Poll: "Benevolent Sexism"...Wait, what?!

[Lord Krunk]

Benevolent sexism is indeed a thing, but you are caricaturing it. Many feminists caricature it too, actually.

But as a concept I don't see why people have such a problem with it. MRAs constantly complain about what others would consider "benevolent sexism", which is essentially the preferential treatment of women by men. "Women and children first" was benevolent sexism. Women getting lighter prison sentences is benevolent sexism. The abuse of women being taken seriously and the abuse of men being treated like a joke is, again, benevolent sexism.

Isn't that part of the problem, though? Referring to it as 'benevolent sexism' straight-up infers that this kind of attitude is a good thing.

OT: It's obscenely poor wording for some feminists to complain when double standards fall in their favour. It just makes them look like hypocrites, though.

 

[Merrik Waters]

Back in my day it was just down right polite to hold the door for a woman or to give them your jacket when they are cold. Chivalry ain't dead but it is in the process of being drawn and quartered. Next comes the tar and feathers.

Also, how can they come up with something that out there with a sample size of only 27 people? That isn't a study. I could pull in 27 people at random and make all kind of outlandish statements.

 

[newfoundsky]

Sorry ladies, but I give up...because apparently no matter what I try to do, I'm being sexist. According to a new study conducted by Northeastern University in Boston, there's a form of sexism that's even more "insidious" and hurtful than outright hostile sexism. The "wolf in sheep's clothing", as the researchers called it, is "Benevolent Sexism".

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415256/study-being-nice-women-sign-sexism-katherine-timpf

So the next time a guy holds a door open for you, offers you his umbrella during the rain or his coat during the cold, or even offers to help carry something heavy for you, you shouldn't feel thankful that a kind person is trying to help you...no, you should be out-right offended that he would have the audacity to offer!

I remember back in the day when such behavior was considered being a gentleman...now I honestly have absolutely no idea how I'm supposed to treat a lady without coming across as a sexist.

What do you think, my fellow Escapists? Is "Benevolent Sexism" actually a thing? Should I stop holding the door open for women or offering them my jacket?

*sigh* I'm a male. Here is my understanding of sexism:

Doing anything because of someone else's gender.

Hold the door open because it's ANOTHER PERSON. Not because it's a woman. Not being sexist is really easy. Just don't do anything because of another persons gender. Geez.

 

[Dizchu]

Isn't that part of the problem, though? Referring to it as 'benevolent sexism' straight-up infers that this kind of attitude is a good thing.

The motive is benevolence (or the desire to appear benevolent), but the result is anything but. If you treat a woman like a child or like a frail senior citizen by opening doors for them, offering jackets/seats/umbrellas, or offering to do anything else that they're completely capable of doing themselves, that's not kindness. That's patronising.

Imagine you're doing something mundane that's completely within your abilities and someone that makes you feel uncomfortable gets all up in your personal space to do something "nice" for you, which ultimately just causes inconvenience and awkwardness. How would that make you feel? If you told them that you're fine and they repeatedly offer anyway, wouldn't you get angry?

The term isn't perfect, but benevolent sexism is distinct from, I dunno, "hostile" sexism? Because the intention is to put the person up on a pedestal for no good reason. More often than not it's less about doing something nice for someone else and more about trying to make you look more "gentlemanly" in the hope that they'll sleep with you (look at all those god damn "nice guys").

 

[Beliyal]

Imagine you're doing something mundane that's completely within your abilities and someone that makes you feel uncomfortable gets all up in your personal space to do something "nice" for you, which ultimately just causes inconvenience and awkwardness. How would that make you feel? If you told them that you're fine and they repeatedly offer anyway, wouldn't you get angry?

This happened to me many times. Seeing as I'm not a confrontational person, I don't get angry on the outside, but dear lord, does it piss me off. I severely dislike people entering my personal space without being invited, interrupting me with something I'm doing and forcefully "helping". I don't perceive it as help, I perceive it as an annoyance.

Is it too much to ask before jumping in uninvited? Isn't that the most "chivalrous" and "gentlemanly"? Is it that difficult to observe for a moment instead of acting on impulse upon seeing a woman with a bag in her hands? I've had men literally grab stuff from my hands (I'm an archaeologist, there's a lot of physically demanding stuff happening on a dig site; physically demanding stuff that I have no problems with and I know my limits). First of all, it's a bit creepy. Second of all, you're interrupting me. Third of all, I don't need your help. If I do, I will ask for it. I know, it may sound bitchy and impolite, but to me, it is impolite to intrude someone's work uninvited.

I know some people don't mind it or even find it endearing. More power to them then. But people are different and for this reason, I believe the best course of action would be to ask before attempting something of the sort. If you ask, I'll be grateful. If you ask, the other person will be grateful as well I would say. I think asking would erase this "benevolent sexism" problem. Asking, observing the context and not assuming things about people without knowing them.

Holding doors open notwithstanding. That argument is just silly, anyone will hold the door, if they can, for someone just behind them. Little unobtrusive courtesies are something that every sane person will do for others in their vicinity. No one will be mad if you hold the door, but people might find it weird or creepy if you run across the park to open some door for a stranger or if you hold it for 10 minutes before the stranger gets to it. A rule of thumb: if you have to out of your way to "help", you should probably ask first.

 

[hentropy]

Women, please let's learn to love ourselves *as women*.

The problem with that is that women are human. I know, it's quite it the radical to say. Being a human means that women are going to be different from one another, just as men and every other human is. Women should learn to love themselves for who they are, and sometimes that happens to be a man or something in between. Men and women are different, but that's only because every human on Earth is different. Really what you call "radical feminism" has morphed in contemporary times to be a kind of universal humanism- that no one should be treated radically differently based on a personal attribute that they have no control over.

The problem with gentlemanly codes of conduct is that they are built on a tower of assumptions about all women as a group. That they're universally delicate little pets needing to be dealt with and talked to gingerly, showered with compliments so they don't get hysterical. Where "gentleman" are assumed to be completely rational, intelligent humans with thoughts on philosophy and politics, "ladies" are the opposite, concerned with petty things such as gossip, know little about intellectual topics and are prone to emotional outbursts.

You can glorify or excuse it all you want, but this is the heart of "gentleman-lady" conduct. It's one that respects women- as delicate flowers that need protection. You can read any number of old books or watch any number of old movies that reinforce this view. It's different from outright chauvinistic sexism that disrespects women as being universally stupid or child-like and needing of correction, but that doesn't make it right. It might not be that today, and one can claim that the "gentlemen" aesthetic has evolved to become something more compatible with feminism as a broad concept, and in the beginning being a gentlemen was considered the upright and progressive thing to be (again, compared to the wife-beater), but it's still a relic built on outdated ways of thinking.

I do sometimes agree that those who believe in social justice should be more empathetic toward men and try to separate trivial things (like shirtgate) from more serious matters (like this month's fraternity rape scandal). However, part of this "movement" if you want to characterize it like that is about getting rid of old ways of thinking that ultimately don't make any sense, only exist because of nebulous "tradition" and ultimately perpetuate stereotypes that many women don't think apply to them, but get forced upon them.

That being said I don't think you've "internalized oppression" or anything like that. If you like being treated that way then that's your preference, and ultimately feminism is about respecting women's choices to live how they like. I just take issue with the generalization of "woman" and trying to encourage people to love that mold as if it's the only one that can exist. That if you shave your head and box for a living that you're not properly "loving yourself as a woman".

 

[Rufio's Ghost]

So the next time a guy holds a door open for you, offers you his umbrella during the rain or his coat during the cold, or even offers to help carry something heavy for you, you shouldn't feel thankful that a kind person is trying to help you...no, you should be out-right offended that he would have the audacity to offer!

I remember back in the day when such behavior was considered being a gentleman...now I honestly have absolutely no idea how I'm supposed to treat a lady without coming across as a sexist.

I'm a lady and I've done all the things you've listed above for both men and women! Does that make me a Gentleman? Or a gentlelady...? Gentleladyman?

