g.
male/female, gay males, single males, etc.) on perceived adoption outcomes.
Their results showed that nontraditional family structures were perceived
as a lower “fit” for a child, especially when single males were adopting. The
effect was more pronounced when social dominance orientation moderated
the relationship, suggesting that individual beliefs in society as hierarchy
attenuating (opposed to equality enhancing), play a role in enhancing
adoption bias. Taken together, the research in this issue suggests that inter-
generational solidarity is traditionally normative as far as family structure
 JOURNAL OF PREVENTION & INTERVENTION IN THE COMMUNITY 7

and gendered roles, which then supports biased perceptions of how good a
fit adoptive parents may be for an adopted child.
It is clear a combination of personal, social, community, organizational,
and political change will be needed to address the various ways in which
gender discrimination impacts the health and wellness of individuals and
communities. The research presented in this special issue of the Journal of
Prevention and Intervention in the Community on gender inequalities offers
a variety of perspectives on some of the current and lingering inequalities
that exist for sexual and gendered minorities.
Some of the proposed solutions or proposed directions in the current
issue offer insights into the holes in the current literature and potential
programs and interventions that may help decrease some of these system-
atic inequalities. For example, Szlachta and Champion (2020) suggest that
enhancing cultural awareness for sexuality educators is an important step
in working with students and/or clients, as normalcy differs through differ-
ent cultural lenses, and suggest developing strategies in building cultural
frameworks to avoid the stereotypes and biases. They argue that this is
important even for those with advanced levels of intercultural competence.
Building on ideas of “normalcy,” Thomas and Kleyman (2020) highlight
the need for education related to body stigma in all cultures for all genders,
especially those with an ever-growing westernized media presence. Further,
they suggest designing interventions to reduce body dissatisfaction and
increase advocacy efforts that foster changes in media's use of underweight
models and image enhancing techniques.
Sichel et al. (2020) call for educating practitioners on the importance of
ecological circumstances, and a deeper understanding of violence from a
woman’s perspective. The authors suggest that interventions with women
should focus on an exploration of the social functions of their violent
behavior and that practitioners need to attend to the “systemic forces of
inequality,” and teach women how to become civically engaged and advo-
cate for themselves. This ties nicely to Grabe & Dutt (2020, this issue), who
suggest using civic engagement to empower women. In their study, the use
of community-based intervention models had a wider impact and brought
about more meaningful participation. The authors suggest more longitu-
dinal studies of community-based interventions in civic engagement to
investigate the long-term change and impact.
Family was highlighted in the current issue, and in particular, that of
nontraditional family structures. Leal et al. (2020) highlight the vulnerabil-
ity of nontraditional families and disadvantages leading to lower social ties,
etc. They suggest that creating community support and educational pro-
grams for LGBT families is an important step in enhancing intergenera-
tional solidarity. In the same vain, Curme et al. (2020) highlight a call to
8 K. L. HAZEL AND K. S. KLEYMAN

action for greater public consciousness of nontraditional family biases in

the adoption system. More specifically, to reduce social inequalities and
discrimination in adoption practices to benefit both potential parents and
children in the adoption network. In total, the current issue highlights
many of the social inequalities that disrupt or hinder women and sexual
minorities in the social world and offers some solutions in the form ofin-
terventions, advocacy, and calls for further studies.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all of our authors for their research and efforts to address gender
and sex inequalities. In addition, we are all indebted to our professional colleagues who
responded to our request for reviewers for this special issue. They provided exceptional
guidance and advice to the authors. A great heap of praise and gratitude goes to Patrizia
Maringolo, Emma Ogley-Oliver, Jeffrey Sheldon, Dessie Clark, Mary Tauras, Noe Chavez,
Julia Siwierka, Aaron Szczech-Johnson, Glen Spielmans, Jared Chamberlain, Tara McCoy,
and Katelyn Schwieters. Thank you.

