Even Feminists Are Attracted To Chivalrous Men
Researchers Pelin Gül and Tom R. Kupfer looked at why women -- including those who are feminists -- are attracted to "benevolently sexist" men:
If a man offers to help a woman with her heavy suitcase or to parallel park her car, what should she make of the offer?Is it an innocuous act of courtesy? Or is it a sexist insult to her strength and competence?
Social psychologists who describe this behavior as "benevolent sexism" firmly favor the latter view.
But researchers have also revealed a paradox: Women prefer men who behave in ways that could be described as benevolently sexist over those who don't.
How could this be?
...According to studies, women who acquiesce to this behavior tend to become increasingly dependent on men for help. They're more willing to allow men to tell them what they can and can't do, are more ambivalent about thinking for themselves, are less ambitious and don't perform as well at work and on cognitive tests.
Given these documented downsides, why are women still attracted to this behavior?
The answer could lie in what evolutionary biologists call "parental investment theory."
Whereas men can successfully reproduce by providing a few sex cells, a woman's reproductive success must be tied to her ability to complete months of gestation and lactation.
During much of human history, a woman's ability to choose a mate who was able and willing to assist in this process - by providing food or protection from aggressors - would have increased her reproductive success.
Evolution, therefore, shaped female psychology to attend to - and prefer - mates whose characteristics and behaviors reveal the willingness to invest. A prospective mate's muscular physique (and, today, his big wallet) certainly indicate that he possesses this ability. But opening a car door or offering his coat are signs that he may have the desired disposition.
And their findings?
Our findings confirmed that women do perceive benevolently sexist men to be more patronizing and more likely to undermine their partners.But we also found that the women in our studies perceived these men as more attractive, despite the potential pitfalls.
And more:
We found that strong feminists rated men as more patronizing and undermining than traditional women did. But like the other women, they still found these men more attractive; the drawbacks were outweighed by the men's willingness to invest. It seems that even staunch feminists may prefer a chivalrous mate who picks up the check on a first date or walks closer to the curb on a sidewalk.In this time of fraught gender relations, our findings may provide reassurance for women who are confused about how to feel towards a man who acts chivalrous, and well-meaning men who wonder whether they should change their behavior towards women.
But several interesting questions remain. Does benevolent sexism always undermine women? It might depend on context. A male being overly helpful to a female co-worker in a patronizing way might hurt her ability to project professional competence. On the other hand, it's tough to see the harm in helping a woman move heavy furniture in the home.
I wrote a column on chivalry -- responding to a woman's question, the upshot of which was: "Is it really so much to ask for a guy I'm actually sleeping with to at least hold the door open for me?"
An excerpt from my answer, on the possibility that women's preference for chivalrous men comes out of a preference for men who act as "protectors":
What we still call "chivalry" got its formal start in medieval times. It was a knightly code entailing, among other things, courage, honor, and the defense of those more physically delicate -- as in, women and children (who were not exactly grabbing battle-axes, donning blue face paint, and going all Mel Gibson on the fields of Scotland).But chivalry actually traces back through millions of years of evolution. As developmental psychologist Joyce Benenson writes in "Warriors and Worriers," an excellent book on evolved sex differences, "Throughout most of human history, men and women have specialized in different behaviors necessary to ensure the survival of their children to adulthood." Men evolved to be warriors, physically and psychologically prepared to do battle in a way women are not. Most men have far more muscle mass and physical strength than women and far more of the hormone of aggression, testosterone. Even very young boys show a love (not shared by girls) of play fighting, of having an "enemy" to battle, and of weaponry -- to the point where Benenson finds it common for boys in preschool who lack toy guns to shoot "bullets" out of a doll's head.
In addition to women being physically weaker, research finds that they are more fearful than men -- from infancy on -- and rarely engage in physical fighting. This makes sense, Benenson points out, as physical injury would jeopardize a woman's ability to have children or to survive to protect the ones she's already had. So women evolved to prefer men who would protect them and their children -- a preference that is still with us today. (Our genes are clueless about the women's movement and the fact that a woman can defend herself just fine by using a pink Glock with a Hello Kitty slide cover plate.)
This is why it makes sense for men today to at least symbolically show they are protectors, like by putting their coat around a shivering woman's shoulders. (This implies that they'd tackle the valet guy or invade Cleveland for her if necessary.) The problem is that men sometimes get hollered at for door opening and such -- largely as a result of the bro-ification of women that comes out of feminism's biology-snubbing confusion of "equal" with "the same." So, before the first date, a man should ask a woman where she stands on this stuff. And you should let men know the sort of woman you are -- one who responds to a door being held for her by flipping her hair and saying thank you, not twirling her mustache and snarling, "Smash the patriarchy!"
via @PsychoSchmitt
I dunno, my girls like battles, they just tend to be more Elsa blasting her enemies with magic ice and less GI Joe, but fundamentally it isn’t that different. Fighting to defeat evil in whatever form is a pretty universal childish fantasy
Nicolek at September 20, 2018 8:17 AM
Damn wrong thread
Nicolek at September 20, 2018 8:18 AM
After 3 kids I can tell you that the "protecting" stuff is not obsolete. While my wife was pregnant and for months after childbirth, I went to work, did the usual guy stuff, but also did all the housework. This is quite a work burden but it was no big deal for a guy. How this can be turned around and called "oppression" simply baffles me. Feminism also encourages women to deny that they want kids, to ignore that part of their lives, but then as the clock ticks I have seen many "baby deniers" change their minds and have kids. Unreal beliefs about this will affect whether a woman views chivalry and a good or bad trait.
When we go out, in certain neighborhoods it is clear that my wife is safer since I am with her, she can tell and appreciates it. The idea that we live in a world where all danger is absent is simply false.
cc at September 20, 2018 8:33 AM
Yes, but let's be honest. Chivalry, in practice at least, often did not extend downward to those of lower social standing. A knight was not generally chivalrous to a peasant wench in the way he was to a Lord's daughter. Jus primae noctis did not apply to the women of the peerage.
In a modern update, remember the scene in Stagecoach where the prostitute was not extended the courtesy of a clean cup, but the officer's wife was? That was probably wise, in the sense that a prostitute is likely to carry diseases that an officer's wife is not, but the class-selectiveness of the gambler's chivalry was obvious.
Conan the Grammarian at September 20, 2018 9:52 AM
Open the door for her. Have her go first. Hold her chair. Let her order first – or ask her what she wants and order for her. Help her with her coat. Stand up from the table when she leaves or arrives. Take off your hat in her presence. Tip your hat and nod when you cross paths. Stand when she enters the room. Offer her your chair. Don’t sit when she is standing. Give her your coat or umbrella when it’s cold or raining. Walk her home. Walk her to her door (don't just drop her off) Compliment her. Be nice to her friends. Be nice to other people in her presence. Stick up for her. Escort her across the street. Carry heavy things for her. Don’t swear in her presence...
My parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles who taught me these chivalrous gestures when I was growing up didn’t know that we treat women that way to subjugate them because we view them as weak, delicate or incapable. They thought, and taught me, that we did those things for women and elders to show respect, and to esteem and honor them. Believe me, there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that my mother, grandmothers, sisters, aunts and girl cousins were perfectly capable of opening doors, putting on coats, getting chairs, crossing streets, carrying luggage, and cussing.
However, because women, children, grandmas and grandpas aren’t as strong as bullies and thugs, I and my male relatives and peers were taught that it was our duty to defend women, children and old people against physical aggression anywhere, anytime and against any odds. I’ve found, working with adolescents, that there is still a fair number of boys being brought up that way. And a lot of girls learning how to cuss.
Ken R at September 20, 2018 11:01 AM
Sexist men earn more - "Researchers at the University of Florida have found that men who believe the place for women is in the home, make substantially more money than men who think women are as welcome in the workforce as they are at the hearth"
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/story?id=5868121&page=1
Snoopy at September 20, 2018 11:21 AM
Sexist men are happier -
Research indicates that the endorsement of sexist ideology is linked to higher subjective wellbeing for both men and women.
https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-011-0017-2?state=cookieless
Snoopy at September 20, 2018 11:23 AM
Why would the men who do chivalrous deeds necessarily also be "sexist" in the sense of condescending or overbearing? I'm married to one who isn't, anyway. For instance, he insists that if ruffians were to attack us, I must allow him to lead the counter-attack and that I must try to get away. He also thinks the world of me and insists that I'm smarter and a better shot than he is. What more could a woman ask for?
RigelDog at September 20, 2018 11:53 AM
Conan,
"Chivalry" was, indeed, class-based. By the time the Legions had faded away, the heavy-mounted man was the decisive arm on the battlefield. Presuming they could choose the ground.
You needed horses, which meant a horse farm. And that meant money which meant land worked by peasants.
Which meant status, if only when a thuggish local warlord started to think well of himself and put a
"van", "von", "de", "di" in front of his name.
And in France, horse is "Cheval" and an honorific is "chevalier". In Spain, horse is "caballo" and an honorific is "caballero".
One strategy of warfare in those days was "ravaging" the enemy's land so there was no financial use left in it. Burn crops, kill peasants, drive off domestic animals or kill them, throw bodies down wells, rape women.
However, that is not how we see chivalry today.
But, for our gracious hostess, what do women think of a disinterested chivalrous man? I'm thinking first of a field project in a dicey area where, by accident of recruiting, I was the biggest and most physically capable guy. I tried to be polite and helpful and watchful wrt all the women when need was. But I had no designs on any of them, having a significant other at home. So, was that the equivalent of a pet rottweiler?
Richard Aubrey at September 20, 2018 12:14 PM
Genetic studies of our ancestors in Europe 6000 years ago, indicate that only one man reproduced for every seventeen women that did.
So, our female ancestors were a varied group of women, but are dads were all the same tiny group of bad ass alpha males.
Isab at September 20, 2018 2:10 PM
I was assured that the science was settled and this was unpossible!
I R A Darth Aggie at September 20, 2018 2:19 PM
Indeed, Richard, the root of "chivalry" is "cheval." - and "chivalry" derives from the Old French word for a body of mounted troops, "chevalerie."
The word, "cavalier" also owes it origins to the Medieval mounted knight, this one Italian.
By the late middle ages, chivalry had gradually evolved from a warrior ethos under Charlemagne to a code of conduct encompassing martial skills, religious piety, and courtly manners, all under the umbrella notions of honor and nobility.
And, to your point, Richard, modern chivalry has lost its martial component and its class distinction as mothers of all classes once taught their sons to be gentlemen and, at the very least, hold doors for women and carry their packages.
Modern chivalry probably reached its zenith with the sinking of the Titanic, where 72% of adult female passengers survived and only 16% of adult male passengers survived. The standard bearer of Titanic chivalry would be Benjamin Guggenheim who, along with his valet, spent the day helping women and children to board the lifeboats, then donned their evening wear to await their fate "like gentlemen."
Conan the Grammarian at September 20, 2018 2:45 PM
About expectations:
Across social media, I have seen countless women claim they are sick of being expected to be fit, pretty, intelligent, delicate and even clean, and they don't want to do that any more.
Spittle flies when I ask what they would think of a man who doesn't meet expectations.
Radwaste at September 20, 2018 3:54 PM
RigelDog "Why would the men who do chivalrous deeds necessarily also be "sexist" "
They define chivalrous behavior as sexist.
Joe J at September 20, 2018 4:38 PM
Conan, Yeah, I'd heard that about Guggenheim. I want to a Titanic display where I learned the water there was 28 Fahrenheit. They had a bowl of water for you to try. I don't think the guys lasted long.
In South Africa, during one of the wars there in the nineteenth century, a British officer was squiring a minor German prince around the country. They were attacked. The German was killed and the Brit escaped. After which he was cut by society. He escaped. Not the thing. Killed himself.
I do believe there is still a martial requirement of the gentleman. He's supposed to show up for the wars. Read a hypo: Carruthers, eldest son of an old military family, went to Eton thence up to Oxford where he read history until the Second World War, which he won.
Richard Aubrey at September 20, 2018 4:49 PM
Most of the rules of chivalry have to do with combat, so if a woman asks you to be chivalrous, challenge her to fight.
Patrick at September 20, 2018 4:57 PM
If you want to know more, but don't want a heavy read, I'd recommend two books by Walter Lord, A Night to Remember (1955) and The Night Lives On (1986), in that order.
The first book was pre-Ballard, so some of the suppositions in it were upended with the discovery of the wreckage, but the first-hand accounts from 63 actual survivors make it worth the price of admission.
The second book was written shortly after Ballard's discovery and updated the first with new facts - but was not a revision; you still need the first one for the narrative and timeline.
Lord served as a consultant to James Cameron for the film, Titanic. His books make a good starting point for would be Titanic scholars.
Conan the Grammarian at September 20, 2018 6:00 PM
And you should let men know the sort of woman you are -- one who responds to a door being held for her by flipping her hair and saying thank you, not twirling her mustache and snarling, "Smash the patriarchy!"
More importantly, men should ask this question so they don't waste their time and to apply some market pressure on a toxic ideology.
Feminists haven't earned Don Draper.
FIDO at September 21, 2018 4:56 AM
I used to think that chivalry was stupid. I could open my own doors rather than wait around for someone else to do it and I could hold the door open for men, especially those who are elderly or had their hands full; I saw it as basic courtesy.
Then I had kids. My husband continued to breeze through doors. I now had a diaper bag, purse, and child. I might have a preschooler too, holding his hand. Suddenly someone breezing through the door, perhaps hold it for a few seconds, then let it go was a big deal. The door would crash on us. I could wait for it to close, I could at least back up into it, and hold it open with my body rather than have it hit me or the children. My husband would then get annoyed at the hold-up. It was more difficult than being alone, especially when our preschooler would try to pull away from me and catch up with dad who, ahead of us, would be crossing the street. My son just had his eyes on dad, not the traffic.
When I was alone, he would stay with me, but togethe, he wanted to be with dad, like a man. Luckily, the boys were never hurt more than a bump or two from the door before I learned not to try to catch the door with my hands or arms but rather to turn my whole body when I have a babe in arms.
Now I say to look for a man that is chivalrous. You may not need it now, but if you have kids, you want a man that has proven to sacrifice himself for others.
Jen at September 21, 2018 5:06 AM
Per RadWaste's comment: feminism teaches that all expectations from men are sexist and all serving of men is oppression. The logical response is for women to resent housework, not want to cook, resent pressure to look nice or lose weight. But all the expectations for men are still in place.
cc at September 21, 2018 8:27 AM
Leave a comment