"Some forms of sexism are for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent..."
You might have seen this title and thought "benevolent sexism? How could sexism be benevolent? Isn't that an oxymoron?"
And you would be right. Sexism couldn't be benevolent, anymore than racism. After all, sexism is a form prejudice.
So when I say "benevolent sexism", I'm referring to a type sexism that merely appears benevolent.
Benevolent sexism is part of a framework known as ambivalent sexism.
It was developed by Susan Fiske and Peter Glick. Ambivalent sexism is defined by Wikipedia as "a theoretical framework which posits that sexism has two sub-components: "hostile sexism" and "benevolent sexism".
Hostile sexism, as the name suggests, refers to sexism that is overt and negative; hostile. This is what most people people think of when they imagine sexism. It includes things like viewing women as inferior to men and treating women with little or no respect.
Benevolent sexism on the other hand, isn't so overt or negative, in fact it appears positive, so positive, that even women tend to embrace it.
It is defined by Glick and Fiske as "a subjectively positive orientation of protection, idealization and affection directed at women that, like hostile sexism, serves to justify women's subordinate status to men."
While hostile sexism holds that women are inferior to and less valuable than men, benevolent sexism suggests that women are pure, delicate creatures who ought to be adored but are also weak and in need of protection by men.
Hostile sexism also involves antipathy towards women who violate conventional gender roles or challenge men's authority (e.g, feminists), While benevolent sexism tends to reward women who conform to those gender roles and submit to men. Hostile and benevolent sexism are complementary and they work hand in hand to subjugate women.
Benevolent sexism is the carrot, hostile sexism is the stick.
At the core of this theory of ambivalent sexism, is the idea is that sexism (or prejudice, in general) doesn't always manifest itself in a negative or threatening way and doesn't always come from a place of hate, at times it comes from a place of love and protection, and presents itself in a seemingly positive form.
The issue is benevolent sexism isn't benign, far from it; it serves the ultimate purpose of subordinating women and perpetuating gender inequality. It restricts women's freedom and autonomy and encourages their dependence on men.
And worst of all, because benevolent sexism appears benign and positive – especially when compared to hostile sexism – it is usually embraced and defended by women themselves which makes it even harder to get rid of.
If you're wondering what benevolent sexism looks like in practice, I know a good and pretty common instance of it.
We've likely all heard of (or maybe you even belong to one of such) families where the sons are allowed to go out and live as they wish, while the daughters are kept at home and monitored incessantly. The sons can go partying and drinking, the daughters are barely allowed to visit their friend next door. Basically, the girls are overprotected and sheltered, while the boys are given as much freedom as they want. The reason given by the parents would likely be "we're trying to protect our daughters", "daughters are more delicate."
You get the point?
Another example, is a husband telling his wife that she shouldn't work, that she's too "precious" for that; instead he would work, earn all the money and provide for and take care of her. If she agrees to this, then she would have no income of her own and would be entirely dependent upon her husband.
The first example shows how benevolent sexism restricts women's freedom, while the second example shows how it encourages their dependence upon men. Both may appear positive, but are insidious.
Benevolent sexism can also negatively affect men. For example, when men are given more dangerous jobs or positions and the women are kept in safer situations because of the belief that women are precious and delicate.
This usually leads to men being killed or seriously injured, and is part of the reason men are more likely to die on their job than women.
This is what some call "female privilege", they claim that women, unlike men, are usually protected and cared for, and this is a form of privilege.
But make no mistakes; this is prejudice, not privilege. It doesn't uplift women, it subjugates them. By viewing women as delicate creatures who need protection, it implies that women are weak and best suited for traditional gender roles (e.g homemaking) and thus restricts them to that realm, giving them less freedom and power.
Consider the tweet below:
This is a classic example of benevolent sexism.
Some families that are too poor to send both children to school often send only the boy, and then the girl may be married off, or in the tweet above, the boy is sent to be an apprentice. The author of the above tweet argues that this is a good thing (for the girl), because she will be "taken care of" while the boy has to toil. The girl would have a provider, while the boy has to struggle to provide for himself (and the family).
But let’s break this down; the boy’s "toiling" involves him going to learn a skill, possibly going on to start a business and earning himself a living. He gains opportunities and experience as a result of his skill acquisition, he also gains some independence and autonomy. He would be empowered for the rest of his life.
The girl on the other hand, has none of the above. She has no higher education and no skill or experience and thus can’t earn herself a decent living. Instead, she’s married to a man who she probably doesn’t even like (and who probably doesn’t like her as well) and is dependent on him for everything, including for her survival. Because of this, she has no freedom (except from the ones given to her by her husband) or autonomy, and should her husband start abusing her, she’s trapped in an abusive marriage for life.
Does this really sound better?
Which would you prefer as a person; to be an independent, agentic individual with an education/skill, or to be an illiterate housewife who must depend on her husband for everything and is unable to leave if things get unbearable?
You see, on the surface, this may appear good, benevolent – after all the girl doesn’t have to struggle with professional work or hard labour – and many women could agree.
But on closer inspection, it turns out that there’s no good to this. It gives the boy a headstart in life and stifles the potential of the girl child, thus perpetuating gender inequality.
The tweeter also says "you think your parents hate you and love your brother?"
Implying that it can only be oppression (sexism) if it comes from a place of hate.
But as I've mentioned, this doesn't have to be the case, especially for benevolent sexism. Sexism can occur even when the target is loved. Like in the above scenario where the girl is married off to be dependent on a man, while the boy gets to gain experience and independence. The parents may love both children but they end up perpetuating gender inequality and oppression through the way they stifle their daughter's potential.
This is why it is sexism. "Benevolent" sexism.
"Some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored… This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree)."
- Peter Glick & Susan Fiske.
Sources and further reading
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11079240/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism
Comments
Post a Comment