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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Benevolent sexism: the real barrier holding women back
snip:
I applaud Salmond's stance and invite others to follow his lead – just as I called last year on Augusta members to dismantle their club's male-only policy. Augusta later changed their ways and Muirfield should follow suit. But to make lasting, society-wide progress, we need to tackle the belief that sexism is not as serious, damaging, or severe as the other "isms" out there.
Why does this myth persist? For American activist Gloria Steinem, "sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was." So-called 'natural' gender differences are used to justify unequal treatment of women and men and allow us to look the other way when women are treated like second-class citizens.
Two types of sexism prevail: overt and benevolent. Overt (aka hostile) sexism – like the exclusionary Muirfield policy – is easy to spot, especially in parts of the world where we have seen the most progress towards equality. Reasonable people call it for what it is – the belief that women are not equal to men, and due to their 'second class' existence, should not mind being ignored, excluded, violated, you name it.
Benevolent sexism is different – it is seemingly innocuous but is just as damaging and far more enduring.
The belief that women are kinder, more moral, more fair, more nurturing, and generally, more virtuous than men seems positive on the surface.
In reality, these benevolent stereotypes hurt women because they maintain inequality. Whether she's the "little lady" or the "woman behind the man" or the soothing creature who exists simply to make men nicer, woman's "natural" goodness becomes a rationale for why she should be protected from activities and occupations that require stereotypically "macho" qualities.
I applaud Salmond's stance and invite others to follow his lead – just as I called last year on Augusta members to dismantle their club's male-only policy. Augusta later changed their ways and Muirfield should follow suit. But to make lasting, society-wide progress, we need to tackle the belief that sexism is not as serious, damaging, or severe as the other "isms" out there.
Why does this myth persist? For American activist Gloria Steinem, "sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was." So-called 'natural' gender differences are used to justify unequal treatment of women and men and allow us to look the other way when women are treated like second-class citizens.
Two types of sexism prevail: overt and benevolent. Overt (aka hostile) sexism – like the exclusionary Muirfield policy – is easy to spot, especially in parts of the world where we have seen the most progress towards equality. Reasonable people call it for what it is – the belief that women are not equal to men, and due to their 'second class' existence, should not mind being ignored, excluded, violated, you name it.
Benevolent sexism is different – it is seemingly innocuous but is just as damaging and far more enduring.
The belief that women are kinder, more moral, more fair, more nurturing, and generally, more virtuous than men seems positive on the surface.
In reality, these benevolent stereotypes hurt women because they maintain inequality. Whether she's the "little lady" or the "woman behind the man" or the soothing creature who exists simply to make men nicer, woman's "natural" goodness becomes a rationale for why she should be protected from activities and occupations that require stereotypically "macho" qualities.
http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/aug/06/benevolent-sexism-holding-women-back
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
