1. Introduction
Individual gender prejudice is not as ostensible as the inhumanity of its wider injustices, but it encompasses multiple facets. Consequently, much of the research has not explored how these underlying predispositions towards gender harassment relate to the most visible expression of behavioural prejudice—that is, gender violence.
On the one hand, as gender prejudice against women is considered unacceptable by society, it remains hidden. Although the legitimacy of the stereotyping of women is contested by the most advanced and educated societies, we hold these sorts of beliefs tacitly, and so they remain unnoticed. For this reason, they are considered innocuous, which is why potential research has neglected them. On the other hand, there are many forms of gender prejudice. Multiple reactions are adopted in different fields of development that depend on personal circumstances. Therefore, research into forms of gender denial hidden behind gender stereotypes is research [
1].
This diversity generates a complexity that was examined in depth, but without indicating how this variety manifests diverse expressions in different sectors—such as tourism—that not only relate to common components, but also lead to physical violence [
2]. In this vein, tourism represents a particular environment in which we should increase the studies of gender [
2,
3,
4], since we need to gain further insight into the particularly detrimental experiences of women [
1]. There is a lack of research into the role of women in the workplace in the tourism sector [
5], with special reference to how women are discriminated against [
6], as well as the embodied sexualisation of the female tourist experience [
7,
8]. Gender equality is unsolved in tourism [
9].
Without any doubt, the interconnection between general and gender stereotyping in tourism is relevant to understanding the underlying connections of prejudices in different contexts, as well as potentially helping to explain violence against women. Although needed to reveal the hidden meanings and the silent and invisible power relations associated with different contexts [
1,
10], the study of gender stereotyping and its relationship with violent behaviour is under-researched [
11].
On this basis, this paper sets out three research objectives. Firstly, to pin down and classify gender stereotyping by assuming that there exist at least two distinctive categories—namely, general life settings and the tourism sector. Secondly, to deduce and measure how general gender stereotyping influences particular gender stereotyping in tourism. Thirdly, to gain a better understanding of how gender violence responses are rooted in general and sectorial prejudices and stereotyping.
With these aims in mind, the current paper is divided into four sections. In the review of the literature, we explain general and sectorial prejudices and how they play a significant role in inducing gender violence, and put forward three hypotheses. The methodological part describes the survey and the measuring instruments. The analysis of the results clarifies the obtained empirical evidence and contrasts the hypotheses. The conclusions section discusses the significance of the main contributions, provides several practical implications, highlights new lines of research, and acknowledges the paper’s limitations.
2. Review of the Literature
As a topic matures, there is a corresponding growth in the knowledge base, and it is common for new terms to appear that shed light on the research. Thus, as a starting point, and in order to provide a better understanding, it is necessary to carry out an initial and preliminary conceptualisation of the basic concepts of gender. To do this, we first use the approach to gender that Swain [
12] used in the mid-1990s for tourism studies. She says that gender is used to refer to a set of identities that have been constructed in terms of the culture expressed under ideologies of masculinity and femininity, which socially interact under the terms of pleasure, work, power, and sexuality [
12].
This gendered approach—a key to understanding the relations between men and women—facilitates the theoretical visibility of gender harassment, sexism, gender-based violence, stereotypes, and prejudices (see
Table 1).
Despite how similar the previous topics may seem, they differ slightly in their aspects, resulting in big differences as far as behaviours are concerned. We refer to gender harassment and sexism. The first one means any repeated behaviour that is manifested against one’s dignity in order to create an environment of hostility, while sexism is based on the simple belief that one sex is better than another. Accordingly, sexism is determined by attitudes that promote the differentiated treatment of people based on their sex. Thus, sexist attitudes are expressed much more frequently towards women, considered inferior on many occasions [
13].
In addition, we define different stereotypes and prejudices. Gender stereotypes involve commonly accepted ideas or opinions—positive or negative—that are used to explain the behaviour of men and women. Thus, they provide general information on the characteristics that define each gender. Otherwise, gender prejudices are unfair evaluations, usually negative towards another gender, that are given individually, by someone who has not had a real or direct experience. Even though they are different, in many cases stereotypes greatly influence and provide a justification for prejudiced attitudes [
14].
Gender stereotypes are varied and combine beliefs that refer to a group as though its members were not individuals with specific values dissociated from their sex [
15,
16]. Stereotyping represents a problem insofar as it attributes inherently inferior qualities to a person when she, or he, is female or male, respectively. It also creates unfavourable vertical and horizontal segregations, such as that between tourist and professional, chiefly against women [
6,
17]. Women are vertically segregated as explained by the glass ceiling theory, since they are often denied a promotion [
18,
19], making it difficult for them to advance within organisations [
20]. Similarly, women are horizontally discriminated against insofar as they are ostracised from certain occupations and tasks, as elucidated by the power relationship and subordination theories [
19]. Needless to say that this unfavourable gender discrimination also occurs in the tourism industry [
9]. Therefore, every so often, gender stereotyping comes down to gender prejudice against women.
