Gender Research Is Often Sexist

July 28th, 2011 by Pelle Billing

Alex B. Berezow – the editor of – has written an excellent article about how gender research ends up being ideological and… yes, sexist.

He’s studied a ‘scientific’ paper where women and men were asked to look for sexist behaviors in their life. The result?

Based on a list of behaviors in the paper, sexism was essentially considered to be any differential treatment based on gender, regardless of whether it was good or bad. A man telling a woman to stay in the kitchen qualified as sexism. But a man opening a door for a woman or believing that women should be rescued first in a disaster qualified as “benevolent sexism.” Tired of hearing about sexism? That’s sexist, too.

As it turns out, if everything is defined as sexism, then sexism ends up being everywhere.

In Sweden, gender feminists often talk about ‘putting on your gender glasses’ so you can see all the sexism around you. Well, if you put on blue glasses then everything looks blue! This is exactly what the good dr Berezow has uncovered in his review of this piece of research.

Seeing the world through the lens of gender feminists, also means that you twist any kind of difference between male and female behavior as being negative for women. This leads to the construction of a bizarre terminology such as ‘benevolent sexism’. When women get the better deal then it is benevolent!

I couldn’t make this stuff up…

Gender feminists are also thoroughly unaware that their view of men is inherently sexist:

At the end of the article, the authors declare that men have a higher social status. (Isn’t that a sexist statement?) But worry not. They suggest that men can be trained to be more empathetic. (Isn’t that sexist?) While on a crusade to fight anti-female sexism, the authors overlook anti-male sexism.

Training your man – perhaps similarly to how you train your dog? – is not labeled as sexist. Can you imagine what would happen if a group of men publicly discussed training women to be more accommodating to men?

Finally, dr Berezow puts his finger on what many of us have long suspected. Gender research based on feminism rarely meets the demands of scientific objectivity:

The website of SAGE, which publishes the journal, describes it as a “feminist, scientific, peer-reviewed journal.” The authors also admit that their goal is to “reduce endorsement” of sexism. However, this constitutes a clear conflict of interest. A journal cannot state an ideological goal and simultaneously claim to be scientific. Would a global warming journal be taken seriously if it claimed “debunking the hoax” as one of its goals?

Let’s hope these kinds of analyses become more mainstream, so that gender research can be infused with a measure of objectivity, and the male sexism rooted out.

Tags: ,

9 Responses to “Gender Research Is Often Sexist”

  1. TDOM Says:

    So-called “benevolent sexism” is the gender equivalent of “benevolent racism,” a term I first heard after the election of President Obama. This was described as the Whites who voted for Obama because he is Black. In more general terms, it is almost anything White people do that helps Black people or other racial minorities that can be based on race. conversely, when Blacks voted for Obama because of his reace, this was not racism, it was pride. The oppressed class could not be racist as it is natural to “resist” the oppressor and rally against him. Even programs like affirmative action are considered racist, but not against Whites. It is benevolent racism against Blacks and reflects anti-Black attitudes. Thus actions designed to eliminate racism and discrimination are evidence of racism.

    Benevolent sexism works in the same way. It serves to define anything men do as sexist and furthers the “victim” status of women. You are correct in your assessment that fgender studies is not scientific because of the ideological feminist bias. Results of what otherwise might be scientific studies are interpreted through a feminsit lense and other possible interpretations are ignored or rejected on the basis of ideology, not science.


  2. John Rambo Says:

    Why American men should boycott American women

    I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don’t know how to cook or clean, don’t want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?

    American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

    This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.


    Are you a man who is interested in marrying indian women? Please visit, India’s 1st International Marriage Mail Order Bride Site:

  3. T. Rose Says:

    Yeah this is why I’ve gotten to the point that I simply follow the Paradoxical Commandments when dealing with this.

    Figure when the “open-minded feminists” and of course actual misogynists have the smallest of minds.

    And if you’re going to boycott,you might as well go the whole hog and boycott people,since all of them including meself and Pelle potentially could be only working in self-interest,and only people have damaged the planet so much. Female bonobos and Male Chimpanzees dominate the other sex and have roles and don’t come up with this crap,this bereaucratic crap. Oh yes start going bestial and you’ll be better off,or better abstain from any kind of romance/sex.

    Other animals and people who hang with no one get stuff done rather than argue about what’s sexist. Discrimination is far simpler,it simply means you aren’t getting fed.There ya’ go Mr. Rambo sexism solved just go the whole hog.

    Seriously Pelle’s right,all you can do is simply try to do right by reasonable men and women and be done which if I understand rightly is what “gender liberation” is about allowing for society to do just that and advocate for such.

    Which can’t be done if everything is racist and sexist.

  4. David Marshall Says:

    “Well, if you put on blue glasses then everything looks blue!”

    Nicely put, Pelle. :)

    I think you hit the nail on the head with this one:

    “Seeing the world through the lens of gender feminists, also means that you twist any kind of difference between male and female behavior as being negative for women.”

    There’s something quite insidious about that because, as Berezow points out, you are allowed to point out differences when males are considered “lower” or less mature or less anything.

    The result is open season on males, but any differences at all that place males over females is “sexist.”

    I think over time that could result in a sense of low self-esteem among boys in particular.

  5. Pelle Billing Says:

    It’s insidious indeed, David. People don’t notice because it’s everywhere. And it’s already started to affect the self-esteem of boys.

  6. Tom Martin Says:

    My name is Tom Martin, and I am suing LSE’s Gender Institute, for teaching anti-male bias.

    The curriculum for instance, will hyper-focus on things deemed sexist against women, but ignore sexism in all its manifestations against men.

    Research by Goodwin and Rudman (2004) shows women hold 4 times more sexist attitudes about men than men do about women – and given such a lop-sided problem, it becomes even more inexcusable to ignore sexism against men.

    Visit my website, sexismbusters, to read up on the case, see all the press, listen to my interview with Paul Elam on AVFM, spread the word, and donate to the fighting fund.

    We are definitely getting there!

  7. Pelle Billing Says:

    Hi Tom

    I’ve been meaning to write about you. This link is in my bookmarks:

    I think what you are doing is great!

    Thanks also for letting us know about the Goodwin and Rudman research, I hadn’t seen it before.

    Here’s a proper link to your website:

    Do you have any update on your case for us?

  8. Tom Martin Says:

    Thanks for your support Pelle, and all your hard work. I will keep you updated at this site.

  9. Ett par tecken i tiden på var vindarna blåser Says:

    [...] har själv tidigare kritiserat genusvetenskapen – stundtals hårt – och föreslagit att den ska reformeras för att bli hållbar i framtiden. Dock ska inte alla [...]