Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBenevolent sexism: the real barrier holding women back
snip:
I applaud Salmond's stance and invite others to follow his lead just as I called last year on Augusta members to dismantle their club's male-only policy. Augusta later changed their ways and Muirfield should follow suit. But to make lasting, society-wide progress, we need to tackle the belief that sexism is not as serious, damaging, or severe as the other "isms" out there.
Why does this myth persist? For American activist Gloria Steinem, "sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was." So-called 'natural' gender differences are used to justify unequal treatment of women and men and allow us to look the other way when women are treated like second-class citizens.
Two types of sexism prevail: overt and benevolent. Overt (aka hostile) sexism like the exclusionary Muirfield policy is easy to spot, especially in parts of the world where we have seen the most progress towards equality. Reasonable people call it for what it is the belief that women are not equal to men, and due to their 'second class' existence, should not mind being ignored, excluded, violated, you name it.
Benevolent sexism is different it is seemingly innocuous but is just as damaging and far more enduring.
The belief that women are kinder, more moral, more fair, more nurturing, and generally, more virtuous than men seems positive on the surface.
In reality, these benevolent stereotypes hurt women because they maintain inequality. Whether she's the "little lady" or the "woman behind the man" or the soothing creature who exists simply to make men nicer, woman's "natural" goodness becomes a rationale for why she should be protected from activities and occupations that require stereotypically "macho" qualities.
I applaud Salmond's stance and invite others to follow his lead just as I called last year on Augusta members to dismantle their club's male-only policy. Augusta later changed their ways and Muirfield should follow suit. But to make lasting, society-wide progress, we need to tackle the belief that sexism is not as serious, damaging, or severe as the other "isms" out there.
Why does this myth persist? For American activist Gloria Steinem, "sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was." So-called 'natural' gender differences are used to justify unequal treatment of women and men and allow us to look the other way when women are treated like second-class citizens.
Two types of sexism prevail: overt and benevolent. Overt (aka hostile) sexism like the exclusionary Muirfield policy is easy to spot, especially in parts of the world where we have seen the most progress towards equality. Reasonable people call it for what it is the belief that women are not equal to men, and due to their 'second class' existence, should not mind being ignored, excluded, violated, you name it.
Benevolent sexism is different it is seemingly innocuous but is just as damaging and far more enduring.
The belief that women are kinder, more moral, more fair, more nurturing, and generally, more virtuous than men seems positive on the surface.
In reality, these benevolent stereotypes hurt women because they maintain inequality. Whether she's the "little lady" or the "woman behind the man" or the soothing creature who exists simply to make men nicer, woman's "natural" goodness becomes a rationale for why she should be protected from activities and occupations that require stereotypically "macho" qualities.
http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/aug/06/benevolent-sexism-holding-women-back
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 900 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (9)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Benevolent sexism: the real barrier holding women back (Original Post)
boston bean
Aug 2013
OP
My rule of thumb: Every time the phrase "women and children" is uttered...
lumberjack_jeff
Aug 2013
#4
niyad
(112,435 posts)1. k and r and 3.. . . 2. . . .1. . .
boston bean
(36,186 posts)2. I love what steinem said!
That in no way diminishes the racism in this country/world, and that much still needs to be done there.
But I think it might help put it into perspective for those who think there is some biological reasons for women not having the same opportunities, in pay, jobs, careers, etc.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)3. I view discrimination from the spectrum of both morality and economics.
It is morally wrong to discriminate against a person for a condition of their birth that they can't change. And I view discrimination as a economic drag that decreases profitability, if more business people saw that truism, discrimination would vanish.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)4. My rule of thumb: Every time the phrase "women and children" is uttered...
... benevolent sexism is the underlying basis.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)5. K&R nt