Men Don't Recognize 'Benevolent' Sexism: Study

[seabeyond]

On average, subjects recorded two derogatory terms, two sexist comments, 1.5 expressions of negative beliefs about women and 1.5 expressions of seemingly positive but in fact sexist thoughts about women each week. Swim recalled that one female participant reported a complete stranger had walked up to her in a laundromat and asked if she would fold his laundry because she'd be better at it. This kind of sexism is "ambiguous," Swim said, and "people don't know if they're kidding, so we discount them one after another." "If you document it and are confronted by a group of instances of sexism, then people start to see the unseen," she added.

The prevalence of sexism -- benevolent or hostile -- was not the study's primary focus, nor its major reveal. The more significant finding had to do with how men and women's beliefs about sexism changed after they became aware of its prevalence. In addition to asking participants to record instances of sexism, researchers also evaluated the degree to which subjects tolerated sexist behavior. Researchers found that after recording the sexist incidents they observed, women were more likely to deem the behavior less acceptable. Men, on the other hand, continued to endorse sexist behavior even after becoming more conscious of it. But when asked to empathize with the female targets of specific sexist incidents, male participants were less likely to sanction blatant sexism. In one example, men who were told to consider women's feelings were less likely to think women overreact when responding negatively to sexist behavior. When it came to instances of benevolent sexism, though, men's attitudes did not change. According to Swim, men did not consider statements including "a good woman should be put on a pedestal" or "in a disaster, women should be saved before men" to be sexist.

Becker and Swim's research provoked outrage in some quarters, aided by loaded headlines like this one in the UK's Daily Mail: "Men who hold open doors for women are SEXIST not chivalrous, feminists claim." Criticism focused on the researchers asking participants to identify seemingly well-intended male behavior as discriminatory. Anna Rittgers, a blogger for the conservative Independent Women's Forum, wrote that she first thought the study was a hoax and that she was "beginning to suspect that the modern feminist movement is actually comprised of a bunch of honest-to-goodness misogynists whose goal is to make women look ridiculous." The Irish blog Joe.ie It's Man Stuff sardonically wrote, "Great work ladies, we'll be sure to get you both a beer in recognition of your service if you ever pop over to Dublin. You'll have to pay for it though, obviously." And blogger Mockarena, co-founder of the Chicks on the Right blog, wrote, "I don't know about you all, but it is VERY HARMFUL TO ME when my husband insists on driving during long road trips. I am TOTALLY PSYCHOLOGICALLY DAMAGED when he tells me he can't live without me. And I feel deeply discriminated against when he has the AUDACITY to fix the brakes on my car."

Glick, co-author of the original study on benevolent sexism, said he worries that benevolent sexism has become a caricature to the media and public. "We don't think that men should no longer be polite," he said. "Often chivalrous behavior is appropriate. It is just important to know when you are crossing the line." "Women themselves ignore [all types of] sexism, and part of it is a coping mechanism," Swim said. "You want to live your life." But ignoring sexism has consequences, she said. Often the acceptance of subtler forms of sexism can lead to the acceptance of broader forms of gender discrimination. According to Glick, benevolent sexism can often unintentionally become hostile sexism when a woman breaks out of her assumed role. He used the workplace as an example. If a man offers to help a female coworker set up an office computer, Glick said, and she accepts, she is perceived as warm, but lacking a level of competence. If she politely refuses, however, she is often viewed as a "bitch." Men who accept help are also seen as vulnerable, Glick said, but they do not suffer the same repercussions for trying to do things on their own.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/men-dont-recognize-benevolent-sexism_n_885430.html


_______________________

i was reading an interesting article on different neurology of the brain. i wish i could find it again. and article pulled my attention. men do objects in space better and women communication and language. but the end of the sentence raised my eyebrow. men reads maps better and women talk too much.

i asked my aware 16 yr old son to read and if anything caught his attention. so he started discussing what was said int he paragraph and beyond that paragraph. not a thought to the different language where we excel. reading maps better, positive. talking to much, negative. he was amazed he had overlooked that.

[iris27]

1. It's similar to the subtle racism of the Asian "model minority" stereotype...that Asians are smart,

especially at math, etc., etc. A lot of people don't get that that is just as racist as saying black people are lazy.

In everything I have learned about neurology, the most striking feature of our brains are just how plastic they are - how connections form differently based on our experiences. I wonder how much of that "men are better with spatial things and women with communication" stuff is due to differing experiences from early on due to gender roles. Sports/videogames vs. tea parties, etc. All I know is that I am terrible at communication.

Here's a funny one - in real life, I am better with direction than my husband. I can almost always tell you where north is, and as I learn an area, a map develops in my head, so it's fairly easy for me to, say, figure out an alternate way home on unfamiliar roads if traffic has blocked my usual path. He has trouble with that kind of stuff. BUT -- if we are playing a videogame together, I never have any clue where our characters are going, and he always knows. I don't know what's behind that reversal, but it's kind of hilarious.

[seabeyond]

2. both my boys excel at english and communication and not math.... oh noes.

i know which direction to go always when with hubby and oldest son. the opposite direction they go, lol.

and i am very good with map and knowing north (for whatever reason, that is my direction, too. just like you.

i hear ya.

[iverglas]

6. I was a totally girly girl

Except for the brainiac part ... dolls and sewing and knitting and teaching and helping and all that jazz.

But math and spatial perception have never been my weak points. The person I know most like me is my second brother; as a matter of fact we both work in the same field now, one intimately connected with language (as a second profession in both cases, me having been a lawyer and him being an expert in a cultural/literary field).

He's missing the math. I once handed him one of those spatial perception quizzies in a magazine, where you pick which of four flattened 3-D objects matches the one in the picture. I'd breezed through it in a couple of minutes. He spent 10 minutes turning it this way and that and then chucked it back at me. But -- I look at music as closely related to math, and my own learning of music was much like language learning. At bottom, though, I am unmusical because I am completely non-aural. My brother has the music.

I am a map addict when I'm travelling, although I can intuit my way around too, and I quickly become oriented in new places (and really enjoy that process). And I plan and oversee (and do some of) my own renovations and such. No spatial perception problems here whatsoever.

In high school, when we did the aptitude tests in grade 12, I and a boy who had been in my class since grade 6 - we were both kids from the wrong side of the tracks out of our element in an "advanced" class full of rich snobs, but he had the great big advantage of being a boy - both scored in the 99th percentile in both the math and language segments.

I became a human rights-oriented lawyer. He became a high-profile math professor.

Oh, and of the two other leading lights from the wrong side of the tracks, one boy and one girl: one was in charge of the Jupiter probe for NASA a few years back, and one did a doctorate in history and now works with abused women. Guess which one is which.

We all first came together in the early 60s. I'd love to find a similar cohort today and see what happens to them!

[gkhouston]

31. I've also found some either/or thinking that's surprised me at times.

I have an advanced degree in a technical field and have usually been in work environments that are heavily male. Although I've encountered my share of misogyny, most treat me as a colleague, yet a lot of men are surprised/confused/amused when they become aware that I do "feminine" things. Once I was at a conference and during a break went over to speak to some female colleagues. One brought out a piece of embroidery she was working on, so the conversation morphed from the conference to which kinds of needlework we did/didn't enjoy. A male colleague joined us and was caught off guard that four "technical" women he knew enjoyed a pastime that is so traditionally feminine. I guess it's better to be a colleague who surprises people with "feminine" hobbies than a "feminine" person who surprises someone by possessing intellect, but I'd rather just be thought of a person who has a wide range of interests/abilities.

[Rex]

34. Engineering?

Adv. computer degree? My two guesses.

[iverglas]

3. interesting how both women and men have double binds

According to Swim, men did not consider statements including "a good woman should be put on a pedestal" or "in a disaster, women should be saved before men" to be sexist.

Because they are taught from such an early age to be chivalrous/polite, and it is demanded by so many women around them -- imagine how many if not most women would react if men did not open doors for them or "let" them go first, for instance -- ordinary apolitical regular guys really do have a lot invested in the chivalry model. They're treated like dirt themselves most of the time, both in public discourse and by women in their lives, if they don't adhere to it. Their self-image as nice guys depends on adhering to that model, in ways that it doesn't in the case of, say, a white racist model. "Nice guys are polite sexists / polite sexism is the right thing to do" really is a very strong message.

(If you doubt how many women do still demand these things, and also that men pay their way in social settings, etc., just have a look at the discussion boards at eHarmony ... from which I have been banned several times. )

If men define those male behaviours as sexist i.e. bad, they are left having to engage in behaviours that the women they interact with (and especially with whom they are looking to establish romantic relationships) will very probably reject as rude. And I do have sympathy for those men!


If a man offers to help a female coworker set up an office computer, Glick said, and she accepts, she is perceived as warm, but lacking a level of competence. If she politely refuses, however, she is often viewed as a "bitch." Men who accept help are also seen as vulnerable, Glick said, but they do not suffer the same repercussions for trying to do things on their own.

And there is women's double bind. The human "normal" is not the feminine normal, and the feminine "normal" is not the human normal. (An assertive person is good/normal and an assertive man is good/normal, while an assertive woman is bad/abnormal; a dependent woman is good/normal, while a dependent person or man is bad/abnormal; and on and on.) Who was it did the initial work on that back circa 1970? Was that in Phyllis Chesler in Women and Madness?

No matter how women behave, it is bad for one reason or another. If they behave in a stereotyped feminine way, it's bad because feminine is bad, in human terms -- weak, dependent ... talk too much ... . If they behave against the stereotype, it is bad in feminine terms -- aggressive (where a man would be called assertive), selfish (where a man would not be expected to defer to / sacrifice for others), hostile (where a man would be independent).


If men choose the stereotyped strong/chivalrous model, they are usually rewarded. They will get negative responses only infrequently, like from women like me, strangers who reject their offers of opened doors and going first. And if they see negative discourse about it in public, there is a swelling chorus of nay-saying (as in the post above) to counter it and reinforce their adherence to the model -- which they may consciously choose to adopt, because they enjoy the privilege the model brings them, or which may simply reassure them that they are doing the right thing as they have always been taught to do, and quell the conflict they might otherwise feel if they did suspect that maybe all was not right with the way things are.

They are much more likely to get rewards for that behaviour, from every category of women in their lives -- mothers, aunts, wives, dates, coworkers and strangers. So it's the safest bet for them.

And huh, here we are with women again being essentially the vector for the transmission of the sexism. It's women who hand out the rewards/punishments for the various behaviours.

And men really do have the idea instilled that not being chivalrous is bad, and unfortunately it also gets all tied up with the idea of not being abