Study finds women prefer "benevolently sexist" men

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Except for a shit ton of historical, or even recent, examples of women acting like shitty human beings.

I mean, anecdotes are not data. The fact that a few bad examples can be found does not erase the historical trend.

Are they human? Yes?

Then chances are they're shitty.

As shitty as men though? that sounds really misogynistic.

Yes, as shitty as men.

You're human, not some paragon of alien perfection.

[Napkiraly]

Women are also more prone to neuroticism and negative emotions in general, thus why they cannot be the final authority in the household in most cases.

[New haven america]

Are they human? Yes?

Then chances are they're shitty.

1.As shitty as men though? 2.that sounds really misogynistic.

1. Most definitely
2. No, the words you're looking for are "Misanthropic" or "Realistic". You should try adding those to your vocabulary sometime.

[New haven america]

Women are also more prone to neuroticism and negative emotions in general, thus why they cannot be the final authority in the household in most cases.

They're only as prone as men are.

[Geneviev]

This is more proof that God was right. Women should be protected.

[Napkiraly]

Women are also more prone to neuroticism and negative emotions in general, thus why they cannot be the final authority in the household in most cases.

They're only as prone as men are.

Nope. Extra nope. (And includes links to studies seeking to also disprove the assertion.

[The Endgame]

These links seem unreliable.

[Napkiraly]

These links seem unreliable.

Heaven forbid it turns out there are actual differences between men and women.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Except for a shit ton of historical, or even recent, examples of women acting like shitty human beings.

I mean, anecdotes are not data. The fact that a few bad examples can be found does not erase the historical trend.

Are they human? Yes?

Then chances are they're shitty.

As shitty as men though? that sounds really misogynistic.

We aren’t establishing is women are historically as ‘bad’ as men, we were establishing if women can, as in if they’re capable, of being just as bad, which a number of historical examples prove.

[Radfems Inc]

They're only as prone as men are.

Nope. Extra nope. (And includes links to studies seeking to also disprove the assertion.

I looked over the second link. This part especially jumped out at me:

Another way to look at this issue is to use an implicit measure of personality. This involves using speed of keyboard responses (pressing different keyboard keys as fast as possible in response to different words) to test how readily people associate words pertaining to themselves with those describing different personality traits. The idea is that participants don’t realise they are revealing what they think about their personality and so their scores can’t be affected by attempts to conform to cultural expectations around gender.

A research team led by Michelangelo Vianello at the University of Padua in Italy used this approach in 2013 with a study involving over 14,000 people surveyed via the Project Implicit website. Gender differences in personality were three times smaller using the implicit measure as compared with a standard personality questionnaire, suggesting the differences uncovered by standard questionnaires are influenced by conscious biases.

First, you're asking them to measure themselves, which is fraught with risk, but you notice using the implicit measure (trying to keep people from considering their responses) got a much narrower result than the "regular" kind. And although it's not zero, it does show the conscious override is part of it.

Now what about the unconscious override? They may internalize and believe those things about themselves in their core due to patriarchal oppression.

[Napkiraly]

Nope. Extra nope. (And includes links to studies seeking to also disprove the assertion.

I looked over the second link. This part especially jumped out at me:

Another way to look at this issue is to use an implicit measure of personality. This involves using speed of keyboard responses (pressing different keyboard keys as fast as possible in response to different words) to test how readily people associate words pertaining to themselves with those describing different personality traits. The idea is that participants don’t realise they are revealing what they think about their personality and so their scores can’t be affected by attempts to conform to cultural expectations around gender.

A research team led by Michelangelo Vianello at the University of Padua in Italy used this approach in 2013 with a study involving over 14,000 people surveyed via the Project Implicit website. Gender differences in personality were three times smaller using the implicit measure as compared with a standard personality questionnaire, suggesting the differences uncovered by standard questionnaires are influenced by conscious biases.

First, you're asking them to measure themselves, which is fraught with risk, but you notice using the implicit measure (trying to keep people from considering their responses) got a much narrower result than the "regular" kind. And although it's not zero, it does show the conscious override is part of it.

Now what about the unconscious override? They may internalize and believe those things about themselves in their core due to patriarchal oppression.

And yet the difference is still there. Odd duck that is.

[Radfems Inc]

I looked over the second link. This part especially jumped out at me:



First, you're asking them to measure themselves, which is fraught with risk, but you notice using the implicit measure (trying to keep people from considering their responses) got a much narrower result than the "regular" kind. And although it's not zero, it does show the conscious override is part of it.

Now what about the unconscious override? They may internalize and believe those things about themselves in their core due to patriarchal oppression.

And yet the difference is still there. Odd duck that is.

It's not that surprising. Consider the reality of women being targeted for all sorts of sexism, violence, harassment, etc - wouldn't that make you more "neurotic" than someone who didn't worry about those things?

[The Endgame]

It's because of existing cultural biases, which ought to be gradually phased out.

[New haven america]

This is more proof that God was right. Women should be protected.

God is also a butch lesbian, as we have proven earlier.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

This is more proof that God was right. Women should be protected.

God is also a butch lesbian, as we have proven earlier.

You certainly are quite loyal to that bizarre theory of yours.

[New haven america]

God is also a butch lesbian, as we have proven earlier.

You certainly are quite loyal to that bizarre theory of yours.

I'm only making a point that bringing up God to prove a scientific point is useless at best, because it's so subjective and easy to mold/manipulate.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

You certainly are quite loyal to that bizarre theory of yours.

I'm only making a point that bringing up God to prove a scientific point is useless at best, because it's so subjective and easy to mold/manipulate.

To me, God is an abstract force above any petty human concepts, so he is effectively irrelevant in argumentative discussions.

[Aggicificicerous]

Women like it when people are nice to them? What does any of this have to do with feminism?

This isn't being "nice" this is essentially finding men who conform to the older gentlemanly and chivalrous view towards gender relations being attractive. Views that have been decried as patronizing, holding women back, authoritarian, etc. Turns out said views also tend to get the hormones kicking as well.

It's a matter of perspective. Pulling out a chair for a girl, or promising to take care of her, might be seen as sexist, but it can also be interpreted as being more caring.

[Costa Fierro]

Meh, people call me a misogynist because I say things they disagree with, so there's not much point in shying away from it.

That's fine, but it does make you an admitted misogynist.

People are going to call me a misogynist whether what I say is misogynistic or it isn't. Not much point trying to prove myself to a bunch of people that were never going to be convinced in the first place.

[Costa Fierro]

I mean, it's not really possible to be sexist FOR women or sexist against men or whatever you're trying to say here.

Well let's put it this way: a woman being a housewife and not being subject to any form of paid labour in this day and age where everything is automated and saying she should remain a housewife because it's her "natural place" is sexist, but not oppressive.

And yes, it is possible for women to be sexist against men. Unfortunately for you, such things are not a one way street, nor is the definition of sexism based on "prejudice + power". If it was, it wouldn't matter, because it would still result in sexism against men if those women influenced laws, policies, and wider society. Which, if you haven't been living in a cave for the last 18 months (and given your terrible opinions, I wouldn't be surprised if you were) they have.

I'll await your response calling me a misogynist and then I'll simply disregard whatever you post after that is sexist misandrist nonsense.

[Costa Fierro]

Women are also more prone to neuroticism and negative emotions in general, thus why they cannot be the final authority in the household in most cases.

And yet a majority of household finances and decision making is in the control of women, up to 80% in the United States.

[The Snazzylands]

Women are sexist too, and this disproves all of feminism somehow?

[Duvniask]

Women are also more prone to neuroticism and negative emotions in general, thus why they cannot be the final authority in the household in most cases.

God, you've become a bore over the years. It's sad to witness.

[Estanglia]

Women like it when people benefit them. Who knew?

No, it's not "flattery works" it's "women like sexism."

I mean, it's not really possible to be sexist FOR women or sexist against men or whatever you're trying to say here. Sexism for women and sexism against men are synonymous - you can't have one without it being the other. Sexism against men is impossible, which has been detailed at length before.

Saying "benevolent sexism" is an effort to assert that sexism can actually impact women in positive ways, which it can't, as that would be sexism against men, which is impossible.

By its very definition sexism is very much possible against men, unless you're operating under some ridiculous and arbitrary redefinition of the word, like it being "power + prejudice" (which it isn't). Also, that article's reasons are dumb.

Therefore, benevolent sexism is possible.

I mean, the author in this has the results all wrong.

"Benevolent Sexism" doesn't exist, because due to our patriarchal society, men are oppressing women at all times. "Benevolent sexism" may, in a small way, act to counteract such oppression, and as such should be expected by all feminists, not as a matter of favoritism, but as an effort at less denigration. What they call "benevolent sexism" is just men trying to make small allowances for thousands of years of oppression against women.

So, in order to make up for historical oppression (and 'modern oppression' in the west which I'm gonna need a citation for), one must privilege women over men? Whatever happened to equality? Why can't we just say, "bad things happened, we can't change it, but we can be equals instead"?

Got it, you're just trying to get reactions from people.

Could you make it a little less blatently obvious next time? If you could, that'd be great.

I actually take this thread very seriously. This "benevolent sexism" they talk about could be more accurately defined as "totally inadequate reparations".

Reparations for what? Past injustice? Unless you're talking about recent events, most who suffered this 'millennia of oppression' are dead, and so are most of the people who caused it, so unless you're advocating for punishing innocent people to benefit either the dead or their descendants who didn't suffer the oppression, you're gonna have a hard time doing these reparations.

