3 ms·

Yes, the association of men with intelligence more often than women would be benevolent sexism. I don't understand the issue you have with the terminology. Be

by cochne 4y ago

Yes, the association of men with intelligence more often than women would be benevolent sexism. I don't understand the issue you have with the terminology. Benevolent doesn't mean morally good here, it just means the person exhibiting the bias is assigning a positive attribute rather than negative. On the other hand, "women are dumber than men" would be hostile sexism. Yes, they are just different ways of saying the same thing, but they are framed differently.

Veen 4y ago
The problem is that the results of this study aren't benevolent from the perspective of men.
SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
> Benevolent doesn't mean morally good here, it just means the person exhibiting the bias is assigning a positive attribute rather than negative. It's just like the concept of positive punishment. You can have positive punishment by adding a consequence (ie. an electric shock) and negative punishment by removing but it's still punishment despite being labelled "positive".
Retric 4y ago
What’s the actual difference between believing women are more X vs men are more !X? Presumably someone would believe one believes the other, and one of those is going to be a positive trait if the other is negative.
- cochne 4y ago
  As I said in my comment, they are more or less equivalent as statements of fact, but different in how the fact is framed. Framing, or the context in which you state a fact, matters.
  - Retric 4y ago
    I don’t see how framing a belief matters. People will interchangeably flip the context simply based on the subject.
    - mhuffman 4y ago
      Framing a belief can matter when it is first presented to a person. For example think about the phrases "reproductive rights" vs. "baby killing" or "estate tax" vs. "death tax". If you are first being introduced to these concepts, it matters how it is framed to you when you first start forming your opinions or beliefs about the idea.
      - Retric 4y ago
        I don’t see a difference in those names. Some people get seriously upset with the “pro life” movement and others the “pro choice” because labeling doesn’t actually change anything. The only impact from a new political spin is when I have no idea what people are talking about.
        mhuffman 4y ago
        >I don’t see a difference in those names. I suspect that is because you already have a belief about them and can use that belief to make an informed interrogation of the ideas at hand. If, on the other hand, as I argued above you did not have a belief yet about an idea, that would not be the case and how it is framed to you would matter. I will give two contrived examples to show my point. A 7-8 year old little girl is told by her (progressive) mother that "reproductive rights" are important to her and that abortion is part of that and they should fight for it to protect those rights related to her body. vs. A 7-8 year old little girl is told by her (conservative) mother that abortion is literally people "killing babies" and they should fight against it to protect the innocent babies. The way those were framed (even though, I agree with you they are talking about the same concept at the end of the day) would obviously make a big difference to the little girl first hearing about this.
        4y ago
tomp 4y ago
So the same thing can be either good or evil, depending on how it’s framed? Looks like your morality is all mixed up and prone to manipulation.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  You're missing the point, where benevolent doesn't equal good, but either way, yes, "good" or "evil" is relative. Robin hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor - that's going to be seen one way or the other from the rich person being stolen from vs the poor person being given to. To have a moral system where defining something as unassailably good is also prone to manipulation - once you decide something is truly good you're more than willing to go to any end to defend or enact that good, including committing atrocities. Some actions are harder to see as being subjective, sure, but there's always going to be gradients and perspectives.
lucideer 4y ago
> I don't understand the issue you have with the terminology. Benevolent doesn't mean morally good here That's certainly not immediately clear. "Benevolent" is not a synonym of "positive", it's a synonym of "good". The former would apply in your definition but the latter very clearly doesn't. ---- Edit: I see from sibling commenters that this seems to be a compound term that makes up part of an established theoretical framework. That makes sense but I wouldn't assume everyone is automatically aware of that: > 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 It also doesn't redefine the word "benevolent" completely - in this context it just means "the misleading appearance of benevolence".
bitti 4y ago
> Yes, they are just different ways of saying the same thing, but they are framed differently. Here, I think, lies the problem. Trying to re-frame a negative idea as positive. Involuntary imported labor force instead of a slavery?

by cochne 4y ago

Veen 4y ago

The problem is that the results of this study aren't benevolent from the perspective of men.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

> Benevolent doesn't mean morally good here, it just means the person exhibiting the bias is assigning a positive attribute rather than negative. It's just like the concept of positive punishment. You can have positive punishment by adding a consequence (ie. an electric shock) and negative punishment by removing but it's still punishment despite being labelled "positive".

Retric 4y ago

What’s the actual difference between believing women are more X vs men are more !X? Presumably someone would believe one believes the other, and one of those is going to be a positive trait if the other is negative.

cochne 4y ago
As I said in my comment, they are more or less equivalent as statements of fact, but different in how the fact is framed. Framing, or the context in which you state a fact, matters.
- Retric 4y ago
  I don’t see how framing a belief matters. People will interchangeably flip the context simply based on the subject.
  - mhuffman 4y ago
    Framing a belief can matter when it is first presented to a person. For example think about the phrases "reproductive rights" vs. "baby killing" or "estate tax" vs. "death tax". If you are first being introduced to these concepts, it matters how it is framed to you when you first start forming your opinions or beliefs about the idea.
    - Retric 4y ago
      I don’t see a difference in those names. Some people get seriously upset with the “pro life” movement and others the “pro choice” because labeling doesn’t actually change anything. The only impact from a new political spin is when I have no idea what people are talking about.
      - mhuffman 4y ago
        >I don’t see a difference in those names. I suspect that is because you already have a belief about them and can use that belief to make an informed interrogation of the ideas at hand. If, on the other hand, as I argued above you did not have a belief yet about an idea, that would not be the case and how it is framed to you would matter. I will give two contrived examples to show my point. A 7-8 year old little girl is told by her (progressive) mother that "reproductive rights" are important to her and that abortion is part of that and they should fight for it to protect those rights related to her body. vs. A 7-8 year old little girl is told by her (conservative) mother that abortion is literally people "killing babies" and they should fight against it to protect the innocent babies. The way those were framed (even though, I agree with you they are talking about the same concept at the end of the day) would obviously make a big difference to the little girl first hearing about this.
        4y ago

tomp 4y ago

So the same thing can be either good or evil, depending on how it’s framed? Looks like your morality is all mixed up and prone to manipulation.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
You're missing the point, where benevolent doesn't equal good, but either way, yes, "good" or "evil" is relative. Robin hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor - that's going to be seen one way or the other from the rich person being stolen from vs the poor person being given to. To have a moral system where defining something as unassailably good is also prone to manipulation - once you decide something is truly good you're more than willing to go to any end to defend or enact that good, including committing atrocities. Some actions are harder to see as being subjective, sure, but there's always going to be gradients and perspectives.

lucideer 4y ago

> I don't understand the issue you have with the terminology. Benevolent doesn't mean morally good here That's certainly not immediately clear. "Benevolent" is not a synonym of "positive", it's a synonym of "good". The former would apply in your definition but the latter very clearly doesn't. ---- Edit: I see from sibling commenters that this seems to be a compound term that makes up part of an established theoretical framework. That makes sense but I wouldn't assume everyone is automatically aware of that: > 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 It also doesn't redefine the word "benevolent" completely - in this context it just means "the misleading appearance of benevolence".

bitti 4y ago

> Yes, they are just different ways of saying the same thing, but they are framed differently. Here, I think, lies the problem. Trying to re-frame a negative idea as positive. Involuntary imported labor force instead of a slavery?