For those of you who mock benevolent sexism..

[sufrommich]

I lost a promotion because of it. Many years ago I was a custodian in an elementary school when a supervisors job came up. At that time there was only one female custodial supervisor in our school system and very few female custodians,I had a great boss who taught me how to work on the old oil burning boilers,hvac units in classrooms,basic plumbing repairs,etc so I had the same qualifications as the men applying for the job. The job I applied for would was a job for building supervisor with 4 hours supervising a crew that was split between 2 buildings and I would work alone for the last 4 hours. It came down to me and another guy and we both interviewed twice with a very nice man who was the principal of the building. When my boss came to tell me I didn't get the job,he said " Mr. Smith thought you would be better for the job,but he couldn't stand the thought of you being alone in a building".I was crushed, at no time did he ask me how I felt about being alone (I was OK with it). I went onto get a supervisor job a year later and other promotions after that. Not everyone practices benevolent sexism but to pretend it doesn't exist and mock the very notion is silly and dismissive to every women who has experienced it.

[msanthrope]

1. That's not benevolent sexism...that's a violation of law. He deserved to be sued. nt

[sufrommich]

4. It's both. I probably could have sued,although

he could have said there were other factors if he felt threatened with a lawsuit. It was a no win situation and as a single mom with a good paying union job with great benefits,I didn't rock the boat.

[msanthrope]

7. No--I think that's hostile, and not benevolent. I think denying anyone benefit on the basis

of their status in a protected class is an overtly hostile act.

I think calling it 'benevolent' is giving cover to an act that is discriminatory in the extreme. It's like the term 'date rape' or when people say 'it was just statutory rape.' These modifiers are not merely descriptive--they are minimizing.

[GaYellowDawg]

9. Honestly

I don't think that was "benevolent sexism" at all. I think it was old-fashioned blatant sexism. He didn't want to hire a woman, and made a bullshit excuse for it.

[sufrommich]

15. No,I knew this man for years. We talked

about it years later when we worked together,he really didn't realize that what he did was sexist until we talked about it . He was really worried that I would be a greater risk alone in a building.. He did apologize when we talked about it years later,he was actually a very nice person, his problem was ,as he put it,was that he was " thinking like a dad" instead of an employer,which he really had no right to do.

[msanthrope]

31. "He had no right to do." Precisely. That's where it crosses the line between benevolent and

hostile to me. Benevolent sexism covers a whole host of behaviors that concern what are essentially social relationships. But when you cross into a power relationship of government/taxpayer, employer/employee, you have 'hostility' as a matter of law.

[seabeyond]

19. that is exactly the definition and effects of benevolent sexism. and if anyone bothered to read

any of the information, that would have been in the definition.

on a pedestal. protected.

[unblock]

25. and therein lies much of the practical problem with enforcing employment law

many aspects of a job, from day-to-day quality to promotions to bonuses to job security -- can be destroyed by suing to enforce your right.

sue and you can win, only to find out that your job then sucks.

suing works best if you're happy to move on to a different job and only are suing for monetary compensation (and perhaps a change in policy).

[LittleBlue]

30. Agreed. This looks like an employment discrimination

OP was well within your rights to take it to a lawyer.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. It's both. The guy was willing to break the law to protect her safety. n/t

[msanthrope]

34. I wonder if he understood he was breaking the law. And I never presume an intent

that benefits anyone else but the intent-holder.

Perhaps the supervisor simply did not want to be blamed if a lone woman was attacked.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. Okay, it's apparent that he was conflicted.

He chose the second best applicant because he cared about her safety more.

[pipi_k]

42. That's a possibility

Because if anything had happened, no doubt there would be people out there calling for the guy's head, wondering what the hell was he thinking leaving a woman alone at night.

Also, could she have sued if she had been attacked?

[msanthrope]

43. She could have sued if she and others left alone at night were subject to

lax security, or were otherwise put in danger by the employer and an attack occurred.

[pipi_k]

47. So...

a really good lawyer could probably have built a case against the employer.

Which was probably what he was concerned about.