Not only does general stereotyping have much in common with gender stereotyping in tourism, but general gender prejudices are also predictors of gender prejudices in tourism [
19,
21,
22,
23]. This leads to an added complexity, seeing that general gender stereotyping against women is related to, but distinct from, gender stereotyping against women in tourism [
6,
24,
25,
26]. Therefore, a better understanding of general gender prejudices can assist in understanding prejudice in the field of tourism [
19,
22,
23]. In this vein, gender prejudices against women in general are sources of prejudice against women in tourism [
6]. We tend to assume, for example, that men are brave, rational, egocentric, daring, dominant, and good, whereas women are thought of as sensitive, intuitive, fussy, whiny, “naggy”, and artistic [
16]. Beliefs in those general prejudices argue that women, tending towards being more emotional, are inferior, thus providing a justification for underrating the value of women as professionals [
19,
27]. Similarly, it is believed that women are more ethically challenged, and so one finds ground for controlling them [
28,
29]. For example, as one thing leads to another, women deserve less trust when they are ready to take on responsibilities as hospitality managers, pilots, and drivers [
19,
23,
30,
31]. Instead, there is a tendency for women to hold positions in very specific areas of tourism companies, such as human skills and resources, marketing, housekeeping etc. [
31,
32,
33]. Even though there are women in executive roles in tourism organisations, this trend is usually predominant in micro-sized companies [
34]. Equally, it is assumed that women are less gifted with technology and machinery, as well as being physically less capable, and, consequently, can hardly be trusted to repair, for example, a broken-down boiler in a hotel [
35,
36,
37,
38]. Such stereotypes, due to their deep unconscious inveteracy, have for a long time been accepted as a non-questionable norm [
31]. On this basis, we assert that general stereotyping sustains particular prejudices and generates discrimination that fuels hidden discourses in the tourism sector. Thus, we put forward the first hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). general gender stereotypes influence gender stereotypes referring to tourism professionals.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). general gender stereotypes influence gender stereotypes referring to travellers.
Although gender prejudice is not synonymous with gender harassment, the latter is based on the former [
39,
40]. Gender prejudice is more than a stereotype; more than an injustice. Gender prejudice might be masked violence and could even turn to murder in the most extreme cases [
41,
42]. Funny thoughts and ironical comments in which femininity and work are related are viewed as inoffensive, when in reality they are triggering gender harassment and effective violence [
34].
Tourism turns others into an object of consumption and projects particular views of gender onto people and places [
10]. Nonetheless, since freedom, justice, and happiness are values in and of themselves for human beings, the marketisation of women and men becomes problematic [
43]. When there is an appraisal of people as if they were objects of consumption, it functions as a disregard for human nature and basic human rights [
44,
45]. In the domain of prostitution, the distinction between instrumental and end values is dehumanised, since the woman’s body is used as a commodity to de traded [
34]. Offering sex as an appealing channel of experiences is evidence of the poor performance of that destination [
46,
47,
48,
49], because it is not sustainable and exposes the whole tourism structure to illegal threats [
50,
51].
What is more, compared to masculinity, femininity is more frequently abused due to the different sexual responses inherently associated with being a man or a woman [
43]. For example, female hotel receptionists are frequently the targets of sexual objectification [
34]. When the existence of women’s values is denied, ridiculed, and disregarded, women are harmed [
1]. If femininity is under a dominion where masculine models, stereotypes, and symbols are prioritised, women are reduced and maltreated [
1]. The relationship between sex and violence has been amply demonstrated, although prejudices and discrimination do not always lead to physical violence [
34]. Consequently, we put forward the second hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). general gender stereotypes cause gender harassment.
Why must gender stereotypes in the field of tourism be gentler than in other life settings? If general prejudices drive violence, it is reasonable to expect that particular prejudices within the tourism sector can provide a vehicle for performing violence [
34,
52]. There are many forms of violence. Violence can be psychological and implicit, as in the case of blackmail, artificial victimisation, and subtle negative reinforcements within a couple during a holiday and between colleagues at a company [
34]. Equally, there is a sexualisation of the tourism space. There are individuals whose schedule and placement makes them highly visible, which can be a vulnerability for women, as it often leads to unseen harassment. They are gazed at as a desirable object, transferring their sexuality to a public space, which can often make them feel uncomfortable [
8]. The bodies of female tourists are represented as symbols of sexual liberation and can be seen by some as attractions, denigrating both the repressed, local women and foreign, commoditised women [
53].
Nevertheless, violence can also be manifested verbally, for example, if one person menaces another, throws insults and is disdainful in personal or professional settings. Similarly, in the field of tourism, gender harassment can appear within personal relationships during a trip [
54], as well as at work, and high-risk conditions can provide the setting for broadly accepted expressions of violence in the professional sphere [
2]. In the workplace, gender harassment can be found in certain verbal attacks and in physical aggression, as well as in the atmosphere, if it is intimidating and negative. To be specific, gender harassment includes comments about physical appearance, indecent observations, sexual demands, and humiliation [
2].
In addition to the existence of a wide range of types of violence, there can be a strong association between gender stereotyping and violence if women feel more restrained, embarrassed, fearful, and guilty than men in the professional context [
55,
56]. The first feminist studies centred on analysing the constraints to the leisure of women [
57]. Not only do prejudiced beliefs build up the glass ceiling in the professional sphere and fertilise unfair power relations in personal settings, depending on whether one is a man or a woman, but they also perpetuate subordinate conditions for women [
5,
19]. Taking into account all of this, we put forward the third hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 4 (H4). gender stereotypes referring to tourism professionals cause gender harassment.
Hypothesis 5 (H5). gender stereotypes referring to travellers cause gender harassment.
3. Materials and Methods
This research encompasses a survey and was carried out between March and September 2016 in Gran Canaria. It employed a structured questionnaire to gather information about general stereotyping related to gender, gender stereotypes in tourism, and gender harassment. The universe was made up of individuals who were in Gran Canaria when the survey took place. All of them had to have had travel experience within the last five years and were 18 years old or older. The respondents were contacted randomly by following non-probabilistic sampling procedures—more specifically, convenience and snowball sampling procedures. So, the respondents were contacted in a wide variety of places: at home, at work, and during leisure time. We understood travellers to be individuals who had travelled to any other place other than Gran Canaria, regardless of their profession. However, to guarantee the proportionality of the general characteristics of the universe, we considered sex, age, and education. Therefore, it would seem logical to think that the number of tourism professionals that were contacted must be similar—or slightly higher, given the sector in question and the survey takers’ characteristics—to the general population profile. The survey was administered by students of a market research course, who explained to those surveyed that their anonymity was guaranteed and that there were neither correct nor incorrect responses if the answers were honest. The final sample comprised 684 units, after eliminating 30 cases for various reasons (see
Table 2).
The questionnaire comprised three questions in Spanish, English, and French. The scales measuring general stereotyping of gender, gender stereotypes in tourism, and gender harassment were 7-point Likert scales. Obviously, there were also questions about sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, age, education, job, nationality, and religion. We used SPSS version 25 to perform the statistical analysis.
These scales were developed by carrying out a qualitative technique consisting of an in-depth interview with 10 individuals and two brainstorming groups, whose output was complemented by reviewing the literature on gender roles, gender prejudices, and gender harassment [
58,
59]. While the in-depth interviews were held in the main researcher’s office and in the respondents’ homes, the brainstorming groups took place in two different classrooms with the students and the respondents. The latter were not tourism professionals, but rather three students, five employees, and two non-working people who belonged to the main researcher’s social circle. As the research objective was not simply to gain insight into the respondents’ life and sentiments, but also to identify the context and expressions related to the macho values and beliefs that these interview respondents were aware of, we recruited participants whose projections did not make them feel personally embarrassed and who were diverse in terms of sex, age, and education. For the brainstorming groups, we explained the need to find out as many language expressions from professional settings and the wider context, wherein the average person manifests their hidden and explicit sexist stereotypes. Therefore, it was not their own sexism that mattered most, but rather the students’ projections and experiences dealing with people in society. In this way, we were able to identify forty-four expressions whose contents enriched the final version of the questionnaire, in the form of twenty-five items.
5. Discussion
Until now, harassment and violence against women have only been studied in the field of tourism from a sexual maltreatment approach, within studies on sexual demand and the impact of sexual tourism [
3]. Nevertheless, this research shows that sexual issues are not the most relevant for explaining gender violence, but rather general prejudices and stereotyping in tourism. What is more, this research is centred on analysing explicit gender harassment behaviours instead of merely examining prejudices, stigmas, and other hidden gender responses [
11]. Finally, beyond wide-ranging assertions, this research pushes the literature forward by indicating which specific prejudices and precise stereotypes in tourism are causing gender harassment.
