The Thinking 

Evil Chivalry

November 30, 2012



Making the rounds today is an item you may have missed  —  a scholarly paper on the subject of “benevolent sexism” (known to the rest of us as “being a gentleman”).

It’s a serious problem, as it turns out: apparently it makes people happier, and therefore must be done away with.

The abstract is here, and I comment briefly on it here.

—- Comments —-

Joe A. writes:

Ah, the fog is lifted courtesy of a diagnosis of diffuse “System Justification.”

So when people have a psychological need to justify a fantasy that exists only in the mind of the malcontent, is it acute “System Subversion”?

Wake up, men of America. Stop tolerating garbage, stop pretending there is something profound behind it all, simply because it comes with a phony PhD!

Shun and ostracize the purveyors of hate and they will leave of their own accord. Their temper tantrums inflict real consequences when indulged.

Enough is enough and too much is too much!

L.B. writes:

The article by the “scholars” Connelly and Heesacker (I would have changed that name real quick, but I guess Perfesser Heesacker is entitled to a name as stupid as his research) is painfully idiotic, but reveals to all right-thinking persons rhetorical methods by which drivel appeals to the mass of the many-headed in academia.

I have added clever comments in brackets in this excerpt from the abstract:

Previous research [WHAT PREVIOUS RESEARCH? IF ANY, SURELY ONLY FLUFF OPINION PIECES.] suggests [WEASEL WORD ALERT!] that benevolent sexism is an ideology [A WORD DESIGNED TO ELICIT SALIVATION; YET, OPENING DOORS FOR WOMEN WHO HAVE THEIR HANDS FULL IS HARDLY PART OF AN IDEOLOGY. IDIOTS!] that perpetuates gender inequality [HOW DOES OPENING THE DOOR FOR AN OVERLY-BURDENED WOMAN PUT HER IN A SUBORDINATE CLASS? WHAT IF THE WOMAN WAS THE BOSS OF THE GUY WHO OPENED THE DOOOR? PINHEADS.] But despite its negative consequences [THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVED], benevolent sexism is a prevalent [THE TECHNIQUE OF REPETITION. WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY; KEEP SAYING IT] ideology that some even [SOME EVEN!] find [ANOTHER INANE WORD CHOICE] attractive [YOU MEAN CONSISTENT WITH THEIR MORAL CODE]. To better understand why women and men alike might be motivated to adopt [BENEVOLENT SEXISM IS MERELY A WORD; YOU DON’T ADOPT A WORD. YOU DECIDE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS THAT FROU-FROU ACADEMICS NAME! THESE MORONS CONFUSE WORDS AND THINGS.] benevolent sexism, the current study tested system justification theory’s prediction that benevolent sexism might have a positive linkage to life satisfaction through increased diffuse system justification, or the sense that the status quo is fair [NOW THEY ELEVATE THE MERELY TRIVIAL TO GRAND THEORY]. A structural equation model [YEAH, FANCY STATS TO MAKE PIFFLE SEEM IMPORTANT] revealed that benevolent sexism was positively associated with diffuse system justification within a sample of 274 college women and 111 college men. Additionally, benevolent sexism was indirectly associated with life satisfaction for both women and men through diffuse system justification. [FORTUNATELY, I AM NOT NOW SUCKING ON A SPOON OR I MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO GAG MYSELF WITH IT.] In contrast, hostile sexism was not related to diffuse system justification or life satisfaction. [TRANSLATION: IF YOU SLAM THE DOOR IN WOMAN’S FACE, SHE MAY NOT LIKE IT MUCH.] The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level [NO, THE RESULTS DO NOT IMPLY THAT. YOU ADDED THAT, MEATHEADS.], it might offer some benefits at the personal level.

This is typical in the so-called humanities now. I work with these clowns every day. I can tell you without fear of contradiction that behind their smug self-assurance, brittle façade, and snarky demeanor, they are truly stupid. Whenever I see them at the local bakery, I am sorely tempted to beat them about the head with a loaf of something stiffish.

Buck writes:

Benevolent Sexism is, it appears, a component of Ambivalent Sexism. Maybe these aliens can develop a test that will evaluate our levels of sexism, and then provide a proper course of corrective action. Oh wait, there is a test.

Buck adds:

I took the test. I’m both a hostile sexist and a benevolent sexist. Apparently I am “more tolerant of sexual harassment and spousal abuse of women,” and though I’m not “overtly hostile toward women,” I “can turn ugly if a woman ventures beyond traditional gender roles.”

What do I do now?

John Purdy writes:

I tried the test Buck identified. Fun test. As I suspected, I really am a bit of a bastard. : -)

Hostile Sexism Score: 3.82

Benevolent Sexism Score: 2.00

Share:Email this to someoneShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest0Share on Google+0