I suppose the name doesn't really matter. Either way, I deserve a pat on the back. Hell, we all do. *patpat*

As many have already said throughout the thread, if you do this sort of thing for everyone alike, regardless of their gennies, then you are probably swell person. That being said, I saw a lot of "Well if they don't like my kind gesture than-THEY SUCK" or "I should have let the door SLAM IN THEIR DUMB FACE."

Sexism aside, if you need someone to validate how nice you are/were, or accept your act of kindness.... then you may not have been doing it for the right reason anyway? Maybe?

Anyway, regarding this whole door problem, I've only had two people get irritated by me holding a door open for them. Strangely, and counter to almost every post I have read in the thread relating door holding etiquette, both of them were men. The first man insisted with a "You first." I responded with "Oh no, it's alright. I'm already here." And... well kept insisting until I went first. I didn't think arguing about who should be the first to cross a threshold was a good use of my time, or his even.

The second guy responded by grabbing my arm and shoving me through the doorway in front of him, mumbling something to the effect of "No fuckin' way" under his breath. That was a weird one!

And yes, both situations were awkward... but I didn't walk away with a "FUCKYOUASSHOLE" attitude. Shrugged it off and went about my god dang business.

Oh! And an answer to your last statement, "now I honestly have absolutely no idea how I'm supposed to treat a lady without coming across as a sexist."

You treat a lady like a person, like you'd treat anyone else. I'm not saying that the person won't get offended. I'm saying you can't control what people think or what they are and aren't offended by. People can take offense to just about anything, so why worry! As long as you know the reason why you did something, and it wasn't based on the person's sex, you don't need to worry about coming across as sexist or being sexist.

Edit: And sorry man, I didn't select an option in the poll. Neither of the options reflect my opinion.

 

[EternallyBored]

Benevolent sexism is indeed a thing, but you are caricaturing it. Many feminists caricature it too, actually.

But as a concept I don't see why people have such a problem with it. MRAs constantly complain about what others would consider "benevolent sexism", which is essentially the preferential treatment of women by men. "Women and children first" was benevolent sexism. Women getting lighter prison sentences is benevolent sexism. The abuse of women being taken seriously and the abuse of men being treated like a joke is, again, benevolent sexism.

Isn't that part of the problem, though? Referring to it as 'benevolent sexism' straight-up infers that this kind of attitude is a good thing.

OT: It's obscenely poor wording for some feminists to complain when double standards fall in their favour. It just makes them look like hypocrites, though.

That's not hypocrisy, that's pretty much the opposite of hypocrisy. If a feminist's stated goal is to end unequal treatment of women and they complain about unequal treatment that hurts women whilst encouraging unequal treatment that benefits them, that would make them hypocrites.

Complaining when double standards fall in their favor makes them intellectually honest, because they aren't trying to keep the double standards that fall in their favor while eliminating those that don't. Maybe I'm misinterpreting that last line, but I fail to see how actually applying the desire for equality in an ethical fashion that tackles more than just the negatives makes one a hypocrite.

 

[Johnny Impact]

Do what I do: keep yer damn head down and just pretend women don't exist. You're still going to be wrong, but it's a much simpler kind of wrong.

I'm only half kidding. There is no right thing for a man to do. Hold the door, you're saying she's helpless. Don't hold it, you're ungentlemanly. This can be extended to conversation, dating, sex, buying drinks, household tasks, everything. A less charitable person than myself might suggest that women simply cannot be satisfied. I think it's mostly an SJW thing -- criticizing others because that's easier than having their own lives.

 

[EternallyBored]

Do what I do: keep yer damn head down and just pretend women don't exist. You're still going to be wrong, but it's a much simpler kind of wrong.

I'm only half kidding. There is no right thing for a man to do. Hold the door, you're saying she's helpless. Don't hold it, you're ungentlemanly. This can be extended to conversation, dating, sex, buying drinks, household tasks, everything. A less charitable person than myself might suggest that women simply cannot be satisfied. I think it's mostly an SJW thing -- criticizing others because that's easier than having their own lives.

That's not an SJW thing, or a woman thing, it's a human being thing, look on the last page with the female poster talking about men acting like assholes to her for holding the door open for them. The key is to not be so emotionally fragile that you just never do anything for anyone ever again, down that path lies the life of a shutin, "whoops I better not leave the house today, I might get hurt by another human being".

The best thing to do is to realize that there are assholes out there, so one woman takes offense and yells at you because she thinks you're being sexist for holding the door open for her, so what? You can't go through life without ever confronting another human being or having an argument, there are bad people out there, there are crazy people, there are honest good people that just make a misjudgement or jump to a conclusion. I was called sexist in college by a classmate because I held a door open for her, I had a guy slam a door in my face and call me a pussy for trying to hold the door open for him, but I didn't let those situations dictate my future behavior, I still hold doors open for people, because I don't let assholes dictate my behavior.

 

[Fappy]

... I had a guy slam a door in my face and call me a pussy for trying to hold the door open for him...

Holy shit, I hope you knew the guy. If not, that man will get far in life :/

 

[Semudara]

Don't do it because of their gender; do it because it's the nice thing to do, regardless of the gender of the person involved.

That's what a gentleman does.

If you only do nice things for women, not for men... then yes, that's sexist, one way or the other.

Be a genuine good person. It's not that complicated, really.

 

[EternallyBored]

... I had a guy slam a door in my face and call me a pussy for trying to hold the door open for him...

Holy shit, I hope you knew the guy. If not, that man will get far in life :/

He was a random guy I encountered when I did nightclub security in college.

I was walking out of the Casino after shift and I go the door to open it for him to let him through as he was right behind me. I turn around to look at him so I can smile and wish him a good night, I was out of uniform at the time, and he just grabs the handle, pushes the door into my face then closes and reopens it himself, as he walks off he says, and I'm paraphrasing from memory here as it was years ago, "ya fucking pussy, I ain't your ***** bro" then storms off. He didn't seem drunk or anything, I didn't want to confront him since he had just left the property and didn't really hurt me or anything. I remember being absolutely pissed most of the next day though, trying to think of all these witty comebacks I should have thrown back at him but was too shocked to do so at the moment it happened.

If there's one thing working security around so many people taught me back then, it's that somebody is going to get pissed at you for something, no matter what you do, it could be for a completely stupid reason, or a real mistake on your own or their part, but it will happen, even the most innocuous gestures could set someone off for some reason or another.

 

[Crimson Cade]

If you treat a woman diffrently than you would a man, simply because she is a woman, that is, by the literal definition, sexism. Doesn't need a prefix like "benevolent". If you treat a gender as inferior and in need of help, that is, again by literal definition, chauvinism. Both of these can be done with good intentions, and a lot of people are fine with it. Lots of people like adhering to traditional gender roles.

I've got a solution to all this though: Take a minute to reflect on your own behavior, and then another to see the other person's perspective.

If everyone does this, rather than jerk knees all over the place like a rendition of Riverdance, we'll all be better off, and the trolls will go hungry. Of course, there are reasons why this doesn't happen. There is profit in peddling faux concern and moral outrage, and this has been the truth since the first sensationalist rag magazine.

 

[PirateRose]

Another problem is men are capable of being manipulative. Bad men will use all these "gentlemen-like" behaviors to abuse, lure their victims in, and/or view the acceptance of the behavior equivalent to the woman giving consent. It's a mind game many men like to play, because it should be a good deed only anyone can do it. It has become increasingly difficult to gauge whether the man opening the door for you is being just kind or if he has bad motives and is going to stalk you throughout the grocery store.

Bottom line, you should be opening the door for anyone coming up behind you. Man, woman, child, elderly, transsexual, gay, lesbian, black, white, whatever. It's not some special thing, it should be common, civilized decency to not let a door slam in someone's face behind you.

 

[Redryhno]

Another problem is men are capable of being manipulative. Bad men will use all these "gentlemen-like" behaviors to abuse, lure their victims in, and/or view the acceptance of the behavior equivalent to the woman giving consent. It's a mind game many men like to play, because it should be a good deed only anyone can do it. It has become increasingly difficult to gauge whether the man opening the door for you is being just kind or if he has bad motives and is going to stalk you throughout the grocery store.

Bottom line, you should be opening the door for anyone coming up behind you. Man, woman, child, elderly, transsexual, gay, lesbian, black, white, whatever. It's not some special thing, it should be common, civilized decency to not let a door slam in someone's face behind you.

