[Victoribus Spolia]

Women are more attracted to potential mates who have a “benevolent sexism” trait - despite the “detrimental effects” of these attitudes on women, a new study says......Benevolent sexism, however, is sexism which views women in a stereotypical way with restricted roles which tends to “elicit behaviours typically categorised as prosocial,” according to psychologists.

Examples of BS include thinking of women as homemakers, or being gentle and nurturing.

In the new study, researchers concluded that women are actually attracted to mates with benevolent sexism attitudes as the behaviours signal that a man is “willing to invest.”

The research was conducted by asking more than 200 female students to read the profile of a man that represented either BS or non-BS attitudes, and rate the men in numerous categories including perceived willingness to provide, willingness to protect, and how attractive they found him.

The study found women are more attracted to men with BS attitudes (Stock)
According to the authors, the women preferred men with BS attitudes because they were “willing to invest by being protective, providing, and committed.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 29061.html

[SolarCross]

I wonder who needs a study to tell them what we all knew since the dawn of time?

[Rancid]

Awesome, I'm going to start having more of a bullshit attitude with my wife.

As for the study, would be interesting to see it get expanded to different countries, demographics, etc. etc.

[Wellsy]

Womens tolerance or like of the paternalism of benevolent sexism diminishes the less hostile sexism there is. Because such benevolence which restricts womens autonomy is only legitimized based on the felt need to be so protected. Which is why as difficult it is to explain to people why benevolence in itself isn’t bad but it does nothing to help womens position on average, dismantaling hostilities towards women that terorize in order that women accept or impose on themselves restrictions undermines such appeal.

https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/28641/1/glickfiske%20et%20al_jpsp_00.pdf

The authors argue that complementary hostile and benevolent components of sexism exist across cultures. Male dominance creates hostile sexism (HS), but men's dependence on women fosters benevolent sexism (BS)--subjectively positive attitudes that put women on a pedestal but reinforce their subordination. Research with 15,000 men and women in 19 nations showed that (a) HS and BS are coherent constructs that correlate positively across nations, but (b) HS predicts the ascription of negative and BS the ascription of positive traits to women, (c) relative to men, women are more likely to reject HS than BS, especially when overall levels of sexism in a culture are high, and (d) national averages on BS and HS predict gender inequality across nations. These results challenge prevailing notions of prejudice as an antipathy in that BS (an affectionate, patronizing ideology) reflects inequality and is a cross-culturally pervasive complement to HS
...
The more sexist the nation, the more women, relative to men, accepted BS, even to the point, in the four nations with the highest mean sexism scores (Botswana, Cuba, Nigeria, South Africa), of endorsing BS significantly more than men did. In general, relative to men, women were more accepting of BS than of HS, suggesting that members of subordinate groups fmd ostensibly benevolent prejudice more acceptable than hostile prejudice toward their group.

The evidence is consistent with the idea that women adopt BS as a form of self-defense when overall levels of sexism in a culture are high. HS and BS work together as a particularly effective method of system maintenance: When men are high in HS, women have a strong incentive to accept BS to gain men's protection, admiration, and affection and as a means of avoiding men's hostility. Faced with hostility from a more powerful group if they choose to reject conventional female roles and rewarded with men's benevolence for conforming to those roles, it is not surprising that many women choose to adopt prescribed roles and the ideology (BS) that supports them (see also Eagly, 1987; Jackman, 1994; Ridgeway, 1992). This is similar to arguments made by Smuts (1996) and Jackman (1994) that the threat of male aggression leads women to seek protection by pair bonding with men. Such effects are ironic, as women are driven to seek protection from members of the very group that threatens or oppresses them, and the greater the threat (i.e., the more men endorse HS), the stronger the incentive to seek male protection (rather than independence).

The problem not benebolence but how it serves an important role in maintaining womens complacency in their restricted position. Its the carrot to the stick (hostile sexism/terrorizing), because honey works better.

[Godstud]

Benevolent sexism ≠ misogyny, however.

Opening a door is benevolent sexism. Being a jerk to a woman, is not.

[One Degree]

Yeah, I don’t think men or women need society to tell them who they should be attracted to or how they should behave in a relationship. A woman can be a feminist bitch in a courtroom and still enjoy being ‘protected’ at home. These are things loving couples work out on their own. A guidebook is only wanted by those it won’t help.
Apparently we are suppose to be allowed to do anything sexually, but we must do it along stringent sexism guidelines? Just more idiocy.

[Rancid]

I make a point to only hold doors for men and not women.

[Albert]

Did not Skinster go to Cuba and loved the BS there?

As for the OP, women's nature knows what is best for them, even though their minds are deluded in modernity by feminism.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Benevolent sexism ≠ misogyny, however.

Opening a door is benevolent sexism. Being a jerk to a woman, is not.

Is benevolent sexism something that should be criticized?

[Godstud]

Is benevolent sexism something that should be criticized?

I don't think it should be, but that's just my opinion on it. <shrug>

[Victoribus Spolia]

I don't think it should be, but that's just my opinion on it.

But don't you think its perpetuating antiquated norms that are ultimately harmful to gender equality?

From the perspective of the article, I get it.

If the goals of feminism are valid, I don't see how any sexism can and should be tolerated.

as the one author stated: "benevolent sexism is an oxymoron."

[Godstud]

I am for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, when it comes to gender equality.

