General Discussion

unblock

(56,211 posts)

5. great illustration of some of the long-term effects of the attitudes behind benevolent sexism

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 09:23 AM

Mar 2013

i would technically put this in the category of hostile sexism, as it directly harmed you, but it is exactly the sort of thing that ingrained benevolent sexism, in this case particularly protective sexism, can lead to. after helpfully and generously protecting women in situations where they might actually benefit from it, eventually men can come to believe that women need to be kept "in their place" "for their own good".

that's part of the idea behind it. benevolent sexism in and of itself, in the moment, might be nothing but a good thing happily accepted by both parties, but in the long run, can lead to complementary hostile sexism based on the same underlying attitudes.

another part of the problem is that women can eventually do this to themselves, in this case, thinking that they need protection or need a man's help, many women might not have even applied for the job.

kudos to you for bucking that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

For those of you who mock benevolent sexism.. [View all] sufrommich Mar 2013 OP

That's not benevolent sexism...that's a violation of law. He deserved to be sued. nt msanthrope Mar 2013 #1

It's both. I probably could have sued,although sufrommich Mar 2013 #4

No--I think that's hostile, and not benevolent. I think denying anyone benefit on the basis msanthrope Mar 2013 #7

Honestly GaYellowDawg Mar 2013 #9

No,I knew this man for years. We talked sufrommich Mar 2013 #15

"He had no right to do." Precisely. That's where it crosses the line between benevolent and msanthrope Mar 2013 #31

that is exactly the definition and effects of benevolent sexism. and if anyone bothered to read seabeyond Mar 2013 #19

and therein lies much of the practical problem with enforcing employment law unblock Mar 2013 #25

Agreed. This looks like an employment discrimination LittleBlue Mar 2013 #30

It's both. The guy was willing to break the law to protect her safety. n/t lumberjack_jeff Mar 2013 #33

I wonder if he understood he was breaking the law. And I never presume an intent msanthrope Mar 2013 #34

Okay, it's apparent that he was conflicted. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2013 #38

That's a possibility pipi_k Mar 2013 #42

She could have sued if she and others left alone at night were subject to msanthrope Mar 2013 #43

So... pipi_k Mar 2013 #47

No,he was concerned for my safety. I've made that clear. sufrommich Mar 2013 #49

People,male and female,work alone sufrommich Mar 2013 #48

DU Rec. Tuesday Afternoon Mar 2013 #2

Golly sufrommich, Helen Reddy Mar 2013 #3

I'm afraid my HVAC knowledge doesn't sufrommich Mar 2013 #8

Sorry to ask this GaYellowDawg Mar 2013 #10

You should never let filters go. Dirty filters sufrommich Mar 2013 #16

I know. It was a dumb mistake. GaYellowDawg Mar 2013 #35

great illustration of some of the long-term effects of the attitudes behind benevolent sexism unblock Mar 2013 #5

But... Sheldon Cooper Mar 2013 #6

lol Helen Reddy Mar 2013 #12

Ugh... sibelian Mar 2013 #11

I'm glad you get it.Thanks. nt sufrommich Mar 2013 #17

but why was the door thing picked and used as it was. in that very post was a definition and seabeyond Mar 2013 #20

Good example but will go 50% on it The Straight Story Mar 2013 #13

True. DU needs to learn boston bean Mar 2013 #14

of course it is. barbtries Mar 2013 #18

Thats just old fasioned sexism, not benevolent. To be belevolent you would have had to get a job Exultant Democracy Mar 2013 #21

i think it's "dominative paternalism" -- here is a categorization of sexism (link): unblock Mar 2013 #22

It's meant to be benevolent, hence the term. wryter2000 Mar 2013 #23

They didn't do something nice, they denied a raise and promotion Exultant Democracy Mar 2013 #24

In their mind, they were doing something for good kind reasons. boston bean Mar 2013 #27

No they knew they were not giving a promotion and raise its pretty simple. Exultant Democracy Mar 2013 #29

Again, from the person doing it they thought they were being kind, how they were raised, etc. boston bean Mar 2013 #51

Forget it. There are none so blind...n/t wryter2000 Mar 2013 #54

I put the kabosh on something similar but not sexism. I was a warehouse supervisor brewens Mar 2013 #26

i got hosed at my last job on multiple occasions due to not having kids fizzgig Mar 2013 #40

There was "ladies-only" employee parking at my old job MindPilot Mar 2013 #28

Recommended. The flipside of that example is... lumberjack_jeff Mar 2013 #32

See also: restrictions on jobs available to women who *might* become pregnant one day. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #36

from my own experience hfojvt Mar 2013 #37

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm retired now but sufrommich Mar 2013 #50

That's exactly what it is treestar Mar 2013 #39

Yes. As I said, I was a single Mom and sufrommich Mar 2013 #52

What is the answer then ? Purplehazed Mar 2013 #41

Divide and conquer is... 99Forever Mar 2013 #44

That's just regular sexism... Melon_Lord Mar 2013 #45

People can call it sexism pipi_k Mar 2013 #46

Yes, lets keep women safe by preventing them full access and rights? boston bean Mar 2013 #53

OK, how about this then... pipi_k Mar 2013 #56

A perfect example of benevolent sexism, and its insidious and very real ability to undermine. Kurovski Mar 2013 #55

Maybe... pipi_k Mar 2013 #57

pipi, you are suggesting depriving a woman of a job to keep her "safe" may not be sexist and if it seabeyond Mar 2013 #59

There are so many people who read these arguments and just stay out of it, Kurovski Mar 2013 #60

i guess, seabeyond Mar 2013 #58

People can argue about whether this was benevolent or not, but it was definitely illegal. Nye Bevan Mar 2013 #61