I always feel insulted yet humored by feminist and women’s rights organizations that label the men’s and father’s rights activists as an example of advocates who intentionally lie, distort, and mislead people away from the truth concerning gender issues. I was reminded of this yesterday as I was doing some research for an article. I came across a term used in gender research and feminist writings at a feminist website that was discussing men’s sexism towards women. It is called Ambivalent Sexism, and according to the website Understanding Prejudice , ambivalent sexism is defined as:
An ideology composed of both a “hostile” and “benevolent” prejudice toward women. Hostile sexism is an antagonistic attitude toward women, who are often viewed as trying to control men through feminist ideology or sexual seduction. Benevolent sexism is a chivalrous attitude toward women that feels favorable but is actually sexist because it casts women as weak creatures in need of men’s protection.
Intrigued by this ideology – and finding most men and father rights activist could fall victim to this behavior – I decided to read further.
This is how the two behaviors that envelop the ideology are defined using everyday man “speak”:
Hostile Sexism Items:
– “Most women fail to appreciate all that men do for them.”
– “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men.”
– “Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.”
Benevolent Sexism Items:
– “Women should be cherished and protected by men.”
– “Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess.”
– “A good woman ought to be set on a pedestal by her man.”
So the way I see it, if you are nice to women, then you are engaging in benevolent sexism. If you are critical of women, then you are guilty of hostile sexism.
In other words, a man is damned if does and damned if he doesn’t, the typical immature, illogical, and feminist induced hegemony – all men are inherently malevolent, and all women are inherently benevolent.
But I couldn’t believe the narrow minded concept behind this ideology, that is, that sexism is a one way street and only men are guilty of it. I decided to continue researching this “ideology” to determine what feminist or feminist organization originated the concept.
To my surprise, I found out that there is an actual test one can take that determines the level of one’s ambivalent sexism. It is called the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). And also to my surprise, I found out it was created by a male and female duo. The inventors of the ASI are Professor Peter Glick of Lawrence University and Professor Susan T. Fiske of Princeton University.
Figuring that both are feminist sympathizers, I began to research Professor Glick first. I found out Professor Glick “is a social psychologist who studies both the subtle and the overt ways in which prejudices and stereotypes foster social inequality.”
I began to look deeper into his work. After some searching, I came across another piece of research that made me role my eyes and chuckle. It seems while ambivalent sexism is found in feminist writings, the feminist forget to mention Professor Glick’s and Professors Fiske’s other important contribution concerning research into sexism. It is called the ATMI, otherwise known as the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory.
This ground breaking research and testing procedure was one of the first of its kind to measure women’s sexism towards men. It measures female hostility towards men and female ambivalence towards men, similar to the ASI, but reversing the genders.
According to Jason R. Frizzell’s research, “Sexist attitudes about men’s sexual behavior: Development of a measure”, Glick and Fiske’s research found:
Research using the ATMI has yielded interesting results, including findings that suggest that women experience ambivalence toward men, meaning that women seem to resent paternalistic power structures while at the same time hold beliefs that support and justify that very same power structure. Additionally, women appear to endorse certain aspects of the ATMI differently than men do. For example, compared to male respondents, women appear to endorse higher rates of hostile attitudes and lower rates of benevolent attitudes toward men. In addition, ambivalence toward men (as well as ambivalent sexism) was found to exist cross-culturally, which provides further strength for their model.
Amazing isn’t it? The feminist love Professor Glick’s and Professors Fiske’s research about men’s sexism towards women, but are silent on some outstanding research by the same two professors that show women’s hostility (sexism) towards men is greater than men’s towards women. And when the feminist movement is looked at historically, one finds that this behavior is typical. Some of their past myths and lies with respect to domestic violence can be found at this website by author Richard Gelles , a man who is well known in domestic violence research, and who consistently spends part of his time debunking feminist myths about domestic violence.
My point: I actually agree with the benevolent part of the ASI ideology. I feel many men who show overwhelming support for women and their issues are actually more sexist than men who don’t. These men see women as weak and vulnerable when compared to themselves. They believe their masculine status entitles them to be a woman’s savior and protector. They do not see women as strong independent people. However, I do not agree with their research with respect to the hostile part of the ASI. Any therapist that counsels couples will tell you a major problem in marriages is a lack of appreciation for what each spouse contributes to the relationship. So any man who comments, “Most women fail to appreciate all that men do for them” is actually telling the truth. And feminist themselves have shown unequivocally that women have serious issues with power and control just like men. While fighting for equality, feminist have shown when they hold the advantage in any given situation over men, they refuse to make a single sacrifice to establish equality. And again, any therapist will confirm that the core issue in a turbulent marriage is power and control issues for the man AS WELL as the woman. And while the last statement may be true,“Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.”, it may also be false. To say this is a sexist remark in any situation implies that society is devoid of any hypersensitive people, in this case women, who may take a comment the wrong way. Empirical honesty will show this to be fatuous.
Anyway, I find it frustrating to see feminist pointing a finger at men’s and father’s rights activist for being untruthful and deceptive when historically they have shown they more skilled at it than any MRA I’ve met. But what brings a chuckle to my mind is the hidden beauty in their accusations. It is well known in the environment of debates that when your adversary resorts to attacking your character rather than your argument, it is a sign of failure, desperation, and defeat on their part.
I’ll just remind myself that their character assassinations are actually another victory for men and fathers.
Will the Real Manipulators Please Stand Up
Tags: commentary, community, crime, culture, current events, family, feminism, government, human rights, life, marriage, men, people, rants, relationships, research, sex, society, thoughts, women
I always feel insulted yet humored by feminist and women’s rights organizations that label the men’s and father’s rights activists as an example of advocates who intentionally lie, distort, and mislead people away from the truth concerning gender issues. I was reminded of this yesterday as I was doing some research for an article. I came across a term used in gender research and feminist writings at a feminist website that was discussing men’s sexism towards women. It is called Ambivalent Sexism, and according to the website Understanding Prejudice , ambivalent sexism is defined as:
An ideology composed of both a “hostile” and “benevolent” prejudice toward women. Hostile sexism is an antagonistic attitude toward women, who are often viewed as trying to control men through feminist ideology or sexual seduction. Benevolent sexism is a chivalrous attitude toward women that feels favorable but is actually sexist because it casts women as weak creatures in need of men’s protection.
Intrigued by this ideology – and finding most men and father rights activist could fall victim to this behavior – I decided to read further.
This is how the two behaviors that envelop the ideology are defined using everyday man “speak”:
Hostile Sexism Items:
– “Most women fail to appreciate all that men do for them.”
– “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men.”
– “Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.”
Benevolent Sexism Items:
– “Women should be cherished and protected by men.”
– “Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess.”
– “A good woman ought to be set on a pedestal by her man.”
So the way I see it, if you are nice to women, then you are engaging in benevolent sexism. If you are critical of women, then you are guilty of hostile sexism.
In other words, a man is damned if does and damned if he doesn’t, the typical immature, illogical, and feminist induced hegemony – all men are inherently malevolent, and all women are inherently benevolent.
But I couldn’t believe the narrow minded concept behind this ideology, that is, that sexism is a one way street and only men are guilty of it. I decided to continue researching this “ideology” to determine what feminist or feminist organization originated the concept.
To my surprise, I found out that there is an actual test one can take that determines the level of one’s ambivalent sexism. It is called the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). And also to my surprise, I found out it was created by a male and female duo. The inventors of the ASI are Professor Peter Glick of Lawrence University and Professor Susan T. Fiske of Princeton University.
Figuring that both are feminist sympathizers, I began to research Professor Glick first. I found out Professor Glick “is a social psychologist who studies both the subtle and the overt ways in which prejudices and stereotypes foster social inequality.”
I began to look deeper into his work. After some searching, I came across another piece of research that made me role my eyes and chuckle. It seems while ambivalent sexism is found in feminist writings, the feminist forget to mention Professor Glick’s and Professors Fiske’s other important contribution concerning research into sexism. It is called the ATMI, otherwise known as the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory.
This ground breaking research and testing procedure was one of the first of its kind to measure women’s sexism towards men. It measures female hostility towards men and female ambivalence towards men, similar to the ASI, but reversing the genders.
According to Jason R. Frizzell’s research, “Sexist attitudes about men’s sexual behavior: Development of a measure”, Glick and Fiske’s research found:
Research using the ATMI has yielded interesting results, including findings that suggest that women experience ambivalence toward men, meaning that women seem to resent paternalistic power structures while at the same time hold beliefs that support and justify that very same power structure. Additionally, women appear to endorse certain aspects of the ATMI differently than men do. For example, compared to male respondents, women appear to endorse higher rates of hostile attitudes and lower rates of benevolent attitudes toward men. In addition, ambivalence toward men (as well as ambivalent sexism) was found to exist cross-culturally, which provides further strength for their model.
Amazing isn’t it? The feminist love Professor Glick’s and Professors Fiske’s research about men’s sexism towards women, but are silent on some outstanding research by the same two professors that show women’s hostility (sexism) towards men is greater than men’s towards women. And when the feminist movement is looked at historically, one finds that this behavior is typical. Some of their past myths and lies with respect to domestic violence can be found at this website by author Richard Gelles , a man who is well known in domestic violence research, and who consistently spends part of his time debunking feminist myths about domestic violence.
My point: I actually agree with the benevolent part of the ASI ideology. I feel many men who show overwhelming support for women and their issues are actually more sexist than men who don’t. These men see women as weak and vulnerable when compared to themselves. They believe their masculine status entitles them to be a woman’s savior and protector. They do not see women as strong independent people. However, I do not agree with their research with respect to the hostile part of the ASI. Any therapist that counsels couples will tell you a major problem in marriages is a lack of appreciation for what each spouse contributes to the relationship. So any man who comments, “Most women fail to appreciate all that men do for them” is actually telling the truth. And feminist themselves have shown unequivocally that women have serious issues with power and control just like men. While fighting for equality, feminist have shown when they hold the advantage in any given situation over men, they refuse to make a single sacrifice to establish equality. And again, any therapist will confirm that the core issue in a turbulent marriage is power and control issues for the man AS WELL as the woman. And while the last statement may be true,“Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.”, it may also be false. To say this is a sexist remark in any situation implies that society is devoid of any hypersensitive people, in this case women, who may take a comment the wrong way. Empirical honesty will show this to be fatuous.
Anyway, I find it frustrating to see feminist pointing a finger at men’s and father’s rights activist for being untruthful and deceptive when historically they have shown they more skilled at it than any MRA I’ve met. But what brings a chuckle to my mind is the hidden beauty in their accusations. It is well known in the environment of debates that when your adversary resorts to attacking your character rather than your argument, it is a sign of failure, desperation, and defeat on their part.
I’ll just remind myself that their character assassinations are actually another victory for men and fathers.
Frequently Asked Questions: Ambivalent Sexism
Sexist attitudes about men?s sexual behavior: Development of a measure (page 13)
Domestic Violence Factoids by Richard Gelles
Contact:
soltys.joe@gmail.com