To be honest I did find myself becoming more successful with women when I shifted towards a benevolent sexism mindset. Though I believe women can and are just as shitty as men, I just don't say that publicly. The rest though is true, women are generally more fragile creatures that need protection and it is the man's responsibility to be the final authority within the household.

This is what's called a "wolf in sheep's clothing", if we're to use an old saying. By his own admission, he's hiding his thoughts in favor of doing what he thinks will get him laid. That's hazardous for women.

Besides, there's little to no evidence that "women can and are just as shitty as men".

On the are, they may not. On the can, certainly. We are all human, and are all capable of being shitty people.

Except for a shit ton of historical, or even recent, examples of women acting like shitty human beings.

I mean, anecdotes are not data. The fact that a few bad examples can be found does not erase the historical trend.

Are they human? Yes?

Then chances are they're shitty.

As shitty as men though? that sounds really misogynistic.

It's actually treating them as equals, not degrading the woman, unless you think women are better than men, which is sexist.

[Imperialisium]

This isn't being "nice" this is essentially finding men who conform to the older gentlemanly and chivalrous view towards gender relations being attractive. Views that have been decried as patronizing, holding women back, authoritarian, etc. Turns out said views also tend to get the hormones kicking as well.

It's a matter of perspective. Pulling out a chair for a girl, or promising to take care of her, might be seen as sexist, but it can also be interpreted as being more caring.

I have to agree with Aggicificicerous and Napkiraly is somewhat on the right track-ish-kinda-sorta.

Speaking as a Woman here,

It come's down to perspective and culture. Both of which impact the situation in a number of ways. A man pulling out a chair for a woman and having a polite tone and physical gesture is generally well received. At least in my experience and those of my female friends. Now an example where such behavior would be received negatively could be say,

A man asking to help a Woman carry something obviously heavy in a condescending manner. The, "Let me help you because you're weak due to being a Woman," gimmick.

The first example is perfectly fine. The second example is obviously sexist due to the defining moment of that interaction is the notion of said Woman being inferior and thus NEEDING help.

Again I do not speak for all Women. But growing up within Central and Western European culture. When a man act's like a gentleman it is attractive. I and Women like me will enjoy your presence more because you have proper manners and care about someone else without it having to be romantic. Basically you're being considerate and Women like it. Combine that with an image of being hygienic, responsible, and mature then you got basically a winning recipe for Women to like you. Platonic or romantically depending on the Woman and the nature of that particular relationship.

Further, if you do act like a gentleman and it is a romantic relationship, well congrats you're probably going to get laid in the foreseeable future.

***

Oh dear Psychology Today, popular science at it's finest everyone.

Now, how does the above tie in with the term 'benevolent sexism,' and breaking down male gender roles as stated in the OP. I will admit I am not a feminist. But I am a degree holding Psychologist and so I can say that at best it is a complicated answer involving multiple trains of thought and if I did it in a single word I would use the term Kyriarchy in its non-gender context. Whereby both genders oppress and support each other in a loop. But to go into more detail the list below will detail my answer into its constituent parts:

Culture
Personal Experience (perspective)
Personal Preference
Upbringing (which can clash or be the same as the social norms that fall under culture)
Nature (there is considerable debate on how genetics plays a role in everything but the general median is that gene's have a maximum effect of 50%)

So personal experience and culture which have been talked about and genetics being basically hard coding for the basic instincts (mate with best male candidate to produce best possible offspring). This leaves Preference and Upbringing. Upbringing naturally is parental, familial, and early friendships impacting your life. This ties in with culture lending to the whole 'benevolent sexism' which is really just a cultural phenomenon occurring in specific societies rather than a species wide norm. Since the article seems to take the Western definitions generically proscribed as Bad Boy and Nice Guy I'll keep my reply to that context. Finally, preference skews everything either for or against and is essentially a wild card in the mix. Example, Women on average tend to find Men wearing red sexier or more attractive. In this vein of thought a Woman may prefer a more controlling male figure or one that likes to play a more submissive role. That's it, it could be that simple, which I don't find to be an issue.

In addition the article brings up the whole bad boy vs nice guy scenario and why Women seem to prefer the bad boy. In short Women do not prefer the bad boy for being bad I.e. sexist or what-have-you. Rather, the bad boy is usually someone who puts out a greater air of confidence and self-respect which Women like. Wouldn't you? Unfortunately, the bad boy routine is basically a cover for them not actually having self confidence and thus lashing out aggressively in sexist or patronizing/physical ways. Versus the nice guy who is the opposite and feels entitled to having a female companion simply by being nice to them. What do they both have in common? Not being a true gentleman and basically selling the female on a lie.

So to answer the OP at length I think there is a bit of a disingenuous notion of what constitutes as sexist. Because what is sexist depends on the person based on the factors listed above. If a man is just being nice then he is being nice, period, if there is a secondary agenda then yes it could become sexist. I emphasize could due to, again, situational factors can influence everything. What may be seen as sexist behavior in the West may be seen as perfectly normal else ware.