[sufrommich]

49. No,he was concerned for my safety. I've made that clear.

It wasn't a legal issue he was concerned about. Frankly,leaving anyone alone at work is a potential legal issue,especially if they're operating any kind of machinery or climbing ladders,which we all did.

[sufrommich]

48. People,male and female,work alone

all the time. Personally,I'd feel a lot safer working in a closed,locked building than I would working the midnight shift in a 7\11 store. Custodians in buildings at least have the luxury of having the keys to the building and the ability to secure the building. Working at an all night convenience store,you're pretty much at the mercy of whoever walks through the door.Alone and female isn't a good reason not to hire someone,it's not any different than alone and male,it's the "alone" part that puts you in peril.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. DU Rec.

[Helen Reddy]

3. Golly sufrommich,

besides.....

Some believe that the students could do your job as well. Ya see? not only did you lose that kick-butt job to a big 'ol man but knowing you are THIRD in line behind minors!

*sarcasm thingy

In all seriousness, very pleased you eventually received what was due. You know about HVAC? Geez lemme give you my number. Difficult if not impossible to find female contractors.

[sufrommich]

8. I'm afraid my HVAC knowledge doesn't

go much farther than individual units in classrooms,bigger problems were a work order to the HVAC certified professionals. The worst part of the whole ordeal was that I was a single Mom working afternoons,during the week,I pretty much only saw my son in the morning before he went to school,I mostly wanted the job because it was an easy move to a day job once I had a supervisory position .Not getting that job meant another year of afternoons for me.I was really devastated.

[GaYellowDawg]

10. Sorry to ask this

But can you tell me how you'd know if a residential HVAC was burnt out? I didn't change the filter in mine for far too long. It'll run the fan, and the heat will kick in, but it smells awful. I'm a little afraid to try it with a new filter.

[sufrommich]

16. You should never let filters go. Dirty filters

cause motors to run hot,which is probably what you're smelling.Why are you afraid to change the filter?

[GaYellowDawg]

35. I know. It was a dumb mistake.

I'm afraid to turn it back on with the new filter.

[unblock]

5. great illustration of some of the long-term effects of the attitudes behind benevolent sexism

i would technically put this in the category of hostile sexism, as it directly harmed you, but it is exactly the sort of thing that ingrained benevolent sexism, in this case particularly protective sexism, can lead to. after helpfully and generously protecting women in situations where they might actually benefit from it, eventually men can come to believe that women need to be kept "in their place" "for their own good".

that's part of the idea behind it. benevolent sexism in and of itself, in the moment, might be nothing but a good thing happily accepted by both parties, but in the long run, can lead to complementary hostile sexism based on the same underlying attitudes.

another part of the problem is that women can eventually do this to themselves, in this case, thinking that they need protection or need a man's help, many women might not have even applied for the job.

kudos to you for bucking that.

[Sheldon Cooper]

6. But...

did he hold the door open for you????? Well, did he??? <------ in case any of the willfully obtuse don't get it.

[Helen Reddy]

12. lol

He sure did. He opened it and kicked her (very qualified) butt out.

[sibelian]

11. Ugh...

What a soul-crushingly idiotic experience to have to wade through... I empathise. It's good to hear that you managed to move on and up despite it. Who wants to be denied an opportunity through someone else's "kindness"...?

I think most of the complaints about how odd "benevolent" sexism sounds and possibly seems come from the door-holding thing being an almost entirely useless example. Your experience makes the underlying problem much clearer. Thank you for sharing it.

[sufrommich]

17. I'm glad you get it.Thanks. nt

[seabeyond]

20. but why was the door thing picked and used as it was. in that very post was a definition and

explanation what it is. people repeatedly explained and it was ignored.

[The Straight Story]

13. Good example but will go 50% on it

The underlying principle is there (helping someone out based on their gender) but the outcome is not (because he was not actually helping you out).

Opening a door/fixing a flat/etc has the goal of helping someone out and extending a courtesy.

Another example might be when a woman buys a little boy a tie (like an aunt for a nephew, etc) and a girl a dress. It could be seen as sexist but the end result is the giving of something useful based on a statistic that men wear ties and most women do not.