Holding a door open for a women doesn't hurt that, as I'd also hold a door open for man. I'm polite that way. Sexism, if its benevolent, is not a threat to feminism. At least that's how I think about it. If you can demonstrate where benevolent sexism would work against feminism, I'd be interested in knowing.

[Rancid]

I am for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, when it comes to gender equality.

Holding a door open for a women doesn't hurt that, as I'd also hold a door open for man. I'm polite that way. Sexism, if its benevolent, is not a threat to feminism. At least that's how I think about it. If you can demonstrate where benevolent sexism would work against feminism, I'd be interested in knowing.

Shame on you. You should only hold the door for your fellow gentlemen. Los caballeros!

[skinster]

[Kaiserschmarrn]

In the new study, researchers concluded that women are actually attracted to mates with benevolent sexism attitudes as the behaviours signal that a man is “willing to invest.”

The research was conducted by asking more than 200 female students to read the profile of a man that represented either BS or non-BS attitudes, and rate the men in numerous categories including perceived willingness to provide, willingness to protect, and how attractive they found him.

The study found women are more attracted to men with BS attitudes (Stock)
According to the authors, the women preferred men with BS attitudes because they were “willing to invest by being protective, providing, and committed.”

If that's what the researchers actually found, it means women are just responding as evolutionary theory would predict. I see no sexism here.

What is actually sexist is the SJW idea that women can't make it in education, at work or society as a whole unless they get a leg up, and today's real sexists are the so-called male allies who support this idea.

[MistyTiger]

This study is ridiculous!

Since when is responsible synonymous with sexist?

Perhaps I'm quite an anomaly! I'm actually attracted to men who are open-minded and they encourage women to be in nontraditional roles. If a guy likes me for who I am with all my weirdness and hotheadedness, then I'd fall head over heels with him. It obviously hasn't happened yet so maybe I just haven't met the better men yet.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Womens tolerance or like of the paternalism of benevolent sexism diminishes the less hostile sexism there is. Because such benevolence which restricts womens autonomy is only legitimized based on the felt need to be so protected. Which is why as difficult it is to explain to people why benevolence in itself isn’t bad but it does nothing to help womens position on average, dismantaling hostilities towards women that terorize in order that women accept or impose on themselves restrictions undermines such appeal.

https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/28641/1/glickfiske%20et%20al_jpsp_00.pdf

The problem not benebolence but how it serves an important role in maintaining womens complacency in their restricted position. Its the carrot to the stick (hostile sexism/terrorizing), because honey works better.

There is a difference between intimate and other relationships. I doubt any of the above is relevant for mate choice.

I could also make an argument that real sexist benevolence is men pretending that women should and can have all positive male traits in equal measure but far less of the negative ones. Further, you could view the feminist male ally phenomenon as a reproductive strategy for men who find themselves in a feminist environment and act accordingly. Whether this acting generally carries over into the personal relationship is a different question and harder to answer. Chances are that even most feminist women would not be enamoured with a man who sends them into a dangerous situation first or who tells them upfront that he wants to be provided for financially.

[Wellsy]

There is a difference between intimate and other relationships. I doubt any of the above is relevant for mate choice.

I could also make an argument that real sexist benevolence is men pretending that women should and can have all positive male traits in equal measure but far less of the negative ones. Further, you could view the feminist male ally phenomenon as a reproductive strategy for men who find themselves in a feminist environment and act accordingly. Whether this acting generally carries over into the personal relationship is a different question and harder to answer. Chances are that even most feminist women would not be enamoured with a man who sends them into a dangerous situation first or who tells them upfront that he wants to be provided for financially.

Why do you doubt that how much women endorse BS in a country is irrelevant to their selection in romantic partners?
It seems intutive to me that when more women endorse such values, they expect it in their partners and it would result in greater satisfaction.
For example, such women who endorse BS are likely to value a clearer division of labour in the household and dislike it when their partners aren't on the same page.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/attachments/153068/ogolsky-dennison-monk-2014.pdf

The fact that discrepancy in cognitive egalitarianism moderated the association between cognitive egalitarianism and marital quality for wives supports the notion that a couple’s consensus on roles is important to marital quality (Bahr et al. 1983)...
Our results revealed that wives with lower cognitive egalitarianism paired with husbands with higher cognitive egalitarianism experienced lower marital quality than wives with higher cognitive egalitarianism married to husbands with lower cognitive egalitarianism.

So I think you'd be right to point out that the paper I cited doesn't directly make itself relevant to romantic attraction but it's not too big a leap between them to think that as womens endorsement of BS was reduced along with reduced HS, that women adopt a egalitarian attitude (even if they don't actualize it).
Like with your example that women wouldn't tolerate a man who wished to be provided for financially because there isn't a corresponding ideology based in division of labor in which women wish to paternalistically care for men as men do for women in traditional gender roles.

I'm not sure what to say about the "real sexist benevolence" in that the concept of BS has been derived from research on ambivalent sexism which has some years behind to back it's basis and of course as with earlier link it's malleability.
I'm not sure men pretending women can have masculine traits without consequences is a prevalent or significant social norm and if it is, what it's significance is meant to be in this context.

[Rugoz]

Here's the original paper by Glick and Fiske. Questions are on page 500.

And here's the test:
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/take

I can see why women would like BS given the BS questions. It's not benevolent sexism but reverse sexism. I mean wtf.

[Sivad]

I wonder who needs a study to tell them what we all knew since the dawn of time?

Who would have guessed that an only recently evolved ape would have a primitive psychology?