References
Anastas, J. (2001). Economic rights, economic myths, and economic realities. Journal of
Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 13, 99–116. doi:10.1300/J041v13n01_08
Anderson, J., Milli, J., & Kruvelis, M. (2017). Projected year the wage gap will close by State.
Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved from https://iwpr.
org/publications/projected-year-wage-gap-will-close-state/
Beeler, J., & DiProva, V. (1999). Family adjustment following disclosure of homosexuality
by a member: Themes discerned in narrative accounts. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 25 (4), 443–459. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1999.tb00261.x
Blau, F., & Kahn, L. (2016). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanation.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.
nber.org/papers/w21913
Bucchianeri, M., Fernandes, N., Loth, K., Hannan, P., Eisenberg, M., & Neumark-Sztainer,
D. (2016). Body dissatisfaction: Do association with disordered eating and psychological
well-being differ across race/ethnicity in adolescent girls and boys? Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22 (1), 137–146. doi:10.1037/cdp0000036
Budig, M., & Hodges, M. (2010). Differences in disadvantage: Variation in the motherhood
penalty across White women’s earnings distribution. American Sociological Review, 75 (5),
705–728. doi:10.1177/0003122410381593
Bump, P. (2017). 70 percent of White men in the U.S. are represented by a White man in
the House. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/
the-fix/wp/2017/01/12/70-percent-of-white-men-in-the-u-s-are-represented-by-a-white-man
-in-the-house/?utm_term=.32a99a3aee49
Catalyst. (2005). Women “take care,” men “take charge:” Stereotyping of U.S. business lead-
ers exposed. New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-
take-care-men-take-charge-stereotyping-us-business-leaders-exposed
Catalyst. (2018). Women in S&P 500 companies. New York, NY. Retrieved from http://
www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-sp-500-companies
 JOURNAL OF PREVENTION & INTERVENTION IN THE COMMUNITY 9

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2017a). Teen Pregnancy in the United
States. Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/index.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2017b). Racial and ethnic differences
in homicides of adult women and the role of intimate partner violence — United States,
2003-2014. Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/
mm6628a1.htm?s_cid=mm6628a1_w
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2017c). STDs in racial and ethnic
minorities. Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats16/minorities.htm
Curme, P., Schwieters, K., & Kleyman, K. (2020). From leave it to Beaver to modern family:
The influence of family structure on adoption attitudes. Journal of Prevention and
Intervention in the Community. doi:10.1080/10852352.2019.1627078
DeWolf, M. (2017). 12 statistics about working women. U.S. Department of Labor Blog.
Retrieved from https://blog.dol.gov/2017/03/01/12-stats-about-working-women
Doyle, V., Khanna, J., & Grimstone, T. (2016). Women who kill in response to domestic vio-
lence: How do criminal justice systems respond? London: Linklaters. Retrieved from
https://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Women_who_kill_in_response
_to_domestic_violence_Full_report.pdf
Eagly, A., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109 (3), 573–598.
Fidas, D., & Cooper, L. (2015). The cost of the closet and the rewards of inclusion: Why the
workplace environment for LGBT people matters to employers. Washington, DC: Human
Rights Campaign Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-cost-of-
the-closet-and-the-rewards-of-inclusion
Field, C., Cherukuri, S., Kimuna, S., & Berg, D. (2017). Women accused of homicide: The
impact of race, relationship to victim, and prior physical abuse. Advances in Applied
Sociology, 7 (8), 24.
Friedman, S., Reynolds, A., Scovill, S., Brassier, F., Campbell, R., & Ballou, M. (2013). An
estimate of housing discrimination against same-sex couples. Retrieved from https://ssrn.
com/abstract=2284243
Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job adver-
tisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101 (1), 109–128. doi:10.1037/a0022530
Geiger, A., & Kent, L. (2017). Number of women leaders around the world has grown, but
they’re still a small group. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/08/women-leaders-around-the-world/
Grabe, S., & Dutt, A. (2020). Community intervention in the societal inequity of women’s
political participation: The development of efficacy and citizen participation in rural
Nicaragua. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community. doi:10.1080/
10852352.2019.1627080
Grabe, S., Ward, L., & Hyde, J. (2008). The role of the media in body image concerns
among women: A meta-analysis of experimental and correlational studies. Psychological
Bulletin, 134 (3), 460–476. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.460
Hartmann, H., Hegewisch, A., Phil, M., Gault, B., Chirillo, G., & Clark, J. (2016). Five ways
to win an argument about the gender wage gap (updated 2017). Washington, DC:
Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved from https://iwpr.org/publications/five-
ways-to-win-an-argument-about-the-gender-wage-gap/
Hegewisch, A., Phil, M., Deitch, C., & Murphy, E. (2011, March 27). Ending sex and race
discrimination in the workplace: Legal interventions that push the envelope. Washington,
DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved from https://iwpr.org/publications/
10 K. L. HAZEL AND K. S. KLEYMAN

