7 ms·

"benevolent sexism"? there is always a flipside to -isms: If women are preferred, man are logically dispreferred. (not complaining, just pointing it out)

• Bakary 4y ago
  It depends. There's a practical and mechanical difference between one group being more liked than average, and one group being more disliked than average. Even though the situations can be equivalent in a purely logical sense, the nature of the difference changes
  • xani_ 4y ago
    Only if there are more than 2 groups. If there are two groups (and in addition they are roughly equal size) those are entirely interchangeable as there is no logical "standard" to compare to except eachother
    • sokoloff 4y ago
      (Speaking only to the "liked more than average" and "disliked more than average", not the general opposition of preferred vs dis-preferred.) Imagine if there are 200 people, 100 of category A and 100 of category B. It's possible for members of category A to be simultaneously "liked more than average" and "disliked more than average". If 20 A's are liked and 20 A's are disliked, while only 10 B's are liked and 10 B's are disliked, then A's are liked 33% more than average and disliked 33% more than average.
      • DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
        Yes, but that will either cancel out to the average in group B matching the total average, or it won't, meaning the average of B is significantly different from the total average.
        • sokoloff 4y ago
          The question is "what does liked more than average mean?" I think it's more naturally interpreted as a frequency question ('given a random A, how likely is it that I would say "I like this person"?') rather than an average/sum question ('what is the total likability of all members of A minus the total dislikability of all members of A?')
    • Bakary 4y ago
      Consider the following thought experiment: a world with similar sexual dynamics as ours, but where women and men have equal physical strength and capacity for violence. In this case, although the traits would be defined as relative between the each of the two groups, the lack of a specific asymmetry in this case changes the dynamic completely. Whereas in our world, the difference of capacity introduces an asymmetric dimension that influences the relative mix of reactions each gender has towards the other. The fact that men are specifically feared for some imbalance, whereas women are specifically valued for others, makes it not exactly interchangeable even if the standards only exist in a relative sense. In the hypothetical world, men (and perhaps women) would place extra value on women due to the way sexual desire and attraction works, but men would be seen more neutrally (or with disinterest rather than fear) than in our situation.
      • belorn 4y ago
        In our world women and men has equal capacity for violence. Time and time again we see researchers come to this conclusion. How we view violence is colored by our culture and views about gender roles, and thus gender and violence get mixed up. The same problem occurs with race. White and black people obviously have equal capacity for violence, but black men (and women) are more feared by white people. In the past people would use genetics and race theory to explain this, but today we know to avoid those traps in our thinking.
        • Bakary 4y ago
          I understand the argument you are going for, and agree that we must obviously consider the role of culture, but it's not plausible to claim that the capacity for violence is equal. The comparison with ethnicity is flawed because in the case of gender you have clear physical differences, the most notable of which being that the majority of women would have much difficulty physically overcoming the majority of men in life or death situations, barring superior tactics or weaponry. If, say, the propensity of each gender towards violence was identical, this mere fact would already provide a culturally significant imbalance. I'm not sure what research you are pointing towards, but I sincerely doubt that the propensity for violence is identical, either. Consider the following scenario: a person points a gun to your head and tells you to pick a person at random either amongst all of the women or amongst all of the men (let's sidestep the question of gender neutrality for the sake of the argument) If the person you pick has an aggressive and violent psychological profile, you are shot. Which gender would you pick in this situation to maximize your survival? Would you sincerely rely on your intuition about equal capacity for violence in this case?
    • DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
      So you mean, like, if non-binary people were a thing it'd be different? /lu EDIT: Note the sarcasm. We are, in fact, a thing.
      • socialismisok 4y ago
        Non binary people are a thing. There's no need to use the "if".
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
        • wurzell 4y ago
        • DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
          I think you missed the sarcasm in my comment. I know non-binary people exist. I happen to be one of them myself.
• fundad 4y ago
  It doesn’t say women are preferred, more like the expectations are higher. It’s not benevolent.
  • DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
    Replace the subject of your sentence with literally any other group "men aren't considered more competent, more like expectations are higher" "white people aren't considered superior, more like expectations are higher" etc. Do I need to point it out, or do you see it yourself?
    • fundad 4y ago
      Yeah dude, harmful stereotypes.
• nzach 4y ago
  >Ambivalent sexism is a theoretical framework which posits that sexism has two sub-components: "hostile sexism" (HS)[1] and "benevolent sexism" (BS). Hostile sexism reflects overtly negative evaluations and stereotypes about a gender (e.g., the ideas that women are incompetent and inferior to men). Benevolent sexism represents evaluations of gender that may appear subjectively positive (subjective to the person who is evaluating), but are actually damaging to people and gender equality more broadly (e.g., the ideas that women need to be protected by men). To me 'benevolent sexism' seems just a misleading name. Something like 'positive eugenics'. According to its definition it makes sense to call it that, but you need some context to properly understand what the name actually means.
  • ajuc 4y ago
    The problem isn't that the name is misleading, the problem is that every instance of hostile sexism is also benevolent sexism and vice versa according to that definition. For example: HS: women are incompetent and inferior to men BS: men are competent and superior to women Both of these statements are equivalent. The only thing that changes is POV. So if you insist benevolent sexism and hostile sexism are different - you have to assume a POV (for example call the sexism that prefers women benevolent). Which to me seems obviously the wrong thing to do.
    • kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Labeling all sexism using the benevolent form and voila ! the problem of sexism us conveniently solved. Let's move on to solve all sorts of other issues like racism next.
      • foldr 4y ago
        No, because if you read the definition given above, benevolent sexism is not considered to be a good thing.
        • kelseyfrog 4y ago
          It would allow us to tackle more important problems like the ability to convey sarcasm on the internet.
• thomastjeffery 4y ago
  That's very literally the meaning of the phrase.