Men Don't Recognize 'Benevolent' Sexism: Study

[iverglas]

3. interesting how both women and men have double binds

According to Swim, men did not consider statements including "a good woman should be put on a pedestal" or "in a disaster, women should be saved before men" to be sexist.

Because they are taught from such an early age to be chivalrous/polite, and it is demanded by so many women around them -- imagine how many if not most women would react if men did not open doors for them or "let" them go first, for instance -- ordinary apolitical regular guys really do have a lot invested in the chivalry model. They're treated like dirt themselves most of the time, both in public discourse and by women in their lives, if they don't adhere to it. Their self-image as nice guys depends on adhering to that model, in ways that it doesn't in the case of, say, a white racist model. "Nice guys are polite sexists / polite sexism is the right thing to do" really is a very strong message.

(If you doubt how many women do still demand these things, and also that men pay their way in social settings, etc., just have a look at the discussion boards at eHarmony ... from which I have been banned several times. )

If men define those male behaviours as sexist i.e. bad, they are left having to engage in behaviours that the women they interact with (and especially with whom they are looking to establish romantic relationships) will very probably reject as rude. And I do have sympathy for those men!


If a man offers to help a female coworker set up an office computer, Glick said, and she accepts, she is perceived as warm, but lacking a level of competence. If she politely refuses, however, she is often viewed as a "bitch." Men who accept help are also seen as vulnerable, Glick said, but they do not suffer the same repercussions for trying to do things on their own.

And there is women's double bind. The human "normal" is not the feminine normal, and the feminine "normal" is not the human normal. (An assertive person is good/normal and an assertive man is good/normal, while an assertive woman is bad/abnormal; a dependent woman is good/normal, while a dependent person or man is bad/abnormal; and on and on.) Who was it did the initial work on that back circa 1970? Was that in Phyllis Chesler in Women and Madness?

No matter how women behave, it is bad for one reason or another. If they behave in a stereotyped feminine way, it's bad because feminine is bad, in human terms -- weak, dependent ... talk too much ... . If they behave against the stereotype, it is bad in feminine terms -- aggressive (where a man would be called assertive), selfish (where a man would not be expected to defer to / sacrifice for others), hostile (where a man would be independent).


If men choose the stereotyped strong/chivalrous model, they are usually rewarded. They will get negative responses only infrequently, like from women like me, strangers who reject their offers of opened doors and going first. And if they see negative discourse about it in public, there is a swelling chorus of nay-saying (as in the post above) to counter it and reinforce their adherence to the model -- which they may consciously choose to adopt, because they enjoy the privilege the model brings them, or which may simply reassure them that they are doing the right thing as they have always been taught to do, and quell the conflict they might otherwise feel if they did suspect that maybe all was not right with the way things are.

They are much more likely to get rewards for that behaviour, from every category of women in their lives -- mothers, aunts, wives, dates, coworkers and strangers. So it's the safest bet for them.

And huh, here we are with women again being essentially the vector for the transmission of the sexism. It's women who hand out the rewards/punishments for the various behaviours.

And men really do have the idea instilled that not being chivalrous is bad, and unfortunately it also gets all tied up with the idea of not being abusive -- "never hit a woman" has too much of the chivalrous and not enough of the just plain anti-violence, anti-abuse message much of the time, in informal/family settings.

If a man actually articulates these things - that he prefers egalitarianism but what is he supposed to do when women expect all this? - then he gets less of my sympathy. Grow a backbone. But for the great masses of ordinary men who are working with what they've been handed all their lives, I do understand how they might find it difficult and genuinely confusing sometimes.

Now, if women choose the stereotyped deferential/dependent model, they get short-term rewards in most cases, but in the long term, by being adhering to a stereotype that is essentially negative for many aspects of life, especially economic (while strength/chivalry stands men in good stead all round), they damage their long-term prospects in many ways. And that does include not just education and jobs, but also intimate relationships, since while being deferential/dependent may attract a mate and even keep a relationship running smoothly, it can also make women vulnerable to abuse.