ending-sex-and-race-discrimination-in-the-workplace-legal-interventions-that-push-the-
envelope/
Hegewisch, A., Phil, M., Liepmann, H., Hayes, J., & Hartmann, H. (2010). Separate and not
equal? Gender segregation in the labor market and the gender wage gap. Washington, DC:
Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Retrieved from https://iwpr.org/publications/sep-
arate-and-not-equal-gender-segregation-in-the-labor-market-and-the-gender-wage-gap/
Hegewisch, A., & Williams-Baron, E. (2018, March 7). 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/
Henderson, N. (2014a). Women will reach political parity in 2121. Why will it take so
long? The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-
the-people/wp/2014/05/22/women-will-reach-political-parity-in-2121-why-will-it-take-so-
long/?utm_term=.d911ac86055f
Henderson, N. (2014b). White men are 31 percent of the American population. They hold
65 percent of all elected offices. The Washington Post, Retrieved from https://www.wash-
ingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/08/65-percent-of-all-american-elected-officials-
are-white-men/?utm_term=.6c233181024a
Hill, C., Corbett, C., & Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engin-
eering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
Retrieved from https://www.aauw.org/resource/why-so-few-women-in-science-technol-
ogy-engineering-mathematics/
Institute for Women’s Policy and Research. (2013). Education data show gender gap in career
preparation. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/wpallim-
port/files/iwpr-export/publications/FINAL%20GenderGapinCareerPrep.pdf
Institute for Women’s Policy Research. (2016). If current trends continue, Hispanic women
will wait 232 years for equal pay; Black women will wait 108 years. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from https://iwpr.org/publications/if-current-trends-continue-hispanic-women-
will-wait-232-years-for-equal-pay-black-women-will-wait-108-years/
Johnson, M., Jackson, N., Arnette, K., & Koffman, S. (2005). Gay and lesbian perceptions
of discrimination in retirement care facilities. Journal of Homosexuality, 49 (2), 83–102.
doi:10.1300/J082v49n02_05
Kattari, S., Whitfield, D., Walls, N., Langenderfer-Magruder, L., & Ramos, D. (2016).
Policing gender through housing and employment discrimination: Comparison of dis-
crimination experiences of transgender and cisgender LGBQ individuals. Journal of the
Society for Social Work and Research, 7 (3), 427–447. doi:10.1086/686920
Lauster, N., & Easterbrook, A. (2011). No room for new families? A field experiment meas-
uring rental discrimination against same-sex couple and single parents. Social Problems,
58 (3), 389–409. doi:10.1525/sp.2011.58.3.389
Leal, D., Gato, J., & Coimbra, S. (2020). How does sexual orientation influence intergenera-
tional family solidarity? An exploratory study. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in
the Community. doi:10.1080/10852352.2019.1627081
Leonard, E. (2002). Convicted survivors: The imprisonment of battered women who kill.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Katz-Wise, S., & Hyde, J. (2012). Victimization experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
individuals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 49 (2–3), 142–167. doi:10.1080/
00224499.2011.637247
 JOURNAL OF PREVENTION & INTERVENTION IN THE COMMUNITY 11

