The first line from this Daily Mail UK story perfectly sums up all that is wrong with modern-day science.
“Women are more attracted to men who are sexist because they think they are more willing to protect them, provide for them and commit to a relationship, scientists say.”
The second line from this Daily Mail UK story perfectly sums up all that is wrong with modern-day feminism.
“Men who are considered to be sexist in a well-meaning way--for example if they are chivalrous or think women need a man to protect them--may be more attractive.”
All the lines from this Daily Mail UK story-- appearing next to an unrelated series of photos featuring female celebrities in various stages of undress-- perfectly sums up all that is wrong with modern-day journalism.
What’s This Study All About?
A couple of eggheads from Iowa named Pelin Gul and Tom Kupfer (they sound more like Ikea furniture than scientists) wanted to prove their theory (no doubt cooked up after a couple of bad Tinder dates) that “women find benevolent sexist (BS) men attractive, not because they are ignorant of the harmful effects, but despite women being aware of them.”
I’m guessing the working title of this thesis was “Bitches are crazy.”
So, they did what all hacky social scientists do-- they showed a bunch of women a bunch of photos and asked them a bunch of questions.
The majority of the women--even the ones who identified as feminists--found the “benevolent sexists” to be more attractive.
What’s Wrong With This Study?
Let’s start with the term “benevolent sexist.”
Identifying the men in this study as “benevolent sexists” shows a staggering bias not seen since the famous study “proving” vaccines cause autism.
And only women who scream at Trump through their vaginas would equate chivalry with “benevolent sexism.” To the rest of us, holding a door open for a woman--or a man--is called "good manners."
The study further concludes that such attractions are hard-wired in a woman’s brain, completely dismissing the notion that perhaps women are smart enough to know what’s good for them and their families. Talk about your BS!
From the article:
“In the study, women’s attraction to this willingness to invest is traced to a more basic hard-wired survival instinct, in which females choose mates in order to improve their children’s chance of survival. A male who is more likely to be protective or provide food for the family would improve the chance of offspring surviving, the study explains.”
Admittedly, some of our attraction to the male provider is subconscious, but there are also women out there who understand the importance of picking a mate who isn’t a total loser. Sadly, there are too many fatherless children who are born to women who didn’t find "benevolent sexism" particularly appealing. These women are often interviewed by Maury Povich.
Is There Hope for Society?
The saddest part of this study--and the news story--is how men are portrayed. Men who want to be nice to women, who want to protect women, who want treat women in a special way are labeled as BS--benevolent sexists.
And the men who treat women as complete equals--because feminism has taught them to do so--are losing out to the men who help a woman on with her coat.
It’s not fair to the men and it’s not fair to the women.
I was born in the 1960’s so I was raised in an era where wives weren’t always treated as equals by their husbands. I’m relieved I can be a modern wife who works and has independence and agency. I’m glad things have changed.
But that doesn’t mean everything needs to change.
I feel sad for subsequent generations who are taught that being nice to a woman makes you a well-meaning sexist. Or that choosing a partner based on how he or she will raise your children is a primal urge which, somehow, goes against your best interest.
Young men and women are being taught that romance is a competition--a competition in which both sides lose.