Benevolent sexism is defined as a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling tone (for the perceiver) and also tend to elicit behaviours typically categorized as prosocial (e.g., helping) or intimacy-seeking (e.g., self-disclosure)One of the things I find particularly interesting is how many of the commenters assume that the issue with the phrase 'lovely ladies' is a reference to the women's appearance. But Suzie herself never makes this link, and, in my opinion, those comments are rather missing the point of the article. The phrase 'lovely ladies' is not necessarily any less problematic when you consider the word 'lovely' to refer, primarily, to the pleasant demeanour of the women giving a talk.
Consider the following comment by Barbara Montanari, which I think highlights a key issue with the original remark:
The problem is not that the teacher called you “lovely ladies”. The problem is that people’s preconception of a scientist is very narrow. Surely you can’t be lovely ladies and be good scientists at the same time! You do not fit the mould. We need to smash the mould. Anybody can be a scientist, no matter what their physical or character traits are.The inference I draw from this is that it is desirable for ladies to be lovely. While in many ways, the world would be a better place if we were all lovely, it makes me uncomfortable to suggest breaking one stereotype – that of the (female) scientist – by potentially reinforcing another: that of the 'proper' woman, a woman defined by a set of qualities (loveliness, caring, empathy) which are not fundamentally gendered, but which society has assigned to a gendered norm.
It can be argued, quite reasonably, that the associations I've made were not what the speaker intended, and that other people may see different interpretations. However, in the context of today's society, where sexist generalisations sadly still exist, I think it's important to at least be aware of such connotations, as they risk feeding into and perpetuating societal ideas of what it means to be male or female. (In a similar way, the inflexible marketing of dolls and toy kitchen sets for girls, versus construction sets or – disappointingly – science sets for boys may influence children's ideas of appropriate gendered behaviour.)
Moving on, another comment by Stefano C. serves to highlight some of the wider problems in gender relations:
When it comes to this topic I always feel that the ultimate goal that I hear people talking about, that is gender equality, is wrong. Men and woman are not equal at all, they have different sensibilities, different point of views, somehow even different brains, capable to deal with the same things in a different way. This is one of the things that makes the world so richer. But being different doesn’t mean being superior or inferior. Electrons and neutrinos are very different but also part of the same doublet, aren’t they :) ?It's far beyond the scope of this blog post to address the perceived physical and mental differences between men and women versus any which have been scientifically proven – I am, after all, writing a blog and not a PhD thesis. (It's also not particularly helpful to take apart the commenter's poor choice of analogy, so I'll just note that neutrinos have fuck all impact on the majority of normal matter.)
Easier to address is the fact that the commenter seems to be conflating the ideas of equality and identity. No-one is suggesting that men and women are identical. But, as I see it, the ideal towards which feminism strives is for there to be equality of opportunity for, and conduct towards, both men and women. Something which, sadly, still doesn’t yet exist.
Stefano also says:
I personally don’t feel guilty if I’m just nice and kind with a woman in a different way that I’m with a man but I never think that any gender is superior to the other.This is, I think, a perfect example of benevolent sexism: he is being 'nice and kind', unarguably positive ways to behave towards any person. He consciously doesn't think that any gender is superior!
...but he does act differently towards a person based on their gender, and therefore, this is sexism. I am a woman. I am also an adult, and I don't want or need men to act any more nicely or kindly towards me than they would to any other human being. I am quite capable of dealing with social interaction without anyone's deliberate self-censorship (which, by the way, smacks of an out-dated desire to protect women's delicate sensibilities).
Stefano continues to miss the point when he addresses Suzie’s encounter with a stranger at a conference:
Concerning the second example, I think it has nothing to do with benevolent or hostile sexism. It was simply a guy that wanted to impress you. Even if it was in a conference I don’t think its comment was in anyway related to your being a scientist.No, the comment wasn't related to her being a scientist – this, given the context of a scientific conference, and a delegate who was a complete stranger, is what makes it entirely inappropriate. As for trying to impress her – would he have done this if she had been a man? Almost certainly not.
As I said, a thought-provoking article, and a subject which doesn't lend itself to glib or concise answers. Then again, that's part of what makes it so worthwhile thinking about.
1. Glick, P & Fiske, S T. 1996. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70(3):491-512. dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491
No comments:
Post a Comment