What do women want? Benevolent sexism apparently.
If the two sentences above, just made you think “FFS” – but the extended version – you’re not alone.
I called bullshit on it too when it lurked malevolently in my news feed early this month.
Here’s the background: a study published in Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin by Pelin Gul and Tom Kupfer from Iowa State University and the University Of Kent interviewed 200-plus women and asked them to rate the attractiveness of men who were divided into two camps.
The first were hostile sexists – which according to the parameters of the study fitted the “classic definition of [gender] prejudice.” None of which needs to be explained to the women who deal with it daily in myriad ways but for the men who may be reading this includes such ho-hum bullshit as being viewed as more emotional and not warranting the same pay right through to the old chestnut of trying to control men through feminist ideology or sexual seduction.
The second variant in the study was benevolent sexism. Which at first, second and third glance is as much a contradiction in terms as the words “Harvey Weinstein” and “just misunderstood.”
Benevolent sexism basically equates to the idea that women are pretty but fragile creatures that need to be protected and coddled in order to thrive. I know, I threw up a bit in my mouth too.
And that was it option wise. In a study published on June 29, 2018. Yes, 2018 – when surely the third and most popular answer would have to be you can take the first two options and shove them where the chauvinistic sun don’t shine. Naturally, the respondents chose the benevolent stream, despite according to the researchers, “having awareness of the harmful consequences.”
So, if benevolent sexism was a thing – a thing that women would at least tolerate if not exactly yearn for – how would it go down in a modern relationship?
I decided to find out within the context of my own marriage
iStockphotoNaturally, I couldn’t announce this experiment with “darling, for the rest of the weekend I’m going to be benevolently sexist” or it would have ended then and there with her replying, “Well I hope you have a benevolently comfortable time sleeping on the couch.” No, I had to embrace being the full patronizing weasel the concept demanded.
It started, innocuously enough, with our insurance slip. Adopting the “don’t you worry your pretty little head” attitude, I logged onto one of those comparison websites and found a lower rate. And because I’m a man and require immediate credit for the slightest bit of effort called her at work to trumpet my achievement. It went to voicemail as she was in a meeting and all I got was the word “wait” as a text response.
Within half an hour, she had not only called our existing insurer and told them we were thinking of switching but got a deal available nowhere online and a loyalty bonus. So much for my inherent negotiating skills.
Another of benevolent sexism’s more insidious traits is that the man decides that he will take care of the capricious outside world while the domestic sphere will be the domain of his goddess. Which – I decided – meant buying her one of those Roomba vacuum cleaners. Biiiiiiiig mistake.
It was explained to me in no uncertain terms that not only could she buy her own goddamn appliances but if that I really wanted to help her around the house, I should maybe put down the PlayStation controller and pick up a load of laundry. What’s more, the only thing she needing shielding from was my slack, when it came to cleaning.
By now, she’d gone from the “bless him at least he’s trying” attitude with which she routinely views my misguided foolishness to fully-fledged “what the hell is up with you lately”? An attitude not helped by the dozen red roses I gave her for “making our home so beautiful.” Because she is a gracious and lovely person, these were accepted with some enthusiasm but an equal unspoken amount of “I’d take daily dishwasher stacking over intermittent flower bouquets any day.”
Thunderbolts of truth
iStockphotoThe benevolent sexism’s cavalcade of WTF-ness continues with the concept that men are supposedly less intuitive and emotionally aware than women. If that was the case, my beloved would be perfectly skilled to help me find a solution to an impasse with a mate with whom I’d fallen out. The circumstances are not important suffice to say, he was in the wrong but wouldn’t admit it. The thing he’d done was inconsequential and like so many things that men get upset about – “it’s the principle mate.”
I sought her counsel, thinking (that with her intrinsic so-called soft skills) she would shed a Dalai Lama-like pronouncement on the matter in a blaze of healing white light. Know what she said? “He’s a dickhead. I don’t know why you bother.” And she was right, years of obligation just fading away there and then.
Turns out, the emotional wisdom was there all along. Just not in the prescriptive, restrictive, presumptive manner which benevolent sexism dictated. It’s hardly surprising that it’s often contracted to BS for short.
Now before you throw accusations of dickheadery my way – to which I obviously plead guilty – please remember I was doing this in the name of science. Well, social science. It turns out the pedestal I’d placed her on turned out to be the ideal place from which to hurl thunderbolts of truth at me from. Towards the end of the weekend, I’d set aside for this experiment, I came clean. Impressed she was not. And I know that because a Roomba makes for awful company on a Sunday evening.
