Interesting article on benevolent sexism

[Major Nikon]

Jeff pointed out in one of his posts that it's pretty hard to think of an example of benevolent sexism that isn't really sexism against men. If you think of the simplistic example of holding a door open for women, but not for men, what one is really doing is granting a privilege to women that men don't receive. From a logical standpoint it's no different than the mirror sexism of paying a man more than a woman for the same work.

I don't agree with everything in the article. Some of the examples given for benevolent sexism appear to be actually hostile sexism and some of the conclusions don't make a lot of sense. However, there were a few points worth noting which may be of interest here.

If we’re talking up the importance of work-life balance and familial roles for women but we’re not also mentioning those things about men, that’s a problem. If a woman’s accomplishments must be accompanied by a reassurance that she really was “a good Mom,” but a man’s accomplishments are allowed to stand on their own, that’s a problem. And lest you think that I only care about women, let’s not act like this doesn’t have a real and dangerous impact on men, too. If a man spends years of his life as a doting father and caring husband, yet his strong devotion to his family is not considered an important fact for his obituary because he’s male…then yes, that’s also a big problem.

...

However, to those people who still may be tempted to argue that benevolent sexism is nothing more than an overreaction to well-intentioned compliments, let me pose this question: What happens when there is a predominant stereotype saying that women are better stay-at-home parents than men because they are inherently more caring, maternal, and compassionate? It seems nice enough, but how does this ideology affect the woman who wants to continue to work full time after having her first child and faces judgment from her colleagues who accuse her of neglecting her child? How does it affect the man who wants to stay at home with his newborn baby, only to discover that his company doesn’t offer paternity leave because they assume that women are the better candidates to be staying at home?

What's interesting about benevolent sexism is that the pass it gets, even here on DU by some. The idea that women are delicate flowers seems to be almost universally accepted even among progressive circles. The author suggests that this may actually be far more harmful than hostile sexism.

Maybe the answer lies right here, on the benevolent side of prejudice. While “old fashioned” forms of discrimination may have died down quite a bit (after all, it really isn’t quite as socially acceptable in most areas of the world to be as explicitly sexist and/or racist as people have been in the past), more “benevolent” forms of discrimination still very much exist, and they have their own sneaky ways of suppressing equality. Unaffected bystanders (or perpetrators) may construe benevolently sexist sentiments as harmless or even beneficial; in fact, as demonstrated by Becker and Wright, targets may even feel better about themselves after exposure to benevolently sexist statements. This could be, in some ways, even worse than explicit, hostile discrimination; because it hides under the guise of compliments, it’s easy to use benevolent sexism to demotivate people against collective action or convince people that there is no longer a need to fight for equality.

I find it interesting how some are obsessed with finding hostile sexism under every rock, yet the knight in shining armor types are often revered by the same people.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/2013/04/02/benevolent-sexism/

[grahamhgreen]

1. In my view, promoting femininity and feminine qualities, ie, nurturing, is the ultimate in feminism

as opposed to throwing women into the men's arena and expecting them to behave manly.

[Major Nikon]

4. The key word is "expecting"

Applying gender expectations no matter how well meaning is ultimately counterproductive to equality. That doesn't mean a woman can't be admired for being a good mother or a man can't be admired for being a good producer, but when those expectations are applied is where the harm comes in. We shouldn't expect either gender to behave like their own or the other, but if they do neither should they be condemned for it. Just my $0.02 worth.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. I disagree. Equality should mean something.

It doesn't simply mean "more for me".

[grahamhgreen]

10. Equal, yes. But I don't think that women should be forced to act like men or dress like men or

carry themselves like a man in order to be treated as equals.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. A good female welder must dress similarly to a good male welder.

Of course everyone should be equally respected.

In an economic sense, if two people are not equally capable of equal jobs, they are not equal. The presumption that one gender can't or shouldn't compete on an equal basis is a presumption of inequality, and relegates women to housekeeping and men to 50 hour work-weeks.

[grahamhgreen]

14. Similar....

but not the same, LOL:

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. I've had sparks down the neck of my shirt.

That's not safe at all.

[pscot]

2. You are clearly not getting

your fair share of abuse at home.

[rrneck]

3. "Benevolent Sexism" is a made up phrase

designed to serve as a container for a more fundamental type of unfortunate social behavior: condescension. The container is necessary to facilitate spinning what might otherwise be a fairly universal problem into something that can be applied to the focus of ideological ire.

[Major Nikon]

6. I think it's an observable phenomenon

You may choose to call it something else and/or may not agree with some of the conclusions that are drawn from the theory, but right or wrong it does seem to be identifiable.

[rrneck]

7. It's certainly observable.

Condescension is observable, but if you relabel a common human foible you can claim it for your own ideological objectives. Frank Luntz has gotten rich at it.

[rrneck]

9. Another thought...

If we called it anything, we should call it "sexist condescension". Why use the terms "benevolent" and "sexism" together? The contradictory meaning of the two terms is positively Orwellian, and for the same purposes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. I fully agree.

One of the biggest socially obvious examples of benevolent sexism is the college gender gap. A college student is 50% more likely to be female, and the reasons are all wrapped up in stereotypes. The fact that women are going to college instead of men is considered "a great accomplishment". We send our daughters to college because our sons can work on the fishing boat or in the machine shop or at the oil field - jobs unsuitable for daughters.

How can people who accept this as appropriate, yet simultaneously complain about the pay gap, prevent their heads from exploding through cognitive dissonance? Of course, of course, women are paid less, because the social expectation is that they are to be protected from hard, unpleasant and dangerous work.

Even the guy running the chainsaw tacitly accepts this system as justifiable - mom and dad could only afford to send one of their two kids to school, after all.

If we need to invent a new term (benevolent sexism) to avoid acknowledging the actual bidirectional nature of the street of sexism, that's fine.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

11. I think a lot of that all sort of evens out, though....

There are still large segments of the white middle class suburban population that would never want their boys working as grease monkeys or scaling buildings to do iron work, even if they wanted to. And there are still large segments of the urban population that want their kids, of both genders, to get out and be the first to go to college.

And on the negative, there are plenty of families who feel a women's place is down on the farm, taking care of the kids. Just as I'm sure those same families often disdain college for young men because there's work to be done 'round these parts, so to speak.

College is just becoming such a money pit, I think it's a whole other discussion, although obviously I agree there are plenty of scholarships for girls just for being girls, more so than boys.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Ironworkers make good money for exactly that reason.

But sons are roughly 100% more likely to have parents who would contemplate such a future.

For every ten kids who go to college, six are girls. It is a nontrivial difference.

College is primarily the price people pay for jobs that offer
a) a chair
b) flexible hours
c) nonmonetary benefit

Fundamentally, you're buying a career, and the ability to get past the resume scanning machine at the HR department.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. I have a fundamental problem with most of these articles and discussions...

where we seem to be avoiding evolution and biology.

I don't know why human females suffer more debilitating effects from pregnancy and childbirth than other mammals, but they certainly seem to and historically that would seem to be a large part of the reason for gender roles.

Perhaps some anthropologists could chime in, but it seems reasonable to this amateur that our hunter-gatherer ancestors would notice half the population stuck pregnant and then nursing for up to two years or so for each child so let the other half do the heavy work and protect the village. Thusly, males evolved to be bigger and more aggressive. It was a matter of survival back then, and eventually one of convenience.

Today, we have answers for that, but seem to spend more time arguing over talking points and perceived insults than addressing the same first two years or so mothers have with their children. FWIW, I can't imagine any other social development over the past hundred thousand years or so since there wasn't much anyone could do about it besides wet nurses and servants until recently. And even now we can't change the basic biology of it all.

So, equality being the worthy goal, is there anything we can do to make us biologically equal other than crossbreeding us with seahorses?

[Major Nikon]

18. Not biologically equal, but there's plenty that can be done otherwise

By signing the Family and Medical Leave Act, Clinton did more for gender equality than any president since and this could be expanded. Ratifying the ERA amendment would help by insuring no laws or funding favors one gender over another.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. That's my point...

but part of what has to be done is redefine "equality" as some European countries have tried to do.

The sorry fact is that the "mommy track" is a worldwide phenomenon even though countries like Sweden have tried giving both parents a year off for parenting. Government paid child care has also helped some women stay in the workforce, but not by much.

A personal pet theory of mine that will be a likely flame attractant is that most jobs really suck and given a choice most people would rather stay at home with the kids if the bills were somehow paid. Women can get away with that more than men, so they do.

[Major Nikon]

20. I don't see the problem with that arrangement if both parties agree

Neither do I see a problem if the man stays home while the woman works. Raising a child is the biggest responsibility that most of us will ever face. I don't blame anyone who is dedicated to it. The reason women do it more is because that is the cultural expectation, however the worm is starting to turn on that. More dads are staying at home, and that's a good thing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. Is mutual agreement necessary?

If he wants to stay home to parent the kid(s) should she be able to veto that? Should he be able to compel her to leave the baby at home and go to work?

Every happy relationship seeks some sort of equilibrium, but I'm intrigued about the implications of what you just said.

e.g. He can stay home if they both agree, while she should have the choice of going to work.

[Major Nikon]

22. If either one decides unilaterally, there's likely to be conflict

When there's no children involved, unilateral decisions don't have the same impact. When a child is involved, both parents should decide what's best for everyone involved. That's how I've always looked at it.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. I have a fundamental problem with most of these articles and discussions...

Last edited Thu Sep 26, 2013, 10:36 AM - Edit history (1)

this got duped somehow