676,490 posts


755

https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/study-finds-heterosexual-women-prefer-benevolently-sexist-men

" It’s a minefield: Another new study presents evidence of what heterosexual women want. Still, the lead author of the study is a woman, Pelin Gul. (Her co-author is Tom R. Kupfer.) The study, recently published in Sage Journals, is called “Benevolent Sexism and Mate Preferences: Why Do Women Prefer Benevolent Men Despite Recognizing That They Can Be Undermining?” Previous studies suggest that this happens more often than you’d expect.

Benevolent sexism—or BS, amusingly enough—is an existing research term that refers to “an affectionate but patronizing attitude that treats women as needing men’s help, protection, and provision (i.e., as being more like children than adults).”

“We haven’t coined the term ‘benevolent sexism,’ previous researchers did,” Gul tells PsyPost. What she does see as her concern is finding out why a woman would prefer it in a potential partner to someone who truly sees her as his equal. “Previous studies have found that men’s benevolent sexism has many detrimental consequences on women (such as undermining their competence, restricting their freedom, confining them to the kitchen), yet research had also shown that women prefer benevolent sexist men and even find these men more attractive than non-benevolent sexist men.”

The goals of the study: The new study had two goals.

The frequent explanation for the attractiveness of BS is that the women who exhibit it are unaware of BS’s potentially insidious effects. This idea itself may strike one as sexist, as it suggests that the women are just too clueless to understand what’s going on. Gul and Kupfer wanted to see how well this “protection racket theory” held up. The study summarizes it as “claims that women embrace male BS attitudes for benefits such as protection, provision, and affection when they perceive themselves to be surrounded with men who hold HS attitudes.”

Second, the researchers had their own theory, built on evolutionary and sociocultural perspectives regarding female mate preferences: “It could be that women’s attraction to benevolent sexist men is because they perceive these men as willing to invest, which could even outweigh the downsides of benevolent sexism.”

This would align with the “parental investment hypothesis,” an evolution-based theory which asserts, according to the study, that, “sex differences in parental investment—typically months of gestation followed by energetically costly lactation for the female, compared with a few sex cells from the male—mean that females will be the more selective sex.” Therefore, “females who select mates who are able and willing to provide these resources leave more descendants than less selective females.”

Study method The study was constructed to assess the accuracy of three predictions:

“Women should perceive a male romantic partner who holds BS attitudes and displays BS behaviors as more attractive than one who does not.” “Greater attraction should be explained by the man’s willingness to protect, provide, and commit (conceptualized as components of willingness to invest).” “A BS man will be rated as especially attractive when described as a potential romantic partner compared with a work colleague because the latter should not activate mating motivations to the same extent.” To do this, 782 female subjects of varying ages from about 17 to 50, were questioned in five separate experiments, labeled 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, and 3, each optimized to measure some aspect of these hypotheses.

Results of the five tests Studies 1a and 1b verified that women found a man with BS attitudes more attractive than one who was more egalitarian, in both romantic and work contexts. It also demonstrated the women were well aware that these men were being patronizing and undermining, but were nonetheless attracted. Studies 2a and 2b removed the work context from questioning and found the effects of 1a and 1b still held.

In all four of these tests, subjects were also assessed as being “high” or “low” feminists—BS attractiveness remains for both types of women. It didn’t seem to be much of a factor.

benevolent sexism

"A" shows the minor effect a woman’s degree of feminism seems to have on BS attractiveness for "low" feminists. "B" shows how it affects "high" feminists. (Credit: Gul, et al) Study 3 was about testing the protection racket theory. After asking subjects to imagine themselves in an environment full of HS attitudes, the researchers found no effect on how attracted the women were to BS males. The results say the study, “ruled out the protection racket hypothesis as an alternative explanation by showing that the degree of male HS that women perceived in their environment did not predict attractiveness of the romantic partner with BS attitudes.”

Study conclusions Gul and Kupfer feel that the mechanisms behind mate selection for heterosexual females are important to understanding since previous research “suggests that women who perceive themselves as having a kind and committed partners have higher marital and sexual satisfaction.” The more controversial takeaway is that “it might not always be desirable to discourage women from preferring mates with benevolent [as opposed to egalitarian] gender attitudes if these are beneficial for well-being."

This isn’t the end of the story, of course, since as Gul says, “There is a lot that still needs to be addressed. For instance, do women differentiate between male behavior that is genuinely benevolent and that which is intended to patronize and undermine them? If women can tell the difference, then how do they react? Do they have ways to defend themselves against it? Women say they prefer benevolent men, but it would be interesting to see if women who do have benevolent mates have greater relationship satisfaction.”

As the study says, “A more nuanced understanding of male benevolence and female mate preferences could help to identify means to decrease the negative effects of BS while helping women (and men) understand how to have fulfilling relationships that enhance well-being."


[–]MorbidMoonlight 1 points [recovered]  (11 children) | Copy

It's interesting that they resist seeing the obvious. People don't want equality if they can have more. Benevolent sexism in a partner means he'll handle your problems on top of his own, showing competence. It's amusing that they're actually shocked that women prefer being given special treatment by their partner, rather than being expected to pull their own weight.

    [–]DeontologicalSanders45 points46 points  (5 children) | Copy

    You ever have that moment where a woman you're dating is telling you about her problems, and you respond by offering her an actionable solution, and she ends up getting mad? Why? You were just trying to help.

    It's because she doesn't want to solve her own problems. She wants you to listen to her bitch cathartically about them until you get sick of hearing about them and solve them yourself. She will never ask you directly to solve them, because that would involve accountability; you could end up calling her out for trying to order you around.

    If you're a woman, it's logical; the most sensible and riskless way to make your life better. The problem is, if you're a man, it's fucking obnoxious.

    [–]MorbidMoonlight 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy

    True, it's common enough to have become a stereotype. You can be told that she doesn't want you to fix it, but you're going to hear about it until it, uh, fixes itself somehow. It does make sense, if you didn't ask for help then it's altruism/interference for someone else to do it, not someone doing you a favour and you feeling obligation to them in return.

      [–]DeontologicalSanders4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

      Never thought about the reciprocity aspect of it; good point.

      [–]p3n1x2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

      This comment should be a whole other post.

      [–]morexel2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

      There's a book called men are from Mars and women are from venus. Like thirty years old and basically had all this figured out in detail.

      [–]yomo862 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

      Solution? Get mad first. Mad like in daddy is not pleased with un-accountability. She will, to proof she is a good girl, try to solve her problem. Bonus point: Whatever emotional potential released be it good or bad will be connected to you, absolving you from betahood - you are the one who give her tingles, emotions, bad and good feelings.

      [–]ntvirtue2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

      Not interesting at all.....women don't like the truth that most of them are whores.

      [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

      Just dont talk about them being whores, its useless to talk about. They are actually whores so just use them as such. You dont have to complain about it,just reap the benefits.

      [–]ntvirtue2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

      I don't give a shit that most of them are whores.....I am just pointing out that women in general will never admit this.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

      There are no benefits for men who are not in the top 1 percent.

      [–]1cappadocianhawk180 points181 points  (3 children) | Copy

      A plate I've been doing once a month for almost a year now told me I didn't understand female nature at all.

      "Your mum disagrees with that statement" I told her.

      Then we fucked.

      Treat them like the teenagers they are and you will get results. Now where did I read this before? Oh right. The sidebar.

      [–]MarcosDomingues56 points57 points  (2 children) | Copy

      "You don't know how to treat women right"

      says this while stroking your dick

      [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

      "I know, i treat them so,so badly. Every day. I wake up,and my mission is to treat women badly. Somebody help me!"

      [–]Ballosaurus 1 points [recovered]  (18 children) | Copy

      I think Freud was onto this first: The first man she ever loves is her dad (or not), either way she craves that father-daughter relationship.

      Talking to her like a child just brings those feelings out.

        [–]maracusdesu53 points54 points  (16 children) | Copy

        It's funny because last year when I got enough of my ex's shit attitude I slowed down, started talking to her like a child and had to go back and reassure her that everything was fine and that she needed to calm down and listen to me, because she wasn't making any sense.

        I never was one for dumbing things down, but holy shit it worked like a charm. Whatever her arguement was to keep fighting I dismantled her again and again by being rational.

        [–]MuteCook 1 points [recovered]  (11 children) | Copy

        Hottest sex I ever had was when a plate who was a self described feminist. I'll give it to her she had a great career and was mostly pretty chill. One day she tried to start an argument and I replied half playful half serious "shut the fuck up" and turned up my car radio ignoring her for the 30 minutes to get home while listening to sexist rap music. I was nervous that it was the end but would rather not listen to whining, bitching, and trying to argue. We got home and she practically ripped my clothes off.

          [–]maracusdesu0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy

          If I did that to a girl here I would get an, "excuse me?!" followed by hell. That shit would definately not fly.

          I don't see how that can lead to a positive outcome.

          [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy

          You havent lifted enough, probably. Girls dont really treat jacked dudes the same way they treat skinny dudes. Theres tons of reasons why you can have the same outcome he did. Just do the research and put in the effort.

          [–]saibot8311 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

          Worked with a tumblerina of epic proportions. Selfcutter, new obnoxious hair color each week, piercings, vegan, extreme leftist to the core. At the same workplace worked a jacked Taylor Lautner lookin motherfucker. Whenever I (a very non jacked skinny dude) spoke about women she'd always try to check me on it (don't say this, don't say that, that's offensive, etc, etc...). When he did exactly the same, she never said shit. Just twirled her hair and made goo goo eyes at him. Women are full of shit. Act accordingly.

          [–]AnAbsoluteSith4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

          Not OP but the answer here is SMV. The other commenter responding to you is missing the bigger picture with his "lifting" response. Lifting is just one piece of the puzzle. What /u/MuteCook is describing is completely possible. I literally do the same shit with women who are lawyers/doctors/occupational therapists/whatever metric you want to use for a "high status" woman. They're all children. They just require the right man they can be children with. Want to be that man? Build your SMV: lift more, read a lot more, socialise more, get hobbies and a life. It's something you need to experience to believe, but you can get there if you're willing.

          [–]maracusdesu1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

          That ain't me, but I appreciate your response.

          [–]p3n1x1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

          That shit would definately not fly.

          Cuz you are a pussy. Learn to walk away from attitudes you don't like. No need to be agreeable because you believe in the koolaid you are drinking.

          [–]maracusdesu-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy

          No, it means that the other person doesn't tolerate being shit on, which is an attitude I value in a person.

          [–]RodzillaPT2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

          > which is an attitude I value in a person.

          then what makes you think she thinks otherwise? letting her shit on you sounds like a great way to lose value in face of a woman.

          [–]maracusdesu0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

          I forgot the part where she was being a bitch to begin with when I wrote that. Disregard.

          [–]p3n1x4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy

          but holy shit it worked like a charm.

          Only for the moment. This is some BullCheese men tell themselves to think they did something strong. She just changed her tactic and you kept telling stories.

          That shit isn't over, it is part of the cycle now. Have fun with that miserable personality type in the future.

          Ex

          This is the moral of your story.

          [–]maracusdesu0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

          Nope, she's a drama slug who needs to be the victim. When I realized the trap I was in I immidiately changed gears and that's what got me out of that hell. I learned a lot.

          I don't know what you're trying to say.

          [–]p3n1x0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

          started talking to her like a child and had to go back and reassure her that everything was fine and that she needed to calm down and listen to me

          Don't even engage. Simply next.

          [–]maracusdesu0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

          You don't really do like that in a relationship. But I digress, it's in the past and like I said, I learned a lot.

          [–]ShadyMahFuggah60 points61 points  (7 children) | Copy

          The frequent explanation for the attractiveness of BS is that the women who exhibit it are unaware of BS’s potentially insidious effects. This idea itself may strike one as sexist, as it suggests that the women are just too clueless to understand what’s going on.

          It's like peering straight into the mind of women as a collective...

          [–]LukesLikeIt15 points16 points  (6 children) | Copy

          BS’s potentially insidious effects

          But it’s what THEY want... why do they fight so hard to take ownership to any “fault”. They’re the ones that have a problem with it in the first place.

          [–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (4 children) | Copy

          Same reason that Women love Sex more than Men, are into a lot more kinky shit that the average Man.

          (You can say "How do I know this"... Well, Ann Summers, Victoria Secrets, and the massive amount of female "toys", and the fact that 90% of Womens magazines are about appearance + sex, whilst 90% of blokes Magazines are about hobbies/sports/etc.)

          But, it's all subtext with Women. Yes, they are super sluts, but it's about APPEARING not to be yet pushing right up against the edge, as other Women would claw their eyes out. (Men don't give a shit about Women being sluts, and Women don't give a shit about Men calling them sluts. It's Women vs Women)

          [–]_BITCHES_LOVE_ME_21 points22 points  (0 children) | Copy

          Men don't give a shit about Women being sluts

          This isn't really true. We don't shame them for it but we don't commit to them either. We like fucking them and throwing them away.

          We certainly pass judgement on them, because we treat them differently than the girls we perceive to be innocent. If nothing else simply because of the shame and social stigma that comes with dating a slut.

          Sluts have a purpose, but it's not the purpose that most women want to have. They want to be fucked but moreso they want commitment.

          [–]Aestheticcunt19966 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy

          ... while 90% of men are addicted to porn

          [–]WolfofAnarchy5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

          If you're reading this, stop watching porn, it's degenerate.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

          Meanwhile 90% of women are addicted to porn...

          [–]TRP VanguardHumanSockPuppet5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

          When you're to blame, people get mad at you.

          When people are mad at you, it's harder to persuade them to do what you want.

          If your entire survival strategy hinges on persuading people to do things for you, then...

          [–]Demiurge_Decline44 points45 points  (2 children) | Copy

          Took me longer than Id like to admit that women are basically grown teenagers. A few mature to 23 years old if they are lucky. Think of a teenager - TV, reality shows, fashion, - gossip and testing boundaries. Doing dumb shit and not taking responsibility. Behaving the opposite of what they will ask of you. Not understanding their hormones or actions. Teenagers fight and ball bust all the while need social validationWomen like to spend, but not make money. Your money is theirs but their money is theirs. Women hate working for women and women "friends" are more like frenemies. Once you look at it, you realize that society pushes this bold face lie that women are more mature then men. Yes, at 14 years old. You basically have to raise them after their dad and it will be rough. But without a good dad, its going to be some Hell involved. You raise them or their are raising your blood pressure. Men have to carve themselves from Males and girls just have to dress themselves up as women.

          [–]AceofRains0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yJY4gIqrPhU#

          Was listening to this song today at work, and it hit me.

          1985 by Bowling for Soup

          [–]psycho_sid181 points182 points  (27 children) | Copy

          LoL, this is hilarious, this is what feminists are, but replace men with government:

          Benevolent sexism—or BS, amusingly enough—is an existing research term that refers to “an affectionate but patronizing attitude that treats women as needing government's help, protection, and provision (i.e., as being more like children than adults).”

          More scholarships for women

          Affirmative action hiring

          Government loans for women in business

          No draft for women to vote

          Family court bias towards women, and they want more... an Aussie blogger suggested a curfew for men only, how about the onus on the accused when it comes to sexual offenses... wow. Feminists are BS. I love it.

          [–]BurningOrangeHeaven36 points37 points  (25 children) | Copy

          Wait they even get fuckin special loans!?

          It feels like things are only getting worse

          [–][deleted] 51 points52 points  (22 children) | Copy

          Some feminist organisation recently submitted a proposal for universal income...for women only, ie every woman between 18 and 100 gets $30,000 a year from the state whether they choose to work or not, tax free. Men don't get anything ha ha

          https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/01/the-feminist-case-for-universal-basic-income.html

          https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/domestic-violence-abuse-bill-theresa-may-financial-independence-a8260736.html

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3W26CyqQV8

          [–]rorrr66 points67 points  (8 children) | Copy

          Well, I identify as a woman then.

          [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (5 children) | Copy

          It is interesting how they are banning males who identify as women from competitions isn't it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

          [–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (3 children) | Copy

          It’s not interesting. Transgenders shouldn’t be able to compete in the sports of the opposite gender just because they identify as that gender.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

          But when a female transgender converts or identifies as male, suddenly it is "empowering". When a male transgender converts or identifies as female, the same people say it is wrong. That is what is interesting. And why shouldn't they? If you identify as a woman you should be able to compete in a womans sport.

          [–]paprikk6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

          There's a huge difference between transgenderism being empowering vs a transgender competing in their new category.

          And why shouldn't they? If you identify as a woman you should be able to compete in a womans sport.

          Biological differences. Unfair advantage.

          [–]expansion1018 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

          I believe the point of u/imnothingness comment is being missed: it's hypocritical and thus should be disregarded.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

          Not interesting. Sad, decrepid and incredibly obtuse. The only option we have is to force women back into hijabs like the muslims do. It is what women want, its what theyre begging for. And we need it to,for our safety and our sanity.

          [–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (4 children) | Copy

          basically just formalising beta bucks at this point

          [–]Skuggasveinn11 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy

          Yes we are all going to be mandatory beta bucks soon enough. Worker bees for the queen(s). Pay up or die.

          [–]dinnerwithfunions0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

          That’s why’s you should be saving for a get outta dodge fund to emigrate to a different country.

          [–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

          What country would that be exactly? Find me one worth living in that isn't headed the same way or already worse?

          [–]dinnerwithfunions1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

          Singapore is very free as long as you’re not into drugs.

          [–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (0 children) | Copy

          They used to have universal basic income for women. It was called marriage. You get married and your husband takes care of you. The female brain is evolved to extract, not to produce. Any society that lets them vote has just pushed the start button on a countdown that leads to its own destruction.

          [–]econquest15 points16 points  (4 children) | Copy

          your links totally don't say what you just said.

          Where does it say "for women only"? I think that you misunderstand it! Your links are saying UBI would be great for women. (That's the group they focus on.)

          It would be like if I said UBI would be great for people who are wheelchair-bound. That doesn't mean I'm arguing it should just go to them. Or if I said stricter emissions standards would be great for people for asthma. Not the way you thought they mean it.

          that's the whole point of "universal" - everyone gets it.

          In the links you included, everyone knows what UBI means so they don't need to redefine it, and none of your links say that only women should get it. they just talk about the benefits for women.

          sorry.

          [–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (3 children) | Copy

          I was reading in between the lines... they say UBI will get rid of gender inequality, so if males and females recieve the same amount of money, in their eyes, there will still be inequality. Because in their eyes men get everything and women get nothing. Jobs, pay, etc.

          However if men got $0 from the government and women get $30k and man goes to work and makes $30k...equality in their eyes.

          [–]econquest8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

          bro you said "Some feminist organisation recently submitted a proposal for universal income...for women only" and then you gave 3 links to back that statement none of which say that.

          Maybe it's true that some feminist organisation did submit a proposal for universal income for women only - if so I'd like a link to it. if not, then your summary stating so goes a bit too far, sorry.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

          [–]econquest1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

          thanks so much for these links, ahhh there's the stuff :D

          This is what I expected from your original 3 links but then felt tricked because your first 3 links didn't say this. (However, still I think your compassiononline link doesn't fit with the others because it is about UBI for everyone, not just for women.)

          So you did give me the links for people who are advocating it just for woman. But I don't think any of these would ever get any amount of traction. :) I mean can you imagine it being introduced in the United States?

          thanks for the links though. shocking.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

          Oh fuck.. that would be a fucking nightmare. Truly. A true,living nightmare

          [–]1chuckrutledge6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

          Oh boy, wait till you find out about the special deals and contracts that only "Women Owned Small Businesses" can get.

          [–]psycho_sid0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

          yes, there are many, but heres one close to home.

          http://www.women.gov.on.ca/owd/english/economic/entrepreneurs.shtml

          [–]iamnotfromtexas90 1 points [recovered]  (16 children) | Copy

          I love studies on nothing.

          Yes, women like alpha winners no matter what their grey matter brain tells them. Their cave woman is in charge.

          In other news, water is wet, fire is hot, and women don't want to fuck a pussy. They already have one. They rare want another.

            [–]HootsTheOwl178 points179 points  (4 children) | Copy

            Nothing is new. It's just articulated differently.

            "Give us safe spaces" is "give us Safety"

            "Teach men not to rape" is "protect us"

            "All bodies are beautiful"... "Revere us"

            "Flirting is sexual assault" is "Only attractive men need apply"

            [–]Avertus36 points37 points  (1 child) | Copy

            This is called doublethink

            [–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

            Totalitarianism and socialism are shrewish female nagging and micromanaging writ large. Monarchy and certain forms of democracy are masculine and thus anathema to the doublethinkers.

            [–]pct9211 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

            This is gold, too. Hahaha y'all made my night

            [–]GOODLORD10014 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

            I never thought of it like that. Spot on.

            [–]unclecrumble49 points50 points  (2 children) | Copy

            This. Feminists can’t fight the hamster no matter how hard they try

            [–]Neutral_User_Name1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

            They should make t-shirts out of that quote!

            [–]1scissor_me_timbers0022 points23 points  (3 children) | Copy

            Yeah I love when science! proves some obvious shit our grandparents took as common sense.

            [–]I_BET_UR_MAD13 points14 points  (2 children) | Copy

            You realize one of the most important features of science is repeatability, right? Testing previously held hypothesis is a good thing.

            Plus it's convenient to cite at people

            [–]1scissor_me_timbers005 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

            I’m not against the actual studies being done. I’m more just laughing at the way media often runs headlines about how “science is showing that [insert obvious piece of wisdom]”!

            [–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy

            You think the people you'll be citing that to actually care about facts!
            That's funny.

            [–]Bing_Bang_Bam2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

            I dunno, where I'm from the women around here want pussy quite frequently.

            [–]pct92-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

            This is gold. Got me rollin hahaha

            [–]nangin15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy

            Always knew this. This is why I doesnt care about feminist bullshit.

            Even Feminists wanna sleep with manly man.

            [–]subwayjack15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy

            I truly think that feminism is an unconscious attempt at sexual strategy to weed out the weak men and they have no clue they're doing it.

            [–]PMmewikedguitarlicks27 points28 points  (0 children) | Copy

            That why women love me. I’m full of BS!

            [–]2Overkillengine55 points56 points  (15 children) | Copy

            This article is all ego protection and plausible denial.

            Because admitting women want men and not supplicating doormats also means tacitly admitting a whole lot of less flattering things as well. Like for example, feminism demonstrably not giving a shit about women's long term happiness so long as its leaders get to grab more power.

            [–]wisty 1 points [recovered]  (14 children) | Copy

            No, you're mixing up HS (hostile sexism) and BS (benevolent sexism).

            Women do actually rate nice guys quite well in terms of attractiveness. They just don't sleep with them. "Yeah, he'd be a great catch for some other woman, but I'm just looking for Mr. Right Now".

              [–]LukesLikeIt29 points30 points  (2 children) | Copy

              The problem is the type of men women want to conceive a baby with is different to the type of man they want to raise a baby with.

              [–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (0 children) | Copy

              It depends really. More often I’ve noticed they rather want to find a man that has both qualities, in my country most children are the parents biologically and not a betabux situation

              [–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (5 children) | Copy

              Men will happily sleep with most Women who will let them. I've yet to find a Man who won't sleep with an attractive Women because they want a "bad girl". That's just absolute crap right there.. ha ha ha. I think someone was trying to let you down gently, hun, and you've gone with that idea as universal.

              [–]Thaweed4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy

              I totally see his point.

              What would you prefer? a hot bad girl aka freak in bed or some cute shy starfish.

              [–]_BITCHES_LOVE_ME_15 points16 points  (1 child) | Copy

              Obviously the answer is both. Your argument rests on the assumption that we have to choose one of the two, while this is not typically the case.

              Obviously we're not gonna commit to either one, because bad girls are unstable and starfishes are just boring as hell. You want a cute shy girl who is a freak. That means that you can, and probably should, just fuck both.

              [–]askmrcia4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

              Either or. The cute starfish girl can learn after a few rounds.

              [–]DouglasPR3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

              is 3some an option here? ticks all boxes!

              [–]daffy_duck23317 points18 points  (2 children) | Copy

              Women do actually rate nice guys quite well in terms of attractiveness.

              They did it because of social desirability bias inherent in the questionnaires they are filling in. Most women are more agreeable and so tend to be political when what they disclose might be scrutinized by the public.

              [–]I_BET_UR_MAD25 points26 points  (1 child) | Copy

              Exactly. It's like short hair on girls. Guys will talk about how they think it's cute, looks great, etc. but in the end if it doesn't actually get your dick hard all that talk is meaningless.

              [–]Skuggasveinn5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

              This analogy is made out of pure gold.

              [–]2Overkillengine29 points30 points  (0 children) | Copy

              No, you're mixing up HS (hostile sexism) and BS (benevolent sexism).

              I'm not mixing up a damn thing. The point I was making was that women will post hoc rationalize the hostility or benevolence of sexism (or any action really) based upon how attractive they find the man committing it, (see: Halo Effect) regardless of the ego sating label one slaps on it. Or to rephrase it so that hopefully you can parse it better, women will make all sorts of excuses for a man's behavior if he is hot enough, but god help you if you do the same exact thing while being unattractive (being a doormat is unattractive). That entire article was an extended exercise in studiously not admitting that, since admitting women can do something like that means admitting women are not perfect, And That Is Not Allowed, Mister!

              Because a woman's choices must always be a man's fault.


              Edit: and since you tried to shoehorn a But Men Do It Too into this (which is not a rebuttal of my point); men are also vulnerable to the Halo Effect, but that is more or less openly admitted in society and you can point it out in mixed company with little to no risk of being Unpersoned.

              But just try pointing out women's vulnerability to that effect and see what you get.

              [–]dinnerwithfunions0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

              Guilty as charged. I love to bang sluts but I’d never marry one.

              [–]Redpillandrew9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

              Makes sense: "benevolently sexist" goes hand in hand with amused mastery. "Oh, look at you, you strong indipendent wymin!" slaps ass

              [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

              The article does a terrible job of defining benevolent sexism. Below is the article benevolent sexism originally appeared in. read the abstract, then read the last page. Items marked with B are Benevolent Sexism items. They are bluepilled as fuck.

              http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.9865&rep=rep1&type=pdf

              [–]MrDapper46910 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

              So they've invented a new term for charisma?

              [–][deleted] 47 points48 points  (1 child) | Copy

              Have a plate, HB7, Asian feminist. First dinner I get hounded with shit tests regarding my thoughts on refugees, the metoo movement, classical vs neo liberal feminism.

              I interrupt her telling me about white privileged to tell her "all that shit is super boring, it doesn't help me and I think its weird when people care about this crap".

              Shes been a plate for around 8 months now, still comes at me with this crap, still sucks my cock when ever I feel like giving her attention.

              [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

              Haha I do the “benevolent sexist” thing to women all the time. They feign outrage as their panties start getting moist.

              “Hehehe stop!”

              “Omg I can’t believe you said that hehehe.”

              Also I love how the article begins with the premise that this is bad. They don’t even bother to explain why. How scientific.

              [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

              Are you sure about this? The article does a terrible job of describing what Benevolent Sexism is. Below is the article that developed the sexism scales. Check the abstract, then jump to the last page. Items marked with B are Benevolent sexism items. It sounds Beta and Blue Pilled as fuck.

              http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.9865&rep=rep1&type=pdf

              [–]finclover917 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

              Great post, more proof that having confidence and solid frame are attractive features. Women's logic brain might not like it, but their instincts don't lie. Same as for guys, we see a HB9 that screams trouble and we still want to bone her. We act on emotions much more than logic, which is why marketing works.

              [–]JDRoedell8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

              Feminism... the biggest shit test man has ever been dealt. Watch what they do, not what they say.

              [–]WholesomeAwesome[🍰] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

              > his “protection racket theory”

              lol at that frame

              [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

              This study has so much hamstering and so many carefully-constructed assumptions and lies underpinning it that its conclusions (even those we agree with) are inherently flawed. You can't build a castle on quicksand.

              [–]jonpe872 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

              I think they prefer bad sexism, but your counciousness will not let you say that, much of our behavior is unconscious and not filtered by consciousness... but consciousness can deny it for self reputation.

              It's like our sexual behaviour occur in a primeval level in our brain, I see it like it's nature itself choosing, and not this self that comes later as self consciousness.

              When you for example swap profiles on tinder you can see that scanning happening, you dont know nothing about the girl but you know if you can fuck her or not. Nature in us chooses hot bodies, nature in women chooses dominant behavior/hierarchical dominance. This for sexual behavior. I didn't read the study, but seems like it show more of the preferences for providers not sexual partners.

              But BS can catch great results in an environment where real alphas almost don't exist anymore

              [–]Shoregrey 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy

              Add in negs and it works a charm. Do it without the negging and she'll cock-hop or is more likely to more quickly, at least.

              Occasionally fix her shit and then berate her for it. Tell her she's being a weakling and say "I thought I (dated, married etc) an adult?

              Other times either ignore it or tell her to grow the fuck up, man the fuck up and handle her shit.

                [–]SandtheB2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

                Feminists at the end of the day, are still women, women with a personality disorder, but still women.

                [–]111Dx2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

                Really good study. Though I feel caring and investing too much is a billy beta behaviour. What should be taken away from this article is our basic rule: Treat women like children.

                [–]LogicalCreations24061 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

                Its almost as if people like to feel special...

                [–]juju5156 points7 points  (21 children) | Copy

                “Greater attraction should be explained by the man’s willingness to protect, provide, and commit (conceptualized as components of willingness to invest).”

                • so benevolent sexism = beta sexism

                • and "bad" sexism = alfa sexism

                am I reading this right ?

                [–]sea-bear21 points22 points  (3 children) | Copy

                so benevolent sexism = beta sexism

                no, alpha = benevolent sexism, which they define as “an affectionate but patronizing attitude that treats women as needing men’s help, protection, and provision (i.e., as being more like children than adults).”

                then they mention an egalitarian approach which is beta, which women find less attractive

                [–]juju5150 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

                nah dude... I really think you are reading this wrong...

                I just think they set up the study/questions in a way that was addressing the "beta bucks" side of female sexual strategy...

                hence the "beta is attractive" result... and "bad provides" is unattractive...

                [–]sea-bear0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

                Oh you're right! The article really is about glorifying beta bucks.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

                I think you are simply wrong. Consider what some of Benevolent Sexism's items are:

                "Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess.""A good woman should be put on a pedestal by her man.""Men should be willing to sacrifice their own financial well being in order to provide for the women in their lives."

                None of these have anything to do with being in control and pretending your woman has control. These are about being beta and blue pilled. Women are pure little doves (No, Hypergamy). Women should be put on a pedestal (No, don't get oneitis. She isn't that important.). Sacrifice your well being for your woman's purse (BB/AF).

                Being a benevolent sexist is about being bluepilled, it is really that simple.

                http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.9865&rep=rep1&type=pdf

                Basically, Benevolent Sexism is Blue Pilled. Hostile Sexism is Black Pilled.

                [–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (1 child) | Copy

                I think these kinda articles or studies are toned-down versions of reality that's why they call it "benevolent sexism".

                [–]Bc_Land13 points14 points  (5 children) | Copy

                That what I read. As long as the benevolent sexist puts her on a pedestal and caters to her, she can overlook the obvious patronizing and undermining behaviour.

                [–]stalient13 points14 points  (3 children) | Copy

                Exactly, no one else here even read the study at all. They jumped to the conclusion that women want alpha guys who don't cater to her, while the women in this study overwhelmingly liked being placed on a pedestal and rated those type of men as more attractive. They like patronizing behavior that includes the guy paying for dates, not necessarily the strict TPR definition of it. This really shows how poorly people are receiving and interpreting new information and data.

                [–]Bc_Land0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

                And that is the problem with the study. If the woman overlooks obviously flawed behaviour so that she can maintain her pedestal, it is already an unhealthy relationship. She will eventually lose respect for the man who is basically supplicating himself to her. Usually, the beta male does this in hopes that she will reward him with sex (a equally flawed and unhealthy relationship trait). And yet nothing dries the vagina faster than the lack of respect that she now feels. And so she looks to the alpha male for masculine qualities that she can actually respect.

                This whole report seems more like a feminist attempt to validate the emasculating qualities they would like men to adopt. If women are truly empowered, they will have no problem with an empowered man. If man has to become dis-empowered for her to feel powerful, she was never really empowered to begin with.

                In my experience, the women who are as described in the report are like that because (A) she was raised to believe that she is princesses and deserve special treatment because she exist (B) she been treated this way by those sex starved beta males mentioned so often on these subs (C) she have no merit based value other than the pussy between her legs and deludes herself that a man putting her on a pedestal is a display of her intrinsic value because of said pussy. Like she is the only one out there with female genitals.

                The sad thing is that beta males sell themselves out for the sex that they never get while adding no real value to her. Many times she will look to the alpha because there is no challenge to find or improve her own actual value when her BM is desperately throwing false value at her. That is diminishing to both of them and sadly, she will realized that on some level and act on it while her BM will be clueless as to why she ever cheated on him.

                [–]SelfUnmadeMan0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

                I think you are the one with the poor interpretation (if you even read the article at all.) "Beta" behavior is not patronizing... it's accomodating.

                In this study, women were shown to be attracted to the men who patronize them, treating them like lost children. This is an "Alpha" behavior.

                [–]Bc_Land0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

                That's their words. When reading a report by a woman on what women find attractive, you can't listen to the words. How many times do you see that here - Don't listen to her words, watch what she does?

                Read the article and pay attention to the information and the intent behind it, not the words being used. The words tell a story but the message is subversive.

                And how is putting a woman on a pedestal not being accomodating?

                [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

                You sir, are dead on. Below find the original study that presented the Benevolent Sexism survey. Read the abstract, then jump to the survey on the last page. Items with Bs on them are Benevolent Sexism. They are as beta as beta gets.

                http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.9865&rep=rep1&type=pdf

                [–]Nov516052 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy

                def seems to be on point. they didn't really define BS at all- they assumed it was pre-defined

                [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy

                You can find out what benevolent sexism actually is by digging into the study that originally defined it:

                http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.9865&rep=rep1&type=pdf

                Read the abstract, then jump to the last page and read through the survey itself. Items marked with B are Benevolent Sexism items. They are classic beta philosophy - like, "No matter how accomplished a man is, he is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman." Benevolent sexism is beta as fuck.

                [–]juju5151 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

                Thanks for the link... I taught so from the post... although they didn't define it very well...

                I'd would also think that "alfa sexism" or "bad sexism" is not attractive at all... what's attractive is the looks and the frame... so as an alfa saying sexist stuff you'll still get to fuck coz "You'r suck an asshole... fuck me..."

                but it won't be attractive coz you are "proving" that you are a bad provider of resources.... (bad beta)

                it just depends on what side of AF/BB the woman currently is...

                [–]Nov516051 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

                Wow thanks so much for this. Yes so basically the feminazis are okay with the kind of sexism they endorse according to their self righteously convince criteria

                [–]naIamgood0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

                To me BS is really having the control but making your women feel like she is in control

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

                I think you are simply wrong. Consider what some of Benevolent Sexism's items are:

                "Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess."

                "A good woman should be put on a pedestal by her man."

                "Men should be willing to sacrifice their own financial well being in order to provide for the women in their lives."

                None of these have anything to do with being in control and pretending your woman has control. These are about being beta and blue pilled. Women are pure little doves (No, Hypergamy). Women should be put on a pedestal (No, don't get oneitis. She isn't that important.). Sacrifice your well being for your woman's purse (BB/AF).

                Being a benevolent sexist is about being bluepilled, it is really that simple.

                [–]naIamgood0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

                Yes I mean that is what it should be, their definition of BS is wrong.

                [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

                You are close. Benevolent Sexism is beta and very blue pilled. Hostile sexism is more black pill than red pill I think, although it definitely contains red pilled perceptions. Below is the original article the scale was developed in. Read the abstract, then jump to the last page and read the survey itself. Draw your own conclusions.

                http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.9865&rep=rep1&type=pdf

                [–]Pastelitomaracucho0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

                Okay so, you have the opportunity to have someone that will make your life easier, no questions asked, in exchange sex and companionship.

                Who wouldn't consider that attractive?

                [–]M_Hamza-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

                BS == Bullshit

                HS == Horseshit

                [–]logicman101-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

                Benevolent sexism. Aka being nice but knowing what’s up.