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.