Is this an example of benevolent sexism? Barrett is defending her before she has a chance to speak for herself.

I'm asking because I don't know. I'm not being facetious.

Hi Dr. Grewal, Many thanks for your comments. I should clarify one point prior to responding to your comments. I did not put up the editorial flag that my post was a response to yours. Rather, it was one of the PT editors who did so (after I had put up my post). I specifically did not mention you in the article as I did not want this to be perceived as an attack on you rather it was a critique of the construct. On pages 137-138 of my book (The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption), I discuss several studies that have explored benevolent sexism. In one of the papers (see p. 138), the following item is used to gauge benevolent sexism: "During a date, a man should protect the woman if she is being harassed by other men.” Agreement with the latter item was construed as an instantiation of BS. Hence, whereas you may not have insinuated this position in your post, the BS literature is replete with such positions. I usually do not respond to comments (apologies to the readers in question) but I felt compelled to do so in this case. I wish you a good evening. Warmly, GS

The picture of the knight helping the princess across the moat in your article seems to disagree with your notion that simply being courteous to a woman is not what you were talking about. What is patronizing about that situation?

Dear Dr. Grewal,

I believe that the paper you reference is based on sound methods, provides reasonable conclusions, and does indeed highlight one of the problems in today's societies. I believe that Dr. Saad doesn't actually take issue with that study; rather, he takes issue with how benevolent sexism is measured in the studies that he has...uh...studied. Although I have not looked over these studies myself, I do understand his point of view, especially after taking the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory that you linked to.

The test is actually quite valid in measuring the prevalence of sexist views in a given population. The problem arises when the researchers claim that the test is useful in measuring how sexist an individual is.[1] How can this be? A test that measures sexism in a group of people, but not in a person? A person who has sexist views will, by extension, believe that men and women have particular roles, and therefore they should behave in particular ways. People's belief in how they should behave and how others should behave can be described as a "script" [2], in the same way that actors in a particular role must behave as governed by that script. Therefore, the sexist scripts and roles that people believe in are highly correlated to sexism, and thus valid for measuring a population, from an epidemiological point of view.

However, any individual who subscribes to a particular script is not necessarily sexist. This is especially true in dating. I open the door for my (imaginary) girlfriend, and she likes me more for it. I don't open it for her because I don't think she can do it herself; it's simply the script that exists in the dating world. Anyone who goes against these scripts will have difficulty in obtaining a date, although I feel that this is becoming less true as our society becomes more progressive.

Subscribing to a particular role is not necessarily sexist either, although it is more likely. There are many more stay-at-home mothers than fathers, and this could be true for practical, neutral, or sexist reasons. If a couple believes that one parent should stay home and the other should provide, it's practical for the mother to stay at home, since the father can't breastfeed. It also would be more disruptive to the mother's career than to the father's. [3] Or perhaps the couple arranges things this way simply because that's how everyone else does it. One may argue that implicitly accepting these roles is acquiescing to sexism, but I think people may do so innocently. People generally put stuffing into their Thanksgiving turkey without being either a stuffing advocate or a stuffing dissident (like Alton Brown).

Therefore I believe inventories such as these can be improved. The items should focus more on value judgments rather than roles or, even less relevant, scripts (like the example Dr. Saad gave). As a postscript I have included my issues with the survey on understandingprejudice.org. However, one cannot deny that roles and values are heavily intertwined.

I understand Dr. Saad's emotions because I too feel especially cornered by the ideas of benevolent sexism, especially when it comes to dating. The two girls I've dated actually ended the relationship due to role-related issues: they didn't feel protected or safe around me, sometimes I was emotionally weaker, and I didn't stand up for them when they got into an argument with someone else (over TV shows...sigh). Thus I feel pushed to somehow fit myself in the traditional male role, and it is nearly impossible to accept a role without somehow believing that you are better suited for it. [4] Honestly, for this reason, I feel like I've become more sexist since I started dating.

I think researchers in this field can improve their results and public relations by being more careful with the assertions they make about populations and individuals, and by using more accurate criteria for sexism. The paper you cite, Dr. Grewal, is more similar to a medical trial and actually investigates the mechanism between sexism and poor performance, which I think is much more useful. Though, again, for PR purposes, it didn't help that the paper used the word "insidious." [5]

Thank you for bearing with my long-winded response. Hopefully it contributed in some way to the world.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

[1] From www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/ : "The inventory takes roughly 5 minutes to complete, and afterward you can compare your level of sexism with the scores received by people from around the world."

[2] My understanding of scripts comes primarily from _Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus_. I do admit that I am stretching the application of this concept to a slightly broader context. I'm simply using the idea to express my opinion.

[3] I know men get maternity leave these days too, but if a couple insists on breastfeeding, they at least get the option if the father is the one who is working.

[4] [Aside] I guess this is exactly the problem. Partners have to be open-minded about discussing roles, which same-sex couples seem to be better at. (Dr. Brian Mustanski, "The compatibility of same-sex relationships" on psychtoday)

[5] From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insidious :
1. intended to entrap or beguile: an insidious plan.
2. stealthily treacherous or deceitful: an insidious enemy.
3. operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect: an insidious disease.

Most people think of the first two definitions, and the title may imply that some men are insidiously benevolently sexist.

P.S.

I take issue with the phrasing of several questions on the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Maybe I'm just picky, because there's no such thing as a perfect survey.

--- Issue #1 ---
(1) No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman.
(6) People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.
(13) Men are complete without women.

These three statements have more to do with the idea of partnerships rather than sex. People may believe that everyone should have a lifelong companion, whether gay or straight. The institution of marriage is not necessarily sexist. This demonstrates prejudice against the single life, not against women. (13) is especially difficult, because without women, men would be extinct. (Okay, fine, I'm being a smarty pants, but that's really the first thing I thought after reading that.) (6) is even more difficult because it has to do with other people's happiness, which one cannot control. It's not my fault that everyone else isn't happy alone.

--- Issue #2 ---
(9) Women should be cherished and protected by men.

This puts readers in an impossible situation: if they agree, they are benevolently sexist; if they disagree, then they are horrible people who believe that women should be unvalued and abused by men.

--- Issue #3 ---
(10) Most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them.

My first reaction to this question was, "That's true for everyone." Almost no one fully appreciates all that others do for them. It has to do with the self-centeredness of human nature, not sex. The survey currently says that disagreeing is neutral, whereas agreeing is sexist (hostile). I contend that one may even argue that agreeing is neutral (since it's true for everyone), and disagreeing is sexist (benevolent) by thinking that women are less self-centered and more understanding.

--- Issue #4 ---
(12) Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores.

Yes, his mother. (Seriously, that was my first thought.)

--- Issue #5 ---
(21) Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men.

This may have more to do with my ignorance in vocabulary. I thought that feminists were people who thought women were better than men, in the same way that a racist thinks a particular race is superior, and grammatically in the same way that a masculinist believes men are superior. If a feminist believed in gender equality, then so would a masculinist, and that wouldn't make any sense. I looked it up later and realized my mistake. I suppose our vocabulary is sexist. But one must take into account that the word's meaning is, in fact, shifting. There's a reason newspapers use "women's rights advocates" rather than "feminists."