The society faces a challenge in fighting sexism. The paradigm shift in the expression of sexism from a blatant form of gender discrimination to a more subtle discriminatory approach creates difficulty in recognizing such discriminatory practices, even by victims themselves. Consequently, most cases of subtle discrimination are unreported. Benevolent sexism is one such discriminatory practice, which refers to a subjectively positive orientation towards women by sexist men. Unlike hostile sexism or sexist antipathy which adopts an antagonistic attitude toward women perceived to be bent toward controlling through feminist ideologies or sexual practices, benevolent sexism adopts a rather subtle approach. Men practicing benevolent sexism are perceived to be chivalrous, but their attitudes are punctuated by sexist undertones intended to portray women as weak and dependent beings.
Throughout history, benevolent sexism has been postulated to encompass three aspects of male ambivalence: paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality (Glick & Fische, 1996). It implies benevolent sexism is difficult to prove as a form of prejudice because it is not founded on antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalization when viewed superficially. However, the existence of benevolent sexism as a form of prejudice against women has been established in real contexts. Employing the ambivalence sexism theory, King, Botsford, Hebl et al. (2012) established that benevolent sexism was negatively correlated to assignment of challenging experiences to women, despite both men and women equally expressing interest in such tasks. The findings are evidence that stereotype-based beliefs that women need protection contribute to limited exposure of women to challenging tasks, which to some extent, explains the underrepresentation of women in organizational settings. In light of the understanding of the theoretical underpinning of benevolent sexism, and proof of its existence in real contexts, this paper objective is to review existing literature addressing different aspects of the phenomenon.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Literature Review
Conceptualizing Benevolent Sexism
Glick, Fiske, Mladinic et al. (2000) observed that benevolent sexism is a common phenomenon in the contemporary society. One can argue that increasing focus on benevolent sexism in last few decades is informed by achievements gained in the fight against hostile sexism through feminism, and activism on equal treatment for men and women. These campaigns brought to light practices of open gender discrimination, especially against women. The rise of benevolent sexism may represent a paradigm shift from a patriarchal society to a chivalrous one, with a hidden agenda to enhance subtle discrimination against women because it is less recognizable. However, the negative effects from such subtle discrimination are comparatively worse.
The consensus among critics of benevolent sexism is that it not only undermines women, but also justifies backlash. While negative stereotypes and hostility against women are perceived as the usual suspects in sexism against women, emerging evidence challenges this conventional discourse (Glick, 2013). Men have long practiced subjectively favorable yet patronizing treatment of women labeled as “benevolent sexism.” Focus continues in elucidating the existence of benevolent sexism in the society, but Glick, Fiske, Mladinic et al. (2000) argued that components of hostile and benevolent sexism are complimentary and exist across cultures. Male dominance, a discourse that has prevails across cultures for long, theorized to perpetrate hostile sexism, but the frequent criticism of such antagonistic treatment of women has contribute to a paradigm shift towards the subtle, yet similarly worse form of sexism known hitherto – benevolent sexism. Glick, Fiske, Mladinic et al. (2000) argued that benevolent sexism is an outcome of men’s dependence on women, which fosters subjectively positive attitudes that elevate women, in reality, reinforce women subordination. The ambivalence alliance between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism is founded on the shifting roles of women in the society. Men tend to show protection and affection towards women who embrace conventional roles, and antipathy towards women motivated in usurping men’s power. The former, may be perceived as an act of chivalry, but in reality, it is a subtle reminder that women belong to certain roles. The growing body of evidence on the existence of benevolent sexism may be attributed to the argument that the practice harms women in a number of ways:
Justifying and reinforcing hostile sexism
Fostering subtle, unrecognizable discrimination that limits women opportunities and diminishes their capabilities
Eliciting backlash upon resistance
Diminishing women personal ambitions and resistance to inequality (Glick, 2013)
The scientific and traditional assumptions on prejudice are based on the theory that “intergroup relations, power differences typically generate hostility and discrimination, creating social distance through exclusion, avoidance, and segregation” (Glick, 2013). However, gender relations differ based on the fact that men have been known to actively desire intimate contact with women while excluding them in less intimate settings. The argument justifies the King, Botsford, Hebl et al. (2012) Glick and Fiske (2001) ambivalence reliance theory where male dominance (evidenced in hostile sexism) coexist with intimate interdependence on women (as the case in benevolent sexism) reflecting the uniqueness of sexism as a central gender relationship paradox (Glick, 2013). Therefore, benevolent sexism will continue to exist for as long as gender relationship do, hence the need to examine some of its manifestations in the society to inform development of coping strategies.
