Sunday, June 25, 2017 | site map | contact | FSJ

Subscribe to Salvo magazine today! Take a look at an issue online and if you like what you see, SUBSCRIBE at a discounted rate.

You Can Be Part of Salvo By Supporting Its Mission Today

We depend on all our great readers to keep Salvo going!

Follow Salvo online



Join Our Email List
Enter your email below:
 



Further Reading

Parting Shot

Slap in the Face

Feminism Turns Kindness into Oppression

by Robin Phillips

It's still not safe, guys, to open a door for a lady. According to feminist psychologists, chivalry is demeaning towards women and a sign of sexism in men.

Article originally appeared in
Salvo 38

The claims have been advanced numerous times, including in 2011 in the Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ), which asserted that there is a cluster of behaviors called "benevolent sexism." This type of sexism manifests itself in everything from men opening doors for women to a man offering to help a woman choose the right computer. (Horrors!)

Playing the part of a gentleman is a particularly insidious form of benevolent sexism, the researchers claim. While gentlemanly behavior might appear positive towards women, it is actually a form of "gender colonialism," for equality is threatened when a man tells a woman that he cannot live without her or when he "cherishes" her. Indeed, in the topsy-turvy world of modern feminism, warm-hearted affection towards one's wife or girlfriend is actually a form of prejudice symptomatic of repression.

Nevertheless, most women are receptive to such gestures of benevolent sexism, but social scientists are alerting them to the danger:

Benevolent sexism motivates chivalrous acts that many women may welcome, such as a man's offer to lift heavy boxes or install the new computer. While the path to benevolent sexism may be paved with good intentions, it reinforces the assumption that men possess greater competence than women, whom benevolent sexists view as wonderful, but weak and fragile.1

These ideas have built on the work of Peter Glick and Susan Fiske, who, in a 1997 PWQ article, postulated the existence of "ambivalent sexism," a broad category that includes both "hostile sexism" (things like rape, wife-beating, etc.) and "benevolent sexism" (things like offering to carry a woman's luggage, opening doors, etc.).

What, you may ask, could rape possibly have in common with opening a door for a woman? According to Glick and Fiske, both hostile sexism (hurting women) and benevolent sexism (being chivalrous to women) have three common subcomponents: paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality. Both forms of sexism also originate in men's desire to dominate women: "[Benevolent sexism is] a subjectively positive orientation of protection, idealization, and affection directed toward women that, like hostile sexism, serves to justify women's subordinate status to men."2

Glick and Fiske believe that the gender differentiation and heterosexuality that are integral to benevolent sexism emerge in "protective paternalism" (as when a man offers to do the driving on a long-distance journey), intimacy seeking, male self-disclosure (how sexist to assume a woman will be a sympathetic ear!), and romantic love. Attitudes that characterize benevolent sexism include "protective attitudes towards women, a reverence for the role of women as wives and mothers, and an idealization of women as romantic love objects."3

Other telltale signs of benevolent sexism include the belief that "women should be cherished and protected by men" and that "men should sacrifice to provide for women."4 Even the idea that, "in a disaster, women should be saved before men" has been called sexist!5

Well, perhaps it is sexist to think men should treat women differently from the way they treat their buddies. But in the end, it sounds like the modern definition of sexism is based on the recognition that there are two sexes, that they're different, and that we should try to help each other out in complementary fashion. What's wrong with that?


If you enjoy Salvo, please consider contributing to our matching grant fundraising effort. All gifts will be matched dollar for dollar! Thanks for your continued support.

Bookmark and Share

FROM THE CURRENT ISSUE

Eye Openers: Eight Common Factors for Atheists Changing Their Minds About God by Matt Nelson

Tuning Out the Universe: How Naturalism & Post-Fact Science Ignore the Evidence We See by Denyse O'Leary

Deep-Seated Rights: What They Are & Why You Have Them by Steve Jones

Improbably So: Fine-Tuning Is Unlikely, but Unlikely Things Happen All the Time by Tim Barnett

FROM THE PREVIOUS ISSUE

The Long Red Shadow: Mike Shotwell Has a Message for Millennial America by Terrell Clemmons

The Good Life: It's to Know, Serve & Love the Truth, Not the Pursuit of Happiness by James Altena

Taking Polls Apart: Human Complexity Foils Electoral Predictions by Denyse O'Leary

Morality as Story: The False Charity of Modern Journalism by Rebekah Curtis

Can We Talk?: It Is Crucial That We Put Our Minds to Contentious Issues by James M. Kushiner

Evo-Elitism: Darwinism's Missing Link to Civil Liberties by Denyse O'Leary

Stonewalled on Abortion: One Woman's Quest for Straight Answers from Public Health Organizations by Terrell Clemmons

Love, Rhetorically: Using a Powerful Word Doesn't Mean Your Argument Is Logical by Tom Gilson

© 2017 Salvo magazine. Published by The Fellowship of St. James. All rights reserved. Returns, refunds, and privacy policy.