Just replace all instances of "men" with people and "gentle-manly behaviors" with acting nice, and you've got it down to a twisted reality more close to the truth.

As for opening the door, eh, I'd say it's really up to whoever's at the door in the first place, everyone's perfectly capable of opening the door themselves as we've seen in this thread and some of it depends how far away someone is in the first place, if they're right behind me, they shouldn't have much trouble coming in behind, if they're far back, I'm not going to wait, and if they're a few steps behind, well, again it depends. Same goes for if I'm leaving and they're coming in, I'm not going to wait for them unless I've rummaging around looking for something in a bag I need, and if they're right there, I'll let them open it since the door's probably going to smack them in the face if I open it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you treat a woman diffrently than you would a man, simply because she is a woman, that is, by the literal definition, sexism. Doesn't need a prefix like "benevolent". If you treat a gender as inferior and in need of help, that is, again by literal definition, chauvinism. Both of these can be done with good intentions, and a lot of people are fine with it. Lots of people like adhering to traditional gender roles.

Eh, benevolent sexism is sexism, sure, but it is of a somewhat different nature than what most people generally think of sexism, so might be worth specifying.

 

[Pseudonym]

Ehm, the article linked is rather bad and misleading. It links to another article that at least explains the research slightly better but that gives a link to the journal where I cannot find the article regardless. To answer your question: yes benevolent sexism is a thing. Threating women like they need more help than other people is sexist. This is not about holding doors open for women (I'm sure some people on different sides of the discussion make it about that, but they are stupid) but about holding doors open for women that you would not hold open for men. I would argue this is a problem for different reasons than the usual given reasons. I'm not convinced that it 'perpetuates inequality', but it is sexist nonetheless which is enough reason not to do it.

The research itself is kind of creepy though. (well, I didn't read the actual study, because I could not find it, so I'll take the description in the articles I read) It apparently researched the body language of benevolent sexists and concluded they smiled more. It reminds me of 1984 where people's minutest twitches and movements were scrutinized to help detect thoughtcrime. Even if the methodology was flawless I would still wonder what sort of person thinks this should be researched. Do these people want to help the NSA become more capable and intrusive?

I also don't think the research was very persuasive. From the description I found of the paper and the way the journal it appeared in describes itself it seems that questionable assumptions about morality and sociology are made and subsequently poorly argued, and this is combined with statistical research on a small group of 54 American college students. So I am not convinced about anything here, nor do I see why this should be researched, other than for rather sinister reasons.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I really don't care about things of this nature. I was raised the way I was raised and taught that there is value in manners and being polite to a lady. I hold doors open for women longer than I would for men. A man might get 2 mississippi, 4 mississippi for a woman and 6-7 for someone in a wheelchair or crutches. The elderly get as long it takes. I open the car door for women usually, at least if I'm approaching from the side where they'll be sitting, tho I admit I occasionally forget. On the Tube, I give up my seat for the elderly or pregnant women.

I couldn't care less if being polite to women offends them or anyone. Should they choose to be offended that's their problem, not mine. If a lady infers that my gesture suggests she's incapable (or anything else for that matter), that too is her problem. Saying that, I've never had an issue like this in over 30 years of life.

 

[Crimsom Storm]

Think of it this way then. When a woman is a villain, usually she can be "saved" by passion and love and whatever other groovy thing. This trope is rarely pushed forward for men, though most famous would be Loki and Thor from the Marvel universe. When it comes to Men however, most are left to stay on the side of evil. Women, however, are clearly savable and redeemable.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. A male villain can't be redeemed? Have you even seen a movie?

I have, but consider how most comic book fair tends to run. 9 times out of 10, you cannot save the men. They are pure evil and psychotic, but when a woman stands on the enemy team, there's a high likelihood that she can be saved, be it the power of love or some other magical power. I'm not saying that men can't be saved, just that most of the time, either no one bothers, or the character is so stock and bland that they literally have no driving force beyond being evil, while somehow the woman in question is usually treated with kid gloves, and later, given the chance to turn good, or at least "not so evil".