Prevalence of Benevolent Sexism in the Society
There is a consensus among different groups about the role of benevolent sexism as an ideology for perpetuation of gender inequality. The situation is compounded by growing evidence that the practice is prevalent in the society despite its negative implications. Connelly and Heesacker (2012) argued that benevolent sexism is an ideology that both men and women may find attractive because of the unfounded conceptions based on the system justification theory that the practice is positively linked to life satisfaction via the increased diffuse system justification or perceived fairness of the status quo. According to Connelly and Heesacker (2012), benevolent sexism the practice encourages inequality at the structural level, but may have benefits at the personal level. One can argue that this evidence raises awareness of the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism, reinforcing the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence.
However, the subtlety with which benevolent sexism is perpetuated is detrimental to any efforts at reducing its prevalence. This “dark side of chivalry” often goes undetected or may even be encouraged by the unsuspecting victims. It is the subtle nature of benevolent sexism that is responsible for its role in undermining social change. Becker and Wright (2011) established that exposure of women to benevolent sexism decreased their involvement in collective action contrary to exposure to hostile sexism which increases collective action. The findings may point towards failure in recognizing acts of benevolent sexism because of its subtlety. Suggestions that the practice is highly prevalent in the society may be inconsequential if frameworks for identification of benevolent sexism are not established, implying that addressing will remain a matter of speculation.
Benevolent sexism is a tolerated practice by some individuals including women, hence answering Connelly and Heesacker (2012) question why the phenomenon is found appealing is important. This is informed by the evident lack of empirical evidence relating to the prevalence of benevolent sexism in the society. Unlike hostile sexism that can be easily identified and recorded, benevolent sexism is difficult to recognize and its rates of prevalence are informed by qualitative opinions rather than quantitative data. As observed in Glick and Fiske (2000; 2001) and Glick, Fiske, Mladinic et al. (2000), literature has focused on comparisons of benevolent and hostile sexism, giving a wide berth to the evident need to address how the practice can be detected in different settings. As a result, the line between what constitutes benevolent sexism, or genuine attempt at chivalry remains obscure as ever. Instead, focus has shifted towards the role of women in aiding the practice.
The present body of literature tries to explain women endorsement of benevolent sexism, a behavior that undermines identification of the phenomenon in different contexts. Becker (2010) explored the role of salient female subtypes and internalization of sexist content in advancing benevolent sexism and established that women tolerance of the practice was informed by attitudes towards non-traditional female subtypes such as feminists and career women; and internalization of its beliefs due to attitudes towards traditional female subtypes. In Sibley, Overall, and Duckitt (2007) longitudinal study examining the effects of system justification of women’s benevolent sexist ideology, it was established that women endorsement of benevolent sexist practices predicted changes in hostile sexism.
The findings are consistent with the ambivalence theory and indicate that women endorsement of benevolent sexism plays a crucial role in disarming resistance and increasing endorsement of hostile sexism towards women. The outcomes of such attitudes are adverse. For instance, they immensely influence social perceptions of rape perpetrators where blame is apportioned to the victim if by individuals endorsing benevolent sexism when the rapist is a husband with benevolent sexist attitudes (Durán, Moya, Megías et al. 2010; Masser, Lee, & McKimmie, 2010). Sibley, Overall, and Duckitt (2007) argue that endorsement of benevolent sexist ideologies tends to occur mostly among women in right-wing authoritarianism, implying that threat-driven motivations for security and social cohesion under the context is responsible for women participation in ideological systems that perpetuate gender inequality. Empirical evidence of women active involvement in endorsing benevolent sexism may be attributed to its prevalence in the society closely being farcical. However, the challenge in establishing the presence of benevolent sexism in the society has led to increased focus on its outcomes.
Detrimental Effects of Benevolent Sexism
Glick (2013) highlighted the effects of benevolent sexism, and evidence suggests that there severity is similar those from hostile sexism. One can argue that while the two phenomena deeply contrast in terms of identification because one is extreme and easily seen and the other subtle, their effects are proportionately worse. The whole ideology of benevolent sexism is surrounded by ambiguity and uncertainty in relation to perceptions of from different individuals and groups. As Glick (2013) posits, the role of benevolent sexism in harming women in a number of ways cannot be understated. However, the phenomenon has resulted to a whole new mindset, especially in organizational settings. Chivalry is a dying act with the advent of benevolent sexism. Dumont, Sarlet, and Dardenne (2010) observed that in the current dispensation, treating a woman with too much kindness is perceived as a masked attempt at questioning their competence. Consequently, benevolent sexism has contributed to a significant shift in self-construal and autobiographical perceptions towards incompetence. In fact, the phenomenon presents a dilemma because it makes it challenging to appreciate women for their competence or reproach them for incompetence. Treating a woman wind kindness will be perceived as an act benevolent sexism, and criticizing their incompetence will be termed hostile sexism. Simply put, it is predicament that places those concerned between a rock and a hard place. The complexities associated with benevolent sexism are outcomes of its negative effects.
To better understand the foundation of the effects of benevolent sexism, it is important to consider gender roles as defined in the traditional contemporary society. Historically, male dominance automatically guaranteed the role of a provider and protector, and all men were to provide for their women. While the discourse remains in the modern contemporary society, some aspects have indeed changed. Glick (2013) observed that benevolent sexism promises women a pedestal, but not all women qualify for such an elevated status. Only those who embody traditional subtypes through acceptance of roles and feminine stereotypes cut the grade, and only if they sustain such practices. The aptness of this pedestal space is evident in its description of a narrow, confining space that is easy to fall from. In the modern dispensation where women are equally educated and enlightened, such perspective of benevolent sexism does not work because it would be viewed as an attempt at degrading women capabilities. The proliferation in financial independence among women may play a crucial role as traditional subtypes of women who embody the housewives roles are fast disappearing. However, the same cannot be said of chivalry that has historically underpinned intimate relationships between men and women. The persistence of chivalry may be attributed to the prevalence of benevolent sexism, especially in work place settings.
The effects of benevolent sexism are compounded by the ambivalence relationship between it and hostile sexism. Research evidence reviewed herein corroborates the ideology that benevolent sexism is an antecedent to hostile sexism and inequality. According to Glick (2013), men perceive benevolent sexism as a justification for their traditional power and privilege and a characterization of their role as heroic protectors and family providers rather than callous oppressors are depicted in hostile sexism. Sibley, Wilson, and Duckitt (2007) posited that individual difference in men’s benevolent sexism is an outcome of threat-driven security-cohesion motivation, determined by right-wing authoritarianism. It is evident that men patronizing acts may be informed by the assumption that they have a duty as authority figures to protect women around them from all threats, including challenging responsibilities, as a means to ensuring stronger bonds between the two genders. However, such acts may be interpreted as attempts at undermining women competence, hence viewed as benevolent sexism. In reality, benevolent sexism continues to prove to be a complex phenomenon whose effects are difficult to establish without linking them to hostile sexism.
Conclusion
Benevolent sexism is a patronizing discriminatory practice towards women that must be recognized to exist if significant steps are to be made in fighting its prevalence. The recognition will be in influencing perceptions that benevolent sexism is desirable rather than detrimental, a discourse that endorses it paving way for hostile sexism. However, care must be exercise to differentiate genuine acts of chivalry from benevolent sexism to preserve the practice that has for long dictated gender relationships. Wide dissemination of research evidence presented in this paper may play a crucial role in instilling the ideology that benevolent sexism has nontrivial consequences. The key to success lies in raising awareness among women by discouraging evident endorsement of benevolent sexism that gives men little impetus to change. In addition, the existence of ambivalence between benevolent and hostile sexism can be employed by attacking the former as a means sending a strong and clear message to perpetrators that acts of gender discrimination against women are unacceptable, whether extreme or subtle. Women facing less threats from hostile sexists are likely to reject benevolent sexism, which in some instances, is viewed as the solution to the former. Achievement of positive outcomes is dependent on organizational ability to develop vigilance frameworks to facilitate detection and elimination of patronizing discriminatory approaches to decision-making. However, effectiveness of such measures is a dream yet to be realized in contexts where benevolent sexism thrives.
References
Becker, J. C. (2010). Why do women endorse hostile and benevolent sexism? The role of salient female subtypes and internalization of sexist contents. Sex Roles , 62 (7-8), 453-467.
Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of personality and social psychology , 101 (1), 62-77.
Connelly, K., & Heesacker, M. (2012). Why is benevolent sexism appealing? Associations with system justification and life satisfaction. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 36 (4), 432-443.
Dumont, M., Sarlet, M., & Dardenne, B. (2010). Be too kind to a woman, she’ll feel incompetent: Benevolent sexism shifts self-construal and autobiographical memories toward incompetence. Sex Roles , 62 (7-8), 545-553.
Durán, M., Moya, M., Megías, J. L., & Viki, G. T. (2010). Social perception of rape victims in dating and married relationships: The role of perpetrator’s benevolent sexism. Sex Roles , 62 (7-8), 505-519.
Glick, P. (2013). BS at work: how benevolent sexism undermines women and justifies backlash. In Harvard Business School symposium Gender & Work: Challenging Conventional Wisdom .
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of personality and social psychology , 70 (3), 491.
King, E. B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M. R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J. F., & Perkins, A. (2012). Benevolent sexism at work: Gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences. Journal of Management , 38 (6), 1835-1866.
Masser, B., Lee, K., & McKimmie, B. M. (2010). Bad woman, bad victim? Disentangling the effects of victim stereotypicality, gender stereotypicality and benevolent sexism on acquaintance rape victim blame. Sex Roles , 62 (7-8), 494-504.
Sibley, C. G., Overall, N. C., & Duckitt, J. (2007). When women become more hostilely sexist toward their gender: The system-justifying effect of benevolent sexism. Sex roles , 57 (9-10), 743.
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 33 (2), 160-172.