Koch, A. J., D’Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes
and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100 (1), 128–161. doi:10.1037/a0036734
Makino, M., Tsuboi, K., & Dennerstein, L. (2004, September 27). Prevalence of eating dis-
orders: A comparison of Western and non-Western countries. Medscape General
Medicine, 6 (3), 49. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC1435625/
Mayer, K., Bradford, J., Makadon, H., Stall, R., Goldhammer, H., & Landers, S. (2008).
Sexual and gender minority health: What we know and what needs to be done.
American Journal of Public Health, 98 (6), 989–995. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.127811
Mazei, J., Huffmeier, J., Freund, P., Stuhlmacher, P., Alice, F., Bilke, L., & Hertel, G.
(2015). A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moder-
ators. Psychological Bulletin, 141 (1), 85–104. doi:10.1037/a0038184
Meyer, D. (2012). An intersectional analysis of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) people’s evaluations of anti-queer violence. Gender and Society, 26 (6), 849–873.
doi:10.1177/0891243212461299
Mulcahy, M., & Linehan, C. (2014). Females and precarious board positions: Further evi-
dence of the glass cliff. British Journal of Management, 25 (3), 425–438. doi:10.1111/
1467-8551.12046
National Association of Women Business Owners. (2018). Women business owner statistics.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.nawbo.org/resources/women-business-
owner-statistics
National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2017). 11th annual domestic violence counts
report. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://nnedv.org/mdocs-posts/census_2016_
handout_report/
O’Brien, L., Major, B., & Gilbert, P. (2012). Gender differences in entitlement: The role of
system-justifying beliefs. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 136–145.
Pascoe, E., & Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic
review. Psychological Bulletin, 135 (4), 531–554.
Pizer, J., Sears, B., Mallory, C., & Hunter, N. (2012). Evidence of persistent and pervasive
workplace discrimination against LGBT people: The need for federal legislation prohibit-
ing discrimination and providing for equal employment benefits. Loyola of Los Angeles
Law Review, 45, 715–779.
Potoczniak, D., Crosbie-Burnett, M., & Saltzburg, N. (2009). Experiences regarding coming
out to parents among African American, Hispanic, and White gay, lesbian, bisexual,
transgender, and questioning adolescents. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 21,
189–205. doi:10.1080/10538720902772063
Riger, S., Ahrens, C., & Blickenstaff, A. (2000). Measuring interference with employment
and education reported by women with abusive partners: Preliminary data. Violence and
Victims, 15 (2), 161–172. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.15.2.161
Ryan, C., Russell, S., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in ado-
lescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatric Nursing, 23 (4), 205–213. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x
Sedgh, G., Finer, L., Bankole, A., Eilers, M., & Singh, S. (2015). Adolescent pregnancy,
birth, and abortion rates across countries: Levels and recent trends. The Journal of
Adolescent Health : Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 56 (2),
223–230. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.09.007
12 K. L. HAZEL AND K. S. KLEYMAN

Sichel, C., Javdani, S., Gordon, N., & Huynh, P. (2020). Examining the functions of wom-
en’s violence: Accommodation, resistance, and enforcement of gender inequality. Journal
of Prevention and Intervention in the Community. doi:10.1080/10852352.2019.1627082
Stark-Wrobleski, K., Yanico, B., & Lupe, S. (2005). Acculturation, internalization of
Western appearance norms, and eating pathology among Japanese and Chinese inter-
national women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 38–46. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6402.2005.00166.x
Stice, E., Gau, J. M., Rohde, P., & Shaw, H. (2017). Risk factors that predict future onset of
each DSM-5 eating disorder: Predictive specificity in high-risk adolescent females.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126 (1), 38–51. doi:10.1037/abn0000219
Szlachta, A., & Champion, J. (2020). Working towards culturally responsive sexuality edu-
cation: Recommendations for becoming a culturally responsive teacher. Journal of
Prevention and Intervention in the Community. doi:10.1080/10852352.2019.1627083
Thomas, F., & Kleyman, K. (2020). Influence of western body ideals on Kenyan, Kenyan
American and African Americans’ body image. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in
the Community. doi:10.1080/10852352.2019.1627084
United Nations Statistics Division. (2015). The world’s women 2015: Trends and statistics.
Paris, France: United Nations Statistics Division. Retrieved from https://unstats.un.org/
unsd/gender/downloads/WorldsWomen2015_report.pdf
United Nations Women. (2017). Facts and figures: Leadership and political participation.
Paris, France: United Nations Women. Retrieved from http://www.unwomen.org/en/
what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures
United States Census Bureau (2016a, March). Latest census data on educational attainment
shows women lead men in college completion. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://
www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2016/03/latest-census-data-educational-attainment-shows-
women-lead-men-college-completion
United States Census Bureau (2016b). Income and poverty in the United States: 2016.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/
demo/p60-259.html
World Economic Forum. (2017). The global gender gap report. Geneva, Switzerland.
Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-gender-gap-report-2017