The ideological starting point is that sexism is bad. But how, then, do we reconcile that with benevolent sexism predicting good relationship outcomes?
You have to consider the source. "Benevolent sexism" is a concept invented by misandrist feminists in response to counter arguments against their position that men are maliciously sexist towards women. And their response to the counter argument that many men treat women exactly the same as men is that "gender-blindness" is harmful to women. And when it is asserted that some men avoid all of these supposed harmful actions by avoiding women; it's claimed that's the most harmful behaviour of all! The rational position should be that non-obvious and improbable assertions about human behaviour require proof and not have to be disproven. After all, this assertion is that one-half of the human species is engaged in a universal and unending conspiracy to harm the other half; even when such actions seem to be contrary to the success of the species.
Point of order. Myra Hindley did not kill "her own" children. Her victims were other people's kids, ranging in age from 10 to 17, who she participated in sexually assaulting and murdering along with her partner Ian Brady.
So my lovely husband who is kind and considerate of my physical limitations (especially postpartum) is actually sexist, but the nice kind?
This framing seems of ‘benevolent sexism’ seems to shed more heat than light. For what it’s worth, I introduced my husband to boxing, having done MMA most of my life in mixed sex (ie I was the only female) groups. Most of the men in those classes were also mindful of my limitations. A good portion of them could kill me with one over enthusiastic punch to the right spot on my head. I’m very grateful for their ‘sexism’ to avoid killing me.
I wonder much of the relationship between benevolent sexism and life outcomes is due to the fact conservative people are generally happier.
Benevolent sexism is actually just realism about sex differences.
You have to consider the source. "Benevolent sexism" is a concept invented by misandrist feminists in response to counter arguments against their position that men are maliciously sexist towards women. And their response to the counter argument that many men treat women exactly the same as men is that "gender-blindness" is harmful to women. And when it is asserted that some men avoid all of these supposed harmful actions by avoiding women; it's claimed that's the most harmful behaviour of all! The rational position should be that non-obvious and improbable assertions about human behaviour require proof and not have to be disproven. After all, this assertion is that one-half of the human species is engaged in a universal and unending conspiracy to harm the other half; even when such actions seem to be contrary to the success of the species.
Point of order. Myra Hindley did not kill "her own" children. Her victims were other people's kids, ranging in age from 10 to 17, who she participated in sexually assaulting and murdering along with her partner Ian Brady.
Simp much? This is the Hoff-Sommers school of feminism, the "we took a step too far demonizing men and ruined our good thing" school of feminism.
So my lovely husband who is kind and considerate of my physical limitations (especially postpartum) is actually sexist, but the nice kind?
This framing seems of ‘benevolent sexism’ seems to shed more heat than light. For what it’s worth, I introduced my husband to boxing, having done MMA most of my life in mixed sex (ie I was the only female) groups. Most of the men in those classes were also mindful of my limitations. A good portion of them could kill me with one over enthusiastic punch to the right spot on my head. I’m very grateful for their ‘sexism’ to avoid killing me.