- Joined
- Sep 21, 2016
- Messages
- 1,453
Feminists Think Sexist Men Are Sexier than "Woke" Men
Recent psychology today article popped up on my news feed. Essentially, it acknowledges a study that shows women see "benevolent sexist" male partners as more attractive than those without. It questions some of the commonly understood beliefs on attraction and explores some different dynamics.
Some quotes,
Even though women recognize that these guys are patronizing them and perhaps failing to recognize their negative attributes (or rather, are more willing to put up with these negative attributes), they still report being attracted to them. And this is why some women choose the beta for a more boyfriendy/girlfriendy relationship or marriage - it's a pretty good tradeoff some of the time to go with the security and resource a white knight might have to offer even though he's not a lover or her even in love with him. There's nuances of attraction, some of the time it becomes an intuitively rational option for girls to be drawn to these guys / make it work with them.
When I think of male feminist though, I think of these super left dudes who are also benevolently sexist, rather than the traditional feminist who seeks to empower women from legitimate mental and legal boundaries they may be experiencing and cultivate real independence (and as you'll find, not everyone WANTS to be be independent because it can be a lot more work and responsbility!) Also found it fitting that the women saw the same men as more likely to place restrictions on them. Perhaps men with these glorified positions on women feel they need to force congruence with their belief and the behavior of women around them.
...would love to see a study that reports how satisfying women find relationships with several different types of men (betas, male feminists, players, alpha male 1.0's and 2.0's).. would love the recruitment flyers for that one ;P
Anyway, thought I'd throw it in here. Cool to see real research on the same ideas that GC expert's experience and write about.
Hue
Recent psychology today article popped up on my news feed. Essentially, it acknowledges a study that shows women see "benevolent sexist" male partners as more attractive than those without. It questions some of the commonly understood beliefs on attraction and explores some different dynamics.
Some quotes,
Women who admit to liking bad boys—being attracted to men who are assertive or dominant—are sometimes criticized as having “internalized” misogynistic attitudes, or simply as naïve and foolish, failing to recognize or admit that sexism is damaging. During the 2016 presidential campaign, female fans of then-candidate Trump proudly invited their candidate to grab them, following release of tapes of Trump discussing grabbing women without consent. These women were proclaimed traitors to other women, or decried as simply deluded. Others have suggested that women may choose bad boy types in order to acquire protection from other, more aggressive and hostile men, a theory referred to as the “protection racket.” Some simply suggest that sexism is insidious, and that these dynamics infiltrate our choices without us noticing.
Past research has suggested that evolutionary biology explains these dynamics, pointing to findings that women reportedly prefer men with more masculine features and more indicators of “fitness.” However, many of those sensational findings are in question, with failed replications leading to doubt that these effects can be reliably predicted or measured.
Gul and Kupfer take a related tack, but head in a slightly different direction. They suggest that female interest in sexist men, specifically men who display “benevolent sexism” may be seen by women as being more interested in investing resources in a woman.
Benevolent sexism is a concept describing a form of sexism which is overtly less hostile and misogynistic, and are beliefs that I was taught, as a man from the US South. Benevolent sexism includes beliefs that:
Women should be “put on a pedestal”
Women should be cherished and protected by men
Men should be willing to sacrifice to provide for women
Women are more virtuous than men
Women are more refined and pure, compared to men
Benevolent sexism (BS) has detrimental effects on women, yet women prefer men with BS attitudes over those without. The predominant explanation for this paradox is that women respond to the superficially positive appearance of BS without being aware of its subtly harmful effects. We propose an alternative explanation drawn from evolutionary and sociocultural theories on mate preferences: Women find BS men attractive because BS attitudes and behaviors signal that a man is willing to invest. Five studies showed that women prefer men with BS attitudes (Studies 1a, 1b, and 3) and behaviors (Studies 2a and 2b), especially in mating contexts, because BS mates are perceived as willing to invest (protect, provide, and commit). Women preferred BS men despite also perceiving them as patronizing and undermining. These findings extend understanding of women’s motives for endorsing BS and suggest that women prefer BS men despite having awareness of the harmful consequences.
Interestingly though, these women weren’t love-struck fools, but had their eyes open about these men. Despite being attracted to them, and seeing them as good mates and partners, the women saw these males as being undermining and patronizing men who were more likely to place restrictions on the women.
Women who find sexist men attractive are not being traitors to other women, nor are they naïve women who don’t understand their choices. Instead, they are women who are making rational decisions, accepting tradeoffs. They are women who recognize that it may be more beneficial to have a partner who is committed to them and willing to sacrifice for them and their family, than it is to have a “woke” feminist man who wants them to be independent.
Even though women recognize that these guys are patronizing them and perhaps failing to recognize their negative attributes (or rather, are more willing to put up with these negative attributes), they still report being attracted to them. And this is why some women choose the beta for a more boyfriendy/girlfriendy relationship or marriage - it's a pretty good tradeoff some of the time to go with the security and resource a white knight might have to offer even though he's not a lover or her even in love with him. There's nuances of attraction, some of the time it becomes an intuitively rational option for girls to be drawn to these guys / make it work with them.
When I think of male feminist though, I think of these super left dudes who are also benevolently sexist, rather than the traditional feminist who seeks to empower women from legitimate mental and legal boundaries they may be experiencing and cultivate real independence (and as you'll find, not everyone WANTS to be be independent because it can be a lot more work and responsbility!) Also found it fitting that the women saw the same men as more likely to place restrictions on them. Perhaps men with these glorified positions on women feel they need to force congruence with their belief and the behavior of women around them.
...would love to see a study that reports how satisfying women find relationships with several different types of men (betas, male feminists, players, alpha male 1.0's and 2.0's).. would love the recruitment flyers for that one ;P
Anyway, thought I'd throw it in here. Cool to see real research on the same ideas that GC expert's experience and write about.
Hue