Would most women buy their nephew a dress or even ask him if he wanted one?

Things can be based on gender and not be bad.

In your case, it was bad.

[boston bean]

14. True. DU needs to learn

that less pay and autonomy over ones body don't exist in a vacuum.

On DU it seems you are only allowed to talk about the actual effect not the attitudes that cause the problem.

[barbtries]

18. of course it is.

i suppose you describe it as "benevolent" because apparently the man sincerely believed he had your best interests at heart. clearly thinking of you as "the fairer sex." sexism it is and it cost you a job you should have had.

[Exultant Democracy]

21. Thats just old fasioned sexism, not benevolent. To be belevolent you would have had to get a job

that you shouldn't have.

[unblock]

22. i think it's "dominative paternalism" -- here is a categorization of sexism (link):

Theoretically, each form of sexism is composed of three subcomponents: paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality.[2] Paternalism reflects views of women as underdeveloped adults, providing justification for men to be authoritative and monitor, protect, and make decisions on women’s behalf. Gender differentiation promotes the assumption that biological differences between males and females justify the strict adherence to socially proscribed gender roles. Heterosexuality, described as the most prominent cause of men’s ambivalence toward women, reflects a tension between genuine desires for closeness and intimacy and a fear of women attaining power over men through sexual attraction.

Within hostile sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS), the three subcomponents serve distinct functions. Dominative paternalism (HS) suggests that men should control women, while protective paternalism (BS) implies that men should protect and care for women. Competitive gender differentiation (HS) bolsters men’s self-confidence (e.g., men are superior to women). Complementary gender differentiation (BS) places importance on traditional gender roles for women (e.g., mother & wife) and assumes that men depend on women to fulfill these roles. Lastly, heterosexual hostility (HS) views women as sexual objects (see: sexual objectification) for men’s pleasure and promotes the fear of women’s capacity to manipulate men by engaging in or withholding sexual activity. Intimate heterosexuality (BS) romanticizes women as having sexually purity and views romantic intimacy as necessary to complete a man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism

so i think the idea is perhaps the man in this anecdote sees it as his duty as a man to protect women (paternalism) and may have in fact done, or at least identified with, many acts of benevolent paternalistic sexism in the past, such as walking women home to make sure they're not alone, putting himself in between the woman and some potential harm, etc. those are acts of benevolent sexism because the woman directly, in the moment, benefits from it.

i think the idea is that this nevertheless is a problem long term, because such paternalism nevertheless fosters attititudes that do, eventually, harm women, and that is where this case is a great example. the same attitude that might have led this man to put himself between the woman and a mugger (protective paternalism -- benevolent sexism) in this case led him to deny her a promotion (dominative paternalism -- hostile sexism).

[wryter2000]

23. It's meant to be benevolent, hence the term.

The person thinks they're doing something good for you.

If the person had thought women weren't qualified, that'd be regular old sexism. In this case the person thought the woman was better qualified.

[Exultant Democracy]

24. They didn't do something nice, they denied a raise and promotion

because they thought the OP was unqualified to sit around in a building. This isn't even a close call.

[boston bean]

27. In their mind, they were doing something for good kind reasons.

You have to look at the intent of the person, when thinking of benevolent sexism.

The ideas people have, the thoughts and beliefs they hold.

And then see what those ideas/thoughts/beliefs produce?

In this case benevolent sexism ended in sex discrimination.

[Exultant Democracy]

29. No they knew they were not giving a promotion and raise its pretty simple.

In effect the difference between opening a door and slamming one in her face.

[boston bean]

51. Again, from the person doing it they thought they were being kind, how they were raised, etc.

He held these attitudes and beliefs about women being the weaker sex. He didn't think he was being sexist.

Start from there, and work you way down to how it manifested into full blown sex discrimination.

That is why it is important to have discussions about "benevolent sexism".

[wryter2000]

54. Forget it. There are none so blind...n/t

n/t

[brewens]

26. I put the kabosh on something similar but not sexism. I was a warehouse supervisor

and had a couple part-time guys under me. One of our full-time drivers had gotten his buddy hired in hopes that he's hook up with the next full-time opening. When a job opened up I found out they were trying to go around me. There was another younger and single guy that had been on the job a little longer. Our driver and at least one of the management felt that his buddy should get the job because he had a wife and kid. I called bullshit! The single kid had proven to be every bit as good of a worker and I considered him to be more reliable. No family stuff keeping him from working late or covering on short notice. I'm of the opinion that frequently, family friendly means single hostile.

[fizzgig]

40. i got hosed at my last job on multiple occasions due to not having kids

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

i was given so much extra work.

[MindPilot]

28. There was "ladies-only" employee parking at my old job

This was a car dealer, mid seventies. Male employees parked out on the dirt lot. Women employees parked on the paved area right next to the building.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Recommended. The flipside of that example is...

... "the very nice Mr Smith" hired the other guy because, unlike you, he was indifferent toward the guy's personal wellbeing.

Is it benevolent sexism toward you or hostile sexism toward the guy who got the job?

Tomato, tomahto. It's impossible to tell the difference.

[geek tragedy]

36. See also: restrictions on jobs available to women who *might* become pregnant one day.

I think "benevolent sexism" might be more usefully discussed (at DU anyways) as paternalistic discrimination.

[hfojvt]

37. from my own experience

becoming a janitorial supervisor is as much of a curse as it is a blessing.

I still say that I, personally, would have been better off not getting the job I have now, but I took the job largely so I would be able to help other people, not so much for my own benefit.

However, I would have gotten pretty much the same ability to help people with the number 2 job, which I also applied for, without having to deal with the headaches and bullshit of the number one job.

I wish my supervisors had benevolently protected me from the bullshit of the number one job.

But what they heck, it seems like half of the bullshit of that job is coming from them anyway.

[sufrommich]

50. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm retired now but

I always liked my job and still miss it sometimes.

[treestar]

39. That's exactly what it is

They didn't give you the job for your own good, they were protecting you. How nice of them and how chivalrous.

[sufrommich]

52. Yes. As I said, I was a single Mom and

the raise and the chance of getting a day shift were pretty important to me. I ended up getting the job the next year but it really bothered me.

[Purplehazed]

41. What is the answer then ?

If you read the wiki on ambivalent sexism, the only possible outcome of an action based on gender is negative. To the topic at hand, actions that are subjectively positive but based on gender are benevolent sexism and are also negative. The wiki and other articles on the web seem to all postulate that patriarchy, negative stereotypes etc. are the root cause of actions where genders are treated differently. So the only answer that I see is:

Do not take any action that differentiates gender.
Do not make any accommodations that recognize different genders.
Do not promote laws or procedures that differentiate genders.

[99Forever]

44. Divide and conquer is...

... alive and well on DU.

Will we ever learn?

I doubt it.

[Melon_Lord]

45. That's just regular sexism...

[pipi_k]

46. People can call it sexism

and some can dismiss it.

But I would imagine there are probably loads of parents out there who would give anything they own...even their own lives...to have their daughters back again, accusations of sexism be damned.

One local case involves the disappearance, and murder of a young woman working alone one night in a card and gift shop over 20 years ago.

Lisa Zeigert

The perpetrator was never found.

Would her parents give a rat's ass about "sexism"...benevolent or otherwise...if a man had been working the store at the same time?

Another case...a lifeguard on duty alone, abducted...her body not found until three years later. Molly Bish.

And a whole lot more.

Because this world is full of sick bastards, it really is NOT a good idea for women to be in some places alone.

[boston bean]

53. Yes, lets keep women safe by preventing them full access and rights?

That's what your post says to me. A bit hyperbolic, but taken to the extreme, that is what you are implying.

Criminals exist and perpetrate crimes against men, women, and children.

What is being discussed here is societal constructs regarding gender roles. And how those roles and beliefs and attitudes further sexist attitudes, and diminish the goal of equal opportunities for all.

[pipi_k]

56. OK, how about this then...

Roles and beliefs.

Why is there so much furor over violence against women?

Is it because women aren't as strong as men, and need special protection from male violence?

Someone stated in another thread that women aren't supposed to be seen as being "special". Fine. Let's all stop being so outraged when some man (who would probably punch another man in the face because he's drunk or pissed or whatever) does the same thing to a woman. Just so we know...he's not being sexist if he would punch another guy as well. He's only treating the woman like he'd treat a guy. Just like it's OK for men who would open a door for another man to open a door for a woman.

He's totally breaking down the societal belief that women can't defend themselves (otherwise why the uproar over violence) and treating said women just like a man.

Women in the military...are they segregated from the men in their own barracks? If so, why? Are the men and women not allowed to live and shower and shit together?

If not, why?

After all, why deny them the opportunity to experience life on an equal footing with men by denying them the chance to do it with special laws and special provisions.

We can't have it both ways. We can't claim that we're "not special" while demanding special treatment in some cases.

Oh, and those two cases I spoke of where the young women were alone and were murdered. They wouldn't have been denied an opportunity to work if there had been a man been working there with them.

They would just have been safer.

People can turn their noses up at the concept of safety if they want to, but I would imagine that the parents of those young women would have something different to say about that.

[Kurovski]

55. A perfect example of benevolent sexism, and its insidious and very real ability to undermine.

As far as I can tell the big screwy ruckus about doors here at du was based on intense personal dislike of one another, rather than any kind of defensive sexism itself. ( IRL a DUer gave me a heads up on this latest Metaesque battle, and so I'm just catching up on the threads.)

This example was much more concise and since it was not vague, since we see clearly the outcome, it is too bad you weren't there to communicate what benevolent sexism is in the first place. It's very difficult to mock such a personal and well stated example, one that also was well devoid of attack, insult and defensiveness throughout the thread--that any working person who ever hoped for a job they deserved could understand it.

[pipi_k]

57. Maybe...

As far as I can tell the big screwy ruckus about doors here at du was based on intense personal dislike of one another, rather than any kind of defensive sexism itself.

You could be right.

What also could be right is that there are some here who see "sexism" around every corner.

I recall one particularly pathetic instance where a very funny commercial mocking MEN was seen as sexist against women.

I often wonder how anybody can be effective against real (malevolent) sexism when they're spending so much time finding it around every nook and cranny of a discussion board...

[seabeyond]

59. pipi, you are suggesting depriving a woman of a job to keep her "safe" may not be sexist and if it

is, it is a "good" sexism.

that is hardly seeing sexism around every corner.

[Kurovski]

60. There are so many people who read these arguments and just stay out of it,

but it might be that they actually see both sides of the equation, and as casual observers also see where the personal animosity colors the discussion. And it really does.

It's like tag-team wrestling, where we all try to engage those outside the ring to jump in. Wrestling someone to the ground accomplishes a sense of victory in sport, but doesn't do well in communicating a message, or to get someone to actually take in the info and apply it appropriately.

Even when someone is perceived to be literally trolling in every nook and cranny, why not highlight the cranny that has actual sharp corners and acknowledge it? I think it gives a person a better position from which to disagree with on the less persuasive matters.

So to be effective against sexism, say, in issues and attitudes regarding rape, we are free to shift the focus onto what we believe to be the stronger point of view, and convince others to join in to that discussion, rather than delivering the smack-down of a messenger whose focus may (even unintentionally) be closer to getting a wayward rise out of someone rather than communicating new information, or a different point of view for one to examine--you can shift it anytime and bring the focus to some point of agreement.

I think a person can be affective against anything that is a real problem, no matter what the style of communication because, like I say upwind, I think most sincere people make an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to info. And you know--this does sound obvious, but it is important that we not merely reject all information out-of-hand, even when it comes from people that we may actively--and very personally--dislike.

[seabeyond]

58. i guess,

it would depend whose perspective you received. that is the thing with a story told.

we talk about feminism and womens rights. derailing begins.

because there are people that will always derail, we will not stop having a discussion about the issues. if sufro began to discuss it as often as others, she will then be in the cross hairs.

sometimes people make things bigger than what they are.

[Nye Bevan]

61. People can argue about whether this was benevolent or not, but it was definitely illegal.

Denying someone a promotion due to their sex is illegal, whatever the reason.