On this basis, we can suggest important practical implications. Firstly,
ethically challenged presumptions, aesthetical manners conventions, and
dysfunctional romantic relationships should be spotted as the key gender responses to combat gender harassment. This is consistent with the literature, since there is authentic street harassment present in “catcalls” and “wolf-whistling” [
60]. Similarly, the valuation of women by their appearance hides a sort of hostile sexism [
37,
61]. Likewise, there is a significant association between romantic jealousy and partner violence because these sentiments might be clinical, embody frustration, and imply anger [
62]. Secondly,
sex commodity,
occupational sexism, and
ambivalent sexist discrimination should be considered as the most dangerous stereotypes taking place in tourism when fighting gender harassment. This is supported by the literature on gender violence. To be specific, if women are objectified, they are dehumanised and degraded as a commodity and, hence, maltreatment is legitimised [
61]. Equally, job segregation is an occupational hazard [
63], and thus its unfairness is a form of harassment in itself. Finally, there is no doubt that
ambivalent sexism leads to dependent relationships that inhibit social change [
64] and represents a kind of subtle sexism that undermines the chance of a fairer society [
65].
We learnt that there is vertical and horizontal gender discrimination against women in the tourism sector and that it is caused by prejudices, stereotypes, and unfair policies [
19,
66]. Moreover, we confirmed that gender stereotypes in tourism are deeply rooted in general stereotypes [
9,
58]. Considering this and moving forward, we have revealed the existing and specific connections between general gender prejudices and gender stereotypes in tourism. At this point, important practical implications can be deduced by pointing out that workplace-based sexism and sexist discrimination in tourism should be tackled by questioning all ethically challenged presumptions. Kruse and Prettyman [
67] claim that society is still re-editing the wicked witch stories whose message questions the ethical leadership of many women. Similarly,
occupational sexism,
ambivalent sexist discrimination, and
sex commodity stereotypes in tourism should be confronted by attacking
aesthetical manners conventions. According to Uribe [
61], when women are objectified, they are treated as nothing more than bodies under hostile sexism, the consequences of which drive the justification for occupational segregation, mistreatment, and maltreatment. Finally,
sex commodity and
occupational sexism stereotypes might be criticised by arguing against any
dysfunctional romantic relationship, since not only are morbid romantic relationships insane and prescribe maladaptive forms of cohabiting and intimacy [
68], but romantic jealousy and partner violence are also linked [
69]. Herold et al. [
70] demonstrate that romance and sex tourism are more similar than they are different as categories, depending on the female and male profile of the tourists, respectively.
6. Conclusions
This research work demonstrates empirically that there exist hidden gender stereotypes in the field of tourism whose prejudices and inequalities not only denigrate women as travellers and professionals, but also give rise to gender violence. It is true, up to a point, that we already knew that general stereotyping and stereotyping in tourism were closely related as prejudices and misconceptions with the same root. Nevertheless, the genuine contribution of the current paper consists in highlighting that all the general misconceptions of women tend to be more destructive for women as tourism professionals than as travellers. Paradoxically, the more formal context of the professional sphere is the one that is more under attack. This may be because women have emerged more recently in this context. However, for this same reason, policymakers and the tourism industry should prioritise change.
Another contribution of this paper consists in pinning down the twofold origins of gender violence. On the one hand, gender violence can be traced back to general stereotyping insofar as some seemingly inoffensive comments work as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. For example, aesthetical conventions such as the idea that women should take more care of how they look than men, that men should repress their feelings more than women, and that women have to be better dressed than men are producing real gender violence. On another hand, as this research work proves that dysfunctional romantic relationships are the main exogenous determinant of gender violence, it is advisable to bring into focus how people understand love and partnership. Finally, it is worth noting that conceiving of women as “sex commodity” travellers and shoddy tourism professionals by nature engenders the spectre of gender violence. No doubt, there are femininities in the field of tourism under gender-based harassment and violence [
71,
72]
This research shows several limitations. Firstly, as we prioritised anonymity and sincerity in a context of snowball sampling procedures, the exact job of the survey respondents was not identified, and, hence, we were not able to distinguish the exact proportion of tourism workers in the sample. Nonetheless, as the survey takers were successful in keeping the basic sociodemographic proportionality of the sampling units, we assume that there is not a significant bias due to an excess of tourism workers. Consistently, it makes sense that future lines of research should explicitly consider the prejudices, stereotypes, and misconceptions by distinguishing between mere travellers and tourism practitioners. Secondly, although this paper sheds light on violence from gender stereotypes and sexist attitudes in the context of tourism, it has not kept any longitudinal track on how this emerging and volatile subject matter is evolving in society. In other words, perhaps this research work attempted to gain insight into violence at a time when the reality was much worse than it is now. Therefore, we have no choice but to recommend that future researchers adopt a longitudinal approach in order to shed light on how this contentious issue has changed after so many social marketing campaigns having been launched in recent years.