Hmm, almost like it's ironic. or something. So blatantly obviously ironic, in fact, that I begin to wonder whether they were aware of their own joke. Any by joke, I don't mean social science in general or anything.
"Benevolent" in this case is defining the category, not the morality of the sexism.
Indeed, sexism is inherently immoral, even when it is framed as benevolence.
What's immoral is to state things that exist differently than what they really are, as if you know.
The real problem is most people don't have the understanding (or, otherwise, safe conditions) to accurately state the differences, but they clearly exist. Otherwise none of us would be here.
If you describe the average woman whom you have interacted with as being more kind and nurturing, that's totally reasonable. You're just being descriptive.
If you prophesy that the average woman that exists will be more kind and nurturing, then you are making an assertion without enough data. There are plenty of women who don't fit that generalization.
If you proport that women in general are inherently better equipped to be in a nurturing role, then you are being prescriptive. That implies that women should be more nurturing, and that those who are more nurturing should be more feminine. That's sexism framed as benevolence.
There are OBVIOUS differences. Maybe they're not the differences you're cherry picking as a straw man. Oh well.
It's sexism in both ways, but there's an interesting difference in how to tackle them I think.
Raising a daughter myself, I'm sometimes lost: should I tell her so often she's cute, should I instead vindicate her physical strength, should she do karate or dancing or both ? It's hard to navigate when you know there's a problem, that you're probably part of it and you have a responsibility to try to fix it for your daughter.
For example, if I robbed a bank or stole money from my parents, the solution for those are very different, however they are still both theft.
A bit tangential, but I always dislike this new trendy phenomenon of assigning whether forms of discrimination are "voluntary" or not. I find that it misses the point, and is mostly irrelevant to the conversation. "Oh my manager is totally sexist but nobody else sees it because everyone's been conditioned by society". Just like that, I find that it's a slippery slope into explaining why one is always right or wrong.
Huh? "Asians are good at math" is still racial stereotyping, even if it's not negative.
>(equally "men are bad")
No, read the wiki again.
>mm, almost like it's ironic. or something. So blatantly obviously ironic,
mfw 4chan so irun.
They’re ‘failures’ or ‘disappointments’ in their circles despite just being a normal Canadian guy studying what they want, and having some beers and smokes. Meanwhile I’m cool, easygoing and edgy because as long as you aren’t fucking up your life completely, poor white people think you’re doing great.
positive != good
We have different words for a reason: the exact reason you are explaining.
> No, read the wiki again.
My point is that, still, they coined (therefore popularising) only one side (women good), and not the other (men bad).
> mfw 4chan so irun.
;)