HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Top Conservative Author E...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:53 AM

Top Conservative Author Endorses ‘Benevolent Sexism’

Source: Think Progress

Charles Murray, a scholar at the leading conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, may be the most influential populizer of racist views in the country. His book The Bell Curve, which posits that black people are genetically less intelligent than whites, practically spawned an entire field of scholarship devoted to debunking it. His most recent book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 even made an appearance on the campaign trial during the recent presidential election.

Murray, however, appears to have set aside his retrograde views about race in order to tout equally backwards views about gender. In a short piece on AEI’s website, Murray recently suggested that “benevolent sexism” might be “healthy.” The only problem is that he appears not to have read the research on which he bases this extraordinary conclusion, which cited strong evidence that “benevolent sexism” was itself linked to discrimination against women and rape victims.

The paper in question, by Kathleen Connelly and Martin Heesacker, studies why “benevolent sexism,” understood as “an ostensibly flattering ideology that idealizes women who conform to feminine norms,” is so commonly accepted by men and women around the world. The authors find that “although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level” by giving men and women a sense of order and structure in their lives.

Though the authors see this as a concern, given that so-called benevolent sexism is net-destructive for women, but Murray believes this is knee-jerk liberal prejudice. “When social scientists discover something that increases life satisfaction for both sexes, shouldn’t they at least consider the possibility that they have come across something that is positive? Healthy” he asks rhetorically. “Something that might even conceivably be grounded in the nature of Homo sapiens?”


Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/01/1262431/top-conservative-author-endorses-benevolent-sexism/



From the same Conservative Thinker who used standardized test scores to argue that African Americans are genetically less intelligent than White people, comes a new theory that uses a similar approach to justify sexism toward women. I guess we can expect the House Republicans to roll out this research to explain why they only have one woman committee chair! Its "benevolent sexism!"

38 replies, 5935 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply Top Conservative Author Endorses ‘Benevolent Sexism’ (Original post)
TomCADem Dec 2012 OP
SheilaT Dec 2012 #1
mimi85 Dec 2012 #7
ashling Dec 2012 #9
randome Dec 2012 #29
Berlum Dec 2012 #13
chimpymustgo Dec 2012 #21
AAO Dec 2012 #35
Smilo Dec 2012 #2
Left Coast2020 Dec 2012 #3
vlyons Dec 2012 #19
luv_mykatz Dec 2012 #4
vlyons Dec 2012 #20
Deep13 Dec 2012 #5
SoapBox Dec 2012 #6
4saken Dec 2012 #8
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #10
freshwest Dec 2012 #15
Chemisse Dec 2012 #17
AAO Dec 2012 #36
jtuck004 Dec 2012 #11
Skittles Dec 2012 #12
blackspade Dec 2012 #14
Jack Rabbit Dec 2012 #16
Ken Burch Dec 2012 #18
AlbertCat Dec 2012 #30
ck4829 Dec 2012 #22
mulsh Dec 2012 #23
naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #24
bemildred Dec 2012 #31
SheilaT Dec 2012 #34
heaven05 Dec 2012 #25
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #26
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #27
Beartracks Dec 2012 #28
mike_c Dec 2012 #32
ElboRuum Dec 2012 #33
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #37
hrmjustin Dec 2012 #38

Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:04 AM

1. Benevolent sexism?

Just that phrase alone makes me know there's something wrong.

Although, it would be a useful term to apply to Robert Heinlein's attitude towards women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:51 AM

7. Sort of like

legitimate rape. Where do these tiny brain idiots come up with this stuff?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:15 AM

9. I know that there are a lot of different versions of this, but:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:38 AM

29. Still a good one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:08 AM

13. and, of course, 'benign neglect'

Further demonstrating that Republican 'values' emerge from the cesspool of human degeneracy.

What elitist, patronizing, shrunken-soul assclowns these peabrains are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:26 AM

21. Kinda like Murray's "benevolent racism." What a creep. He should be denounced and ostracized

for what he is: a racist, sexist knuckle dragger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:09 PM

35. Likely because it has the word "sexism" on it.

 

It's right there in the dictionary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:10 AM

2. Murray would be so happy living in Stepford.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:10 AM

3. They want us to think the calender says 1956...

...not 2012.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Left Coast2020 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:47 AM

19. more like 1856

at least the women in 1956 had the vote!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:19 AM

4. Sounds like the twin of....

'compassionate conservatism'.

Another oxymoron from the reality-challenged Fundy Fanatics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to luv_mykatz (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:50 AM

20. all compassionate conservatism ever did

was give the Christian fundies a white house office to pilfer tax dollars for their "charities." Ya know, like pseudo pray away the gay and anti-abortion counselling "clinics."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:23 AM

5. Run-of-the-mill DU poster endorses Murray going to 'fuck himself.' nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:49 AM

6. "In a short piece on AEI’s website..."

I think that says it all...on the AEI site.

Puke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:04 AM

8. Seems like he is trying to contrive authority behind the social expectations that he has developed..

If he has a certain preference in women, and the attributes that he perceives as "feminine" parallel the social norm, that doesn't mean he has any ground for expecting anyone else to fulfill that norm.

What makes up the concepts "feminine" and "masculine" is inductively learned, based on instances of observing others. Some of those observed behaviors may actually be derived from the gender, but others may be based on society/culture and the environment.

For example, just because he observes many women being as mentally submissive as possible, that doesn't mean it defines the gender, or that any particular woman should develop herself around that norm. Same goes for men who think they need to be aggressive to be men. That observation doesn't mean that complete submissiveness is pertaining to the gender("feminine"), and not a cultural exaggeration. That exaggeration certainly may have roots in a general physiological tendency towards being more submissive than men. But the degree observed in women, compared to the degree observed in men, can easily be the result of tendencies snowballing in both directions, through the culture over time. The observations we make can't control for cultural influences. The inability to control for cultural influences and environment is also a large crack in his Bell Curve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:26 AM

10. "by giving men and women a sense of order and structure in their lives..."

so it would benefit people at the "personal level". Assuming that what is most important is to have order and structure, regardless of the inherent flaws in that order and structure.

If the order and the structure are flawed, arbitrary, and not beneficial at the "structural level", as he says, then a better order and structure should be the goal. The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." What's wrong with working toward that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:44 AM

15. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:36 AM

17. There is plenty of order and structure in N Korea

That doesn't make it right or personally beneficial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:16 PM

36. Itr would be accurate if not so generalized

 

"by giving intellectually and morally weak men and women a sense of order and structure in their lives..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:41 AM

11. It's Condescending Assism. n/t



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:55 AM

12. I couldn't get past "...which posits that black people are genetically less intelligent than whites"

Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:34 AM - Edit history (1)

I mean, seriously, who gives a fuck what else someone like that has to say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:10 AM

14. What a fucking idiot.

The fact that he is not ridiculed into obscurity demonstrates that reporting has sunk to new lows.

I mean, really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:53 AM

16. I can just imagine the Republicans embracing this

And basing legislation on it. And wondering why they continue to be derided as misogynists and keep losing elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:42 AM

18. In response, women across the country endorse "Benevolent Kicking-Murray-In-The-Ballsism".



(but who could blame them if they did?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:02 PM

30. "Benevolent Kicking-Murray-In-The-Ballsism"

Talk about your "offering benefits at a personal level."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:26 AM

22. The election is over and the same ideology that brought us 'rapenade' is still going strong?

Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:12 AM

23. Think Tank denisens can hardly be considered "scholars"

it is more accurate to describe them as "unemployable blowhards". This especially applies to the American Enterprise Institute and the people it is providing day care services to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:13 AM

24. I met him once.

 

Got drunk with him. This was many years ago. He ordered a double whiskey with a beer chaser. Twice.

Anyway, he was an interesting man. He had been a liberal as a kid, and joined the peace corps. While in Northern Thailand, he lived in a village where the federal government had no reach. This is where he formed his anti-government views. His basic conclusion was "somehow this village gets along just fine without any government".

This was right before the Bell Curve came out. He said "After my next book comes out, you won't want to be seen in public with me".


Anyway, I thought at the time "Here's a decent Libertarian guy I can disagree with". It seems, however, that over the last 20 years he has turned into a mainstream Washington conservative on the corporate dime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:19 PM

31. "He ordered a double whiskey with a beer chaser. Twice."

I used to do that, a long time ago, two boilermakers, just to get "right", a quick hammerblow to the amygdala. The carbonation gets the alcohol into your blood fast. It's not what happy people do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:34 PM

34. What's especially interesting about this is that the vast majority of

Peace Corps volunteers wind up as permanent life-long liberals.

When I first moved to Santa Fe, I got a temp job in the office of a mobile home community. The other temp on the office on our very first day told me she'd been in the Peace Corps. I immediately knew she would be reliably a Democrat. This was in September, four years ago. Somewhat long story short, we bonded over that election and have remained good friends ever since. Last night we worked helping feed the homeless at our local homeless shelter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:39 AM

25. yeah

and that chair was forced on them and it's chair of the actual 'housecleaning' committee. Even that is a slap in the face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:16 AM

26. Yes ...

The authors find that “although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level” by giving men and women a sense of order and structure in their lives.


I certain that slavery offered my great Grand-father some benefits at the personal level by giving him a sense of order and structure, too ... Oh yeah, these guys have already made that argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:20 AM

27. They are doubling down on the stupid!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:34 AM

28. C'mon, the GOP is just trying to protect women from breaking a nail!!

That's not sexist!! Why can't everybody see that??



==============

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:33 PM

32. facepalm....

Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:09 PM

33. Oh, FFS.

Though the authors see this as a concern, given that so-called benevolent sexism is net-destructive for women, but Murray believes this is knee-jerk liberal prejudice. “When social scientists discover something that increases life satisfaction for both sexes, shouldn’t they at least consider the possibility that they have come across something that is positive? Healthy” he asks rhetorically. “Something that might even conceivably be grounded in the nature of Homo sapiens?”


Why is simply acknowledging the fact that this book is just retrograde justification of traditionalist, regressive gender attitudes always a "knee-jerk liberal prejudice"?

Oh, that's right, conservative is just a coded shorthand for "I am uncomfortable with the concept of respect for my fellow human beings".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:07 PM

37. Fuck you Murray

Keep your benevolent shit to yourself, you prick. Who the fuck do you think you are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:52 PM

38. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread