Benevolent sexism?

24

Comments

  • HildaCornersHildaCorners Winter? You call *that* winter?Gold Women Posts: 3,377
    For more on the C/FO model I was explaining:

    - watch that ST:TNG episode (season 1 episode 1)
    - Read The Number of the Beast. If science fiction isn't your thing, you can just read through the selection of a permanent Captain. As I said, that permanent Captain was a woman who deferred to nobody about matters of the ship, but did defer to her husband on matters of the marriage. Her husband was part of the crew, and deferred to her on ship matters.
    - Watch Athol's Part 3 videos
    - Search "Captain and First Officer" in Athol's blog.

    Athol goes into this concept pretty deeply, because it is confusing. I was confused too, at first.

    Off the top of my head, I can think of one female Captain marriage here, though I don't think it's that way by the woman's choice, just necessity due to having a very passive husband.

    As far as "sexism", that is a political construct, as are most "isms".  There are differences between men and women, no amount of political correctness will change that. But there are many places where that difference doesn't, and shouldn't matter.

    Finally, a  story to think about. Did you know that short kids are worse at spelling than tall kids? Absolutely, 100% true. More in the spoiler ...

    That's because younger kids are both shorter and poorer at spelling than older kids.


    Enneagram 5w4.  I'm researching what that means, before designing t-shirt art about it.

    "I feel no shame in making lavish use of the strongest muscles, namely male ones (but my own strongest muscle is dedicated to the service of men - noblesse oblige). I don't begrudge men one whit of their natural advantages as long as they respect mine. I am not an unhappy pseudomale; I am female and like it that way." RAH
    RorschachTiger_Lily
  • BeatriceBeatrice USAGold Women Posts: 1,175
    edited June 2015
    I came across the term "benevolent sexism" this morning in a news article, and it gave me pause.  I'm a relatively new forum member, and am just learning about opinions on gender roles here on the forum.  I'm curious to hear more about these opinions and how some of the ideals here are related to or differ from benevolent sexism. 

    And back to your original question.  I understand why you might be hesitant to embrace a Captain/FO model. 

    Here is a little click and paste from Wikipedia:

    Theoretically, each form of sexism is composed of three subcomponents: paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality.[1] Paternalism reflects views of women as underdeveloped adults, providing justification for men to be authoritative and monitor, protect, and make decisions on women's behalf. Gender differentiation promotes the assumption that biological differences between males and females justify the strict adherence to socially prescribed gender roles. Heterosexuality—described as the most prominent cause of men's ambivalence toward women—reflects a tension between genuine desires for closeness and intimacy and a fear of women attaining power over men through sexual attraction.

    1. I don't think that paternalism is endorsed here.  The aim is to have two fully functional adults in a relationship.

    2.  Gender differentiation is acknowledged, but only in reference to attraction and sexual desire.

    3.  I have seen men post who are obviously afraid of their partners attaining power over them through sexual attraction (or have allowed a power imbalance because of their attraction for their spouse).  I have seen women here who are very unhappy to have lost power to attract their partner due to low T or porn addiction.  I don't think anyone's goal here is to award women power over their husbands through sexual attraction.

    Is this what you want to know?

    We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us.  -Joseph Campbell
    frillyfunRorschachMiddleMan
  • forestleafforestleaf At the farmGold Women Posts: 1,703
    Thank you, @Athol_Kay.  I hear you saying that it's not telling me how to be, it's describing the way that many women feel.  And yes, it describes how I feel.  Basically it's ok for me to defer to him if I am more comfortable that way. 

    TheWolf made some attempts this afternoon to explain the model to me, and we talked about the FO role a bit.  One thing he mentioned is that the model fails to hold up if the FO disagrees with her role; that both parties must be agreeable to and comfortable with it for it to work. 

    I think when I was previously mentioning "dominant/submissive" (and others in this thread have used the term submissive), I should have said "superior/inferior."  However, the sense that I use the term "superior" is as a noun; the Captain is the "superior" to the FO.  This is what I've been feeling uncomfortable with.   @AlexZ said "Why do you think your husband will ignore your "absolutely, 100% not!"? He can overpower you physically but you trust him not to do it, right? You don't have to be less than him and I think he will gladly listen to you expertise. "  I should bring up that the only time in memory (about a year ago) that I put my FOOT DOWN on something TheWolf wanted to do, he went against me, did it anyhow, and didn't tell me until I saw the credit card bill.  For all I know, some of you know what that was.  Regardless, no, he didn't listen to me, so no I don't think it always works the way you think.

    I read things on the forum, such as what @John3 wrote in this thread, and I feel good about men and their view of women and their wives, and how much respect they seem to have for them, and it encourages my interest in the C/FO model.  Other men (many) on the forum seem to devalue women and throw that word "Captain" around like they are wielding a club, joking about how they are going to have the final say, etc.  Oddly I just read one of those nasty comments before coming on here.  So to a newbie, you might realize how it is I could get confused; what is really encouraged here?  @Athol_Kay clears up a lot of it with his statement above, and I'll just have to try and differentiate who is saying what when I read various comments.
    Angeline said:
    The idea that following strong leadership by the husband harms the wife's decision making skills has no basis. There are numerous strong and assertive professional women here, whose life and death decision-making is not harmed in the slightest. In fact an argument could be made for the opposite.
    @Angeline, I don't think that following the leadership of my husband will render me incapable of decision-making.  However, I do think that the things we do and the way we act is a result of what we've made habits of.  If I already struggle some with my own ability to trust myself and be strong and confident, and then I consistently allow my husband to make the important decisions in our lives, this will promote indecision on my part, and perhaps a perpetual sense of slight weakness that might be perceived by my colleagues (for me my indecision IS a weakness).  Yes, I question my self and my own self-esteem, so super strong women who rarely falter and like the "break" that coming home provides will probably feel differently than I do.  If we say that a man who makes the transition from Beta to Alpha, and MAPs, and works his ass off improving himself (all good things), and becomes Captain of his family is more likely to become successful in the workplace (which is certainly true), then what exactly is the effect on his wife?  @AlexZ says "He will be happy being a powerful man on the front line and you will be happy to have that enormous influence on such a powerful man."  Start with a very strong woman, and perhaps have no effect.  Start with a woman with any self-doubt, and, what do you get?
  • JellyBeanJellyBean Sunny SoCalGold Women Posts: 5,054
    "TheWolf made some attempts this afternoon to explain the model to me, and we talked about the FO role a bit.  One thing he mentioned is that the model fails to hold up if the FO disagrees with her role; that both parties must be agreeable to and comfortable with it for it to work.  "

    ^^^That sounds an awful lot like your husband putting the blame squarely on you for his wobbles as a Captain.  It must be your fault since you don't 100% agree with your role.

    In other words, he can only be a good Captain if you permit it, which means he really isn't a leader at all.
    Enneagram type 9w1
    Athol_KayHildaCornersfrillyfun
  • forestleafforestleaf At the farmGold Women Posts: 1,703
    @JellyBean, I'm sorry I emphasized that part of our discussion then, because that's not the intent I got from it.  He was explaining the model in a very respectful (to the FO) manner, and explaining how he thinks it best works.  He says that the FO is fully capable of being the captain but chooses not to.  He also says that the FO wields a power in that she can basically step out of her role or fail to recognize the Captain as the Captain at any point (mutiny) but that of course this disassembles the model altogether (and he would no longer be Captain).  I'm not using his words, so it's hard to explain second hand.  And yes, I think the Captain cannot be the Captain if the FO is not on board.

    Regarding my agreeing to this role, I think I've already been here in this role for some time.  I'm just trying to decide what I am most comfortable with at this time.  Many things are changing for me now.
  • JellyBeanJellyBean Sunny SoCalGold Women Posts: 5,054
    I disagree in substantial part with TW's explanation.  The Boss makes clear in his writing and the videos that the C/FO model isn't something that the wife must consciously accept in order for it to work.  Rather, the C/FO model is always in place and if the relationship is not working correctly, it is often due to a failure on the Captain's part.

    http://marriedmansexlife.com/2013/04/the-eternal-captain-rule/

    http://marriedmansexlife.com/2012/01/the-conscious-captain-and-first-officer-relationship/
    Enneagram type 9w1
    Athol_KayHildaCorners
  • Doll_House_FictionDoll_House_Fiction CASilver Member Posts: 45


    Thank you for all your contributions to this forum, I really enjoy everything that you post and for all the extremely wise advice that you give. Thank you for your insights
    HildaCorners
  • forestleafforestleaf At the farmGold Women Posts: 1,703
    @Katt, I think you and I would be good friends in real life, that is, until we got in an argument about something.  :)  I've always been a very strong woman too, especially to all appearances.  But I have to admit I have always had some self-doubt.  I don't mind deferring to my husband's decisions, and I am turned on by a strong man with decisive actions.  And the waves/surf analogy makes sense, @Athol_Kay

    @HildaCorners, I definitely see what you are saying. However, the analogy with the Korean Air pilots confuses me; that FO made a huge error and while it might seem appropriate to place all the blame on the Captain, the FO should have manned up (man or woman) and spoken up.  I suppose I would say both were to blame.  And regarding TheWolf's "financial decision," it was actually an expenditure that in hindsight was a good choice, but I didn't have all the information. 

