Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Study in feminist journal calls chivalry and gentlemanly behavior “dangerous”

Dr. Stuart Schneiderman reports on the study.

Excerpt:

With heavy heart we turn to Kathleen Connelly and Martin Heesacker’s article, entitled: “Why Is Benevolent Sexism Appealing?” Co-authored by a graduate student and a professor at the University of Florida, is has been published by a scholarly Journal called the Psychology of Women Quarterly.

Here is how the PWQ describes itself:

Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ) is a feminist, scientific, peer-reviewed journal that publishes empirical research, critical reviews and theoretical articles that advance a field of inquiry, brief reports on timely topics, teaching briefs, and invited book reviews related to the psychology of women and gender.

Here is a snip from the abstract of the study:

Previous research suggests that benevolent sexism is an ideology that perpetuates gender inequality.

[...]The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level. Thus, our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence.

Got that? Treating men and women differently in good ways is “dangerous” even though it has good effects. So no more giving women flowers, and no more giving men respect.

Dr. Schneiderman comments:

Connelly/Heesacker have discovered that when men behave like gentlemen toward women it produces “life satisfaction” for both parties.

They conclude that gentlemanly behavior is “dangerous” and that we must intervene “to reduce its prevalence.”

By their pseudo-reasoning, the positive benefits that accrue to men and women when men act like gentlemen provide a false sense of satisfaction that undermines the feminist revolution.

Since I did not spring for the $25.00 fee to read the article, I can only surmise that by benevolent sexism the authors mean such simple courtesies as asking a woman out on a date, paying for her, holding the door for her, helping her with her coat, accompanying her home and so on.

This argument is not new. It came in with second wave feminism. It was intended to assert women’s independence and autonomy. It resulted in more men treating more women discourteously and disrespectfully.

From a feminist perspective, if a man acted like a gentleman, a woman was expected to act like a lady. This was a bad thing, a betrayal of a woman’s allegiance to the feminist cult.

Feminists believed that gentlemanly behavior signified that women were the weaker sex, needing male protection.

They also believed that when a man paid for dinner and a show a woman felt obligated to repay the favor with her “favors.”

From a feminist perspective it’s better for women to give it away for free because then she will not feel that she is being bought.

As I say, feminists have been rebelling against “benevolent sexism” for around four decades now.

As a result, women are more likely to be abused. They are more likely to be used for sex. They are less likely to be involved in sustained relationships.

Men have been excoriated for acting courteously and politely, lest they be accused of being patronizing, so they have concluded that they need to act badly toward women.

Men concluded that they could further the revolutionary feminist cause by being revolting.

When feminism decided that courtship and even dating was a relic of a bygone age, all the rude, lewd, crude dudes rejoiced.

Today, Connelly and Heesacker have their backs.

Here’s a nice video showing a traditional marriage:

See those traditional sex roles? Feminists think we should intervene to reduce its prevalence because it’s “dangerous”.

I’ve written before about how feminists push women into premarital recreational sex because they want to undermine sexist notions like chivalry, courtship, marriage and stay-at-home motherhood. Their number one target is the traditional family, where the husband works and the wife stays home and raises the children. They know that if they can get women to binge-drink and hook-up with a bunch of men, then marriage will die. And that’s their goal. That’s what it means to be a feminist – act promiscuously and depend on the government for free condoms, free abortions and single mother welfare. Government replaces men.

Related posts

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses

  1. eMatters says:

    “When feminism decided that courtship and even dating was a relic of a bygone age, all the rude, lewd, crude dudes rejoiced.”

    Exactly. Feminism is the Satanic philosophy that women must open their own doors, be able to kill their own children and give away their purity to prove they are equal in value to men.

    Maybe some real feminists will come along someday and take the same results and conclude the opposite.

  2. Danny Wright says:

    As if who gets what of the world’s resources is the end all of human existence. I wonder if these girls have informed themselves of this truth yet?

  3. Tracy says:

    :Got that? Treating men and women differently in good ways is “dangerous” even though it has good effects. So no more giving women flowers, and no more giving men respect.”

    But – but – but – I like flowers. and I like it when someone holds open the door for me or pays for my hot chocolate. How can I live without that?

    • Well, I wouldn’t describe you as a feminist. I think the important thing for people to see is that they have to be careful about embracing a cause like feminism. It is not compatible with chivalry, romance and marriage. It’s more about getting drunk and hooking up and denying children either live or a stable environment in which to grow up. It’s anti-child, and no woman who cares about children should embrace it.

  4. bridget says:

    So it produces good results for individual women but is bad for women as a whole? How does that work? If it’s good for women, isn’t it good for women?

    Didn’t Ayn Rand, no one’s champion of chivalry, point out that the smallest minority is the individual, and if it hurts the individual, it’s bad?

    Now, I once dated a total whack job who would use “chivalry” to try to control me, but then again, he would use very modern theories to try to control me, too. Chivalry was the tool he abused, not the cause of his sociopathy. Pretty clear difference there, one would think.

    Beyond that, if you don’t want to feel like a man is buying sex by paying for dinner and tickets to a play, don’t sleep with him after he buys you dinner and Les Mis tickets. Moreover, just my experience, but men who want to go Dutch are the same ones who will dump you because you didn’t put out on a date, so I’m really confused as to how the anti-chivalry thing helps women.

    Ugh. What rank foolishness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 4,403,971 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,084 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,084 other followers

%d bloggers like this: