Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: For those of you who mock benevolent sexism.. [View all]seabeyond
(110,159 posts)19. that is exactly the definition and effects of benevolent sexism. and if anyone bothered to read
any of the information, that would have been in the definition.
on a pedestal. protected.
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
That's not benevolent sexism...that's a violation of law. He deserved to be sued. nt
msanthrope
Mar 2013
#1
No--I think that's hostile, and not benevolent. I think denying anyone benefit on the basis
msanthrope
Mar 2013
#7
"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
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
great illustration of some of the long-term effects of the attitudes behind benevolent sexism
unblock
Mar 2013
#5
but why was the door thing picked and used as it was. in that very post was a definition and
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#20
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
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
I put the kabosh on something similar but not sexism. I was a warehouse supervisor
brewens
Mar 2013
#26
See also: restrictions on jobs available to women who *might* become pregnant one day.
geek tragedy
Mar 2013
#36
A perfect example of benevolent sexism, and its insidious and very real ability to undermine.
Kurovski
Mar 2013
#55
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
People can argue about whether this was benevolent or not, but it was definitely illegal.
Nye Bevan
Mar 2013
#61