    @Reborn, the kitchen analogy is also a tough one for me; I tend to be the one who is 24 hours ahead of my H in terms of thought.  I have always run the home and family, and if I don't know what's going on, then no one does.  Kids' camps, scheduling, calendars, school necessities and functions, financial concerns, upcoming family events, etc.  My H deals with most outside stuff, home repair.  Both of us deal with child discipline and big financial decisions.  However, there are some days (like yesterday) where I am endlessly frustrated with setbacks and REALLY appreciate when he Captains and makes the decisions for me.  When I'm feeling negative, I absolutely need him to make the decisions.  I hate that about myself, but it's true.
    Beatrice said:
    Here is a little click and paste from Wikipedia:

    Theoretically, each form of sexism is composed of three subcomponents: paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality.[1] Paternalism reflects views of women as underdeveloped adults, providing justification for men to be authoritative and monitor, protect, and make decisions on women's behalf. Gender differentiation promotes the assumption that biological differences between males and females justify the strict adherence to socially prescribed gender roles. Heterosexuality—described as the most prominent cause of men's ambivalence toward women—reflects a tension between genuine desires for closeness and intimacy and a fear of women attaining power over men through sexual attraction.

    1. I don't think that paternalism is endorsed here.  The aim is to have two fully functional adults in a relationship.

    2.  Gender differentiation is acknowledged, but only in reference to attraction and sexual desire.

    3.  I have seen men post who are obviously afraid of their partners attaining power over them through sexual attraction (or have allowed a power imbalance because of their attraction for their spouse).  I have seen women here who are very unhappy to have lost power to attract their partner due to low T or porn addiction.  I don't think anyone's goal here is to award women power over their husbands through sexual attraction.
    @Beatrice, yes, I don't see men here on the forum viewing women as underdeveloped adults.  But men here do want to protect and be the authority figure (which I'm not arguing is wrong).  Regarding gender differentiation, I see a whole lot of that here, even in this thread.  The question is whether accentuating our differences as men and women (which are certainly real) and following roles as a result of these perceived differences is indeed a sexist way to act.  And let's not get started on men's worry that women control the sex (called heterosexuality by the author, an unusual use of the word).  @never_again discusses this sexual "control."  It is something that men bring up again and again, and definitely seems to bother them on the forum.  For the record, I definitely agree that the woman in that example who said "You're cut off!" was being a bitch and was intentionally controlling the sex. 

    @Athol_Kay's reasoning (as he's explained above) makes sense to me.  However, the examples I'm seeing elsewhere on the forum sometimes adhere to it, and sometimes seem a little off target.  Most of this is likely a result of my failure to understand all the complexities of it.
    KattMrsJon
  • Frank_LondonFrank_London in transitSilver Member Posts: 1,853
    edited June 2015
    Without having read the article since it wasn't linked, "benevolent sexism" sounds like a phrase that is intended to cast the net of what is 'sexist' very widely, to catch things that maybe don't really seem sexist.

    For some people, any claim that men and women differ in anything beyond reproductive organs is sexism, particularly when it comes to brains and behavior. But the reality is that men's brains and women's brains are different. They are physically different for a start, so you'd expect to find functional differences. And indeed there are numerous documented differences in the way the sexes think and behave. It's not all just culture and sexist conditioning.
    HildaCornersMiddleManTPoke
  • forestleafforestleaf At the farmGold Women Posts: 1,703
    @Frank_London, see the wikipedia entry about benevolent sexism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism or this article in the National Post: http://news.nationalpost.com/life/benevolent-sexism-men-who-open-doors-for-women-can-be-as-sexist-as-those-who-are-rude-to-them-study-finds .  I'm not saying I agree with anything in that last article, but it represents the views of some people on what qualifies as sexism.  The original article where I saw the term is actually about the murder of eight people in the church in Charleston, so I didn't see the point in linking it since it's otherwise unrelated to the discussion: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/21/how-benevolent-sexism-drove-dylann-roofs-racist-massacre/). 
  • beribbonedberibboned caMember Posts: 359
    Much of D/s emphasizes paternalism and protection and that is the kind of D/s in which I thrive and get fucked silly by my sweet husband. I'm a functional adult but more submissive than mmsl describes/prescribes. Politically I'm a liberal.
    Any leader/follower dynamic that dismissed my need to be held, caressed, and spoken to affectionately would not be good for me. D/s acknowledges the vulnerability of the sub and holds the Dom responsible for providing aftercare and before care as needed.
    DD/s prizes clear communication and consent with awareness of the power exchange.
    I liked the wolf for his evident love for you and his skepticism. You have the caution, seriousness and heat for your man typical of a sub @ forestleaf . Pursue your pleasure. Trust yourself and see how much you can trust wolf. 
    forestleafHildaCorners
Sign In or Register to comment.