The current study examines whether individual differences in the endorsement of hostile and benevolently sexist ideology predict attitudes toward girl child marriages in Turkey and whether the motivation to justify the gender system mediates these associations. Four hundred forty-seven participants responded to scales measuring attitudes toward girl child marriages, gender-specific system justification, and ambivalent sexism. Hypotheses were tested via regression-based mediation analyses. Results demonstrated a clear distinction between hostile and benevolent sexism in their relation to support for child marriage: Hostile sexism predicted increased support for girl child marriages both directly and via gender-specific system justification, whereas benevolent sexism did not predict attitudes toward girl child marriages directly or through gender-related system justification. These findings suggest explicit prejudice toward women, as opposed to more subtle forms of prejudice, and a need to justify the gender status quo warrant more careful consideration as ideological targets for change in programs aimed at eradicating this brutal practice.