Benevolent Sexism

What is it?

A few years ago, I acquired a role through an agency, primarily tasked with maintaining a database. It was a brief assignment — I was supposed to assist with the backlog.

I was trained, then assigned some tasks to do — which I completed. Once completed, I was tasked with more work. And so it went.

In the first few days when I began, my then Supervisor would often mansplain things to me. You know… enunciating certain words, hyper-explaining certain concepts (like how to divide and add the quantity of an item — as though I had pre-school level math skills — nevermind I bagged As in both Linear Algebra and Statistical Modelling during my Undergrad. But who’s asking?), speaking very slooowly, getting irritated when he’d notice an error, and just being downright condescending. Even though I had only been there for a week or two at the time.

He once euphemistically used the word, confused, to subliminally put-down my intellect when I asked him a question.

Apart from that, when I began, he offered his personal keyboard and mouse, because what client cares about supplying necessary inventory to an agency employee, right?

Strange offering, but I declined. Even as he insisted. No dammit, I can afford my damn hardware, thank you very much.

After two weeks or so, I was given a new task — a challenging one. Now, this task had a slight nuance, so I wanted to be sure I was performing it correctly.

After he explained the task and what it entailed — seemingly unconvinced of my understanding — he told me that he will “assist” with the tasks by simplifying them before reassigning them to me.

As if undermining my capabilities did me a favour.

Imagine that.

Now, it is worth mentioning that I was not the only woman working in that team — but I was the only Black woman working in that team. In that department.

And I was the only one he felt the need to “help”.

Inasmuch as we have accomplished milestones as women: contributing to the launching of a pilot-manned rocket, travelling into space, discovering the structure of the DNA, among many others, we are still assaulted with subservient epithets, often propagated by hegemonic societies — especially targeted towards racialized women.

Before I proceed, it is first important to define the term, Benevolent Sexism (also known as Paternalistic Sexism).

According to researchers, Peter Glick and Susan Fiske, benevolent sexism, “[…] is defined a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically, and in restricted roles, but are subjectively positive in feeling tone (for the perceiver) and also tend to elicit behaviours typically categorized as prosocial (e.g., helping) or intimacy-seeking (e.g., self-disclosure).”

Fiske and Glick wrote that benevolent sexism is not a good thing because despite the apparent ‘amicable’ feelings it may elicit from the perceiver, it is embedded in traditional stereotyping and masculine dominance (e.g., the man as the provider and woman as his dependent), and its consequences are often damaging.

As Fiske and Glick also stated, these types of behaviours undermine the recipient of this sexist behaviour, in addition to having their professionalism demeaned.

Why is this an issue?

According to Cailin Stamarski and Leanne Son Hong:

• When women exercise authority, and behave in an agentic (or independent) manner (i.e., assertive), which is often associated with men (as stereotypes regard men as agentic breadwinners), they are perceived as less likeable and hireable compared to men who behave the same way
• Even when women have comparable qualifications, women are perceived poorly when their problem-solving capabilities are assessed, compared to men
• Women who are mothers or are pregnant, are less likely to be recommended for promotion — in comparison to women who are not mothers, and men with and without children
• Women are held to a higher standard of performance, compared to men

The reason why these things are, is because, according to the stereotype content model, agentic women are more likely to be perceived as high in competence but low in warmth. Because agentic women’s behaviour are incongruent with the stereotype content model, they are often met with hostility. Mothers and pregnant women on the other hand, are perceived as low in competence but high in warmth.

These women (i.e., mothers and pregnant women) are also more likely to be perceived as less deserving — be it of a job, of a promotion, or of career development. This is likely because it solicits the communal homebody tropes from those around them — men and women — which often results in benevolent sexism.

Furthermore, as I had mentioned in one of my previous articles, given black women are often racially profiled or stereotyped as being pregnant (whether or not they actually are), or perceived as single mothers, they are more likely to be on the receiving end of benevolent sexism.

Another concept at play, is the social structural level of analysis.

Glick and Fiske state that this analysis is developed by the relational dynamics between those perceived as out-groups, and their relative standing to those belonging to the in-group.

Those belonging to the out-group, may be perceived as rivals or agreeable allies. Those perceived as rivals belong to the high-status group, while the latter, the low-status group.

Those in the former are often perceived as high in competence, which often solicits envy. While the latter often solicits warmth. The perceived sense of rivalry evokes respect and dislike, while the latter evokes disrespect but warmth or friendliness. Therefore, those perceived as rivals, are also perceived as competent, while those perceived as allies or regarded with warmth, are also perceived as incompetent or incapable.

For the latter, that is, those belonging to the low-status group, who are often perceived as incompetent but regarded with warmth, are also often patronized and exploited. They are also more likely to be delegated tasks, and cooperation is often expected from them.

Most importantly, these typologies tend to be polarized, so that one cannot be perceived as competent and likeable. Those who are perceived to belong to a low-status out-group however, may also be perceived as incompetent and unlikable. A good example would be welfare recipients.

When one relates these concepts and behaviours with benevolent sexism; women, who typically belong to the low-status group, especially those of a racialized minority, are:

• Less likely to be given challenging tasks due to the perceived belief that women need to be ‘protected’ from the struggles of challenging work
• Less likely to receive important feedback crucial to their career development (i.e., women are more likely to receive positive verbal feedback, but lower performance ratings, compared with men)
• Less likely to be motivated, given they are on the receiving end of this form of sexism
• Likely to perform worse in mental tasks when they experience this form of sexism

The reason for these, is because this form of sexism, contrary to hostile sexism, which is overt, is so implicit, that it might not be perceived by those on the receiving end of this harmful behaviour. Even when it is perceived, its pervasiveness makes it difficult to confront or challenge.

Needless to say, even with the consideration of extending my assignment at that workplace, I didn’t stay, as the work environment grew increasingly toxic.

And this is not an experience unique to me.

Although much has been accomplished by our societies, much work still needs to be done in eradicating these systemic issues.

Awareness and acknowledgement of these issues however, is usually a good start.