A recent study, conducted by Janet Swim and Julia Becker, was just released and I honestly don't know what to think of it. The study delves into different levels of sexism and both genders' reaction to them. It was found that men whom actually take the time to listen to women, understand where they're coming from and illustrate a genuine candor for their feelings, were much less prone to committing acts of blatant sexism and were much more understanding of women whom were offended by such acts. Okay, that sounds reasonable enough.
However, when we move on to some subtle acts of sexism and even what is coined "benevolent sexism," I have to scratch my head a bit, at both the study and also some of the following comments on the page.
One of the subtle acts of sexism was described as when a man calls a woman "girl". I can understand this in certain contexts, but I think that the level of offensiveness of that term, "girl," has waned some in the past 10 years or so. Grown women will call each other girl. When two people are dating, they typically don't refer to one another as, "This is my manfriend" and "This is my womanfriend". No, the terms are boyfriend and girlfriend. Just as "boy" isn't meant to be discriminatory in this context, neither is "girl". Again, I can understand a woman feeling a bit offended by this in certain circumstances, but definitely not all and as I said, I think that level of offensiveness has declined some in recent years.
"Benevolent" sexism has me even more confused. What are some examples of it? Opening doors for women; offering to help with something; as Swim says, "putting a good woman on a pedestal" and "that women should be saved before men in a disaster".
Peter Glick, co-author of the original 1996 study on benevolent sexism, had this to say, "We don't think that men should no longer be polite. Often chivalrous behavior is appropriate. It is just important to know when you are crossing the line."
He added, "If a man offers to help a female co-worker set up an office computer and she accepts, she is perceived as warm, but lacking a level of competence. If she politely refuses, however, she is often viewed as a 'b*tch'. Men who accept help are also seen as vulnerable, but they do not suffer the same repercussions for trying to do things on their own."
Okay, I can understand the authors' perspective in scenarios where the man feels that the woman can't do something herself. However, how would we know the man's true thoughts and intentions? If a woman is new on the job, doesn't seem to know her way around very well and a guy in the cubicle next to her offers to help her with something, is he doing this because she's new there, because she's a woman, perhaps a combination of the two or another reason I haven't listed? I'm sure there are times when all of those possibilities ring true. But just because a man offers to help a woman doesn't automatically qualify his action as being sexist. I suppose we could test the theory by seeing if this same man offered to help a new guy at work whom is stationed next to him. These are all hypothetical scenarios, so who knows and who knows if the opportunity will present itself, which would make the theory impossible to test. That's what I'm so flustered about with the study. It seems to paint a very broad brush on these subtle and benevolent acts of sexism and when they admit to the ambiguity of a certain act, they do so with vagueness.
Moving on to a couple of the other benevolent sexist acts which were stated, I think a major reason why some guys may "put good woman on a pedestal" and "that women should be saved before men in disasters" is the fact that women are the carriers of babies. What other group of people seems to be included when we're talking about disasters? Children. Like I said previously, I'm sure there are times when men say these things, because they don't believe a woman can save herself, but I don't think we can state that all cases are like this.
Finally, I think it's absurd for a woman to feel like a guy is belittling her by opening a door for her. What, do men think women can't open doors for themselves? If that's the case, they're pretty stupid and that's putting it kindly. If someone is fairly close to a door as I open it, I'm likely going to hold it open. I don't care if the person is male, female or a baby hamster named Eureka. So, what? Should I just not look back and walk on through to my destination without even contemplating holding that door open for fear that a woman feels I'm being benevolently sexist? Really? Never in my life have I opened a door for a woman and heard her say, "I can do that on my own! What, you don't think a woman can open a door for herself? You sexist pig!" No, I can't say I've ever encountered that.
There's no doubt that sexism still exists and is quite prevalent. Just look at the workforce and at the recent Supreme Court case with Wal-Mart and their female employees. Women still only make about $0.76 to the $1.00 that men make for the same job. Women still have not attained equal rights as men. They've certainly come a long way, but I'd be lying if I said they've met their ultimate goal. However, I think this study goes a bit too far in certain areas and unless we were able to actually test the theories like in the example I noted above, it's very difficult for me to paint a broad brush on the topic of subtle and benevolent sexism, because without knowing the man's genuine thoughts, feelings and intentions on a matter, we're ultimately not going to know if he is being sexist or not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/men-dont-recognize-benevolent-sexism_n_885430.html
However, when we move on to some subtle acts of sexism and even what is coined "benevolent sexism," I have to scratch my head a bit, at both the study and also some of the following comments on the page.
One of the subtle acts of sexism was described as when a man calls a woman "girl". I can understand this in certain contexts, but I think that the level of offensiveness of that term, "girl," has waned some in the past 10 years or so. Grown women will call each other girl. When two people are dating, they typically don't refer to one another as, "This is my manfriend" and "This is my womanfriend". No, the terms are boyfriend and girlfriend. Just as "boy" isn't meant to be discriminatory in this context, neither is "girl". Again, I can understand a woman feeling a bit offended by this in certain circumstances, but definitely not all and as I said, I think that level of offensiveness has declined some in recent years.
"Benevolent" sexism has me even more confused. What are some examples of it? Opening doors for women; offering to help with something; as Swim says, "putting a good woman on a pedestal" and "that women should be saved before men in a disaster".
Peter Glick, co-author of the original 1996 study on benevolent sexism, had this to say, "We don't think that men should no longer be polite. Often chivalrous behavior is appropriate. It is just important to know when you are crossing the line."
He added, "If a man offers to help a female co-worker set up an office computer and she accepts, she is perceived as warm, but lacking a level of competence. If she politely refuses, however, she is often viewed as a 'b*tch'. Men who accept help are also seen as vulnerable, but they do not suffer the same repercussions for trying to do things on their own."
Okay, I can understand the authors' perspective in scenarios where the man feels that the woman can't do something herself. However, how would we know the man's true thoughts and intentions? If a woman is new on the job, doesn't seem to know her way around very well and a guy in the cubicle next to her offers to help her with something, is he doing this because she's new there, because she's a woman, perhaps a combination of the two or another reason I haven't listed? I'm sure there are times when all of those possibilities ring true. But just because a man offers to help a woman doesn't automatically qualify his action as being sexist. I suppose we could test the theory by seeing if this same man offered to help a new guy at work whom is stationed next to him. These are all hypothetical scenarios, so who knows and who knows if the opportunity will present itself, which would make the theory impossible to test. That's what I'm so flustered about with the study. It seems to paint a very broad brush on these subtle and benevolent acts of sexism and when they admit to the ambiguity of a certain act, they do so with vagueness.
Moving on to a couple of the other benevolent sexist acts which were stated, I think a major reason why some guys may "put good woman on a pedestal" and "that women should be saved before men in disasters" is the fact that women are the carriers of babies. What other group of people seems to be included when we're talking about disasters? Children. Like I said previously, I'm sure there are times when men say these things, because they don't believe a woman can save herself, but I don't think we can state that all cases are like this.
Finally, I think it's absurd for a woman to feel like a guy is belittling her by opening a door for her. What, do men think women can't open doors for themselves? If that's the case, they're pretty stupid and that's putting it kindly. If someone is fairly close to a door as I open it, I'm likely going to hold it open. I don't care if the person is male, female or a baby hamster named Eureka. So, what? Should I just not look back and walk on through to my destination without even contemplating holding that door open for fear that a woman feels I'm being benevolently sexist? Really? Never in my life have I opened a door for a woman and heard her say, "I can do that on my own! What, you don't think a woman can open a door for herself? You sexist pig!" No, I can't say I've ever encountered that.
There's no doubt that sexism still exists and is quite prevalent. Just look at the workforce and at the recent Supreme Court case with Wal-Mart and their female employees. Women still only make about $0.76 to the $1.00 that men make for the same job. Women still have not attained equal rights as men. They've certainly come a long way, but I'd be lying if I said they've met their ultimate goal. However, I think this study goes a bit too far in certain areas and unless we were able to actually test the theories like in the example I noted above, it's very difficult for me to paint a broad brush on the topic of subtle and benevolent sexism, because without knowing the man's genuine thoughts, feelings and intentions on a matter, we're ultimately not going to know if he is being sexist or not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/men-dont-recognize-benevolent-sexism_n_885430.html
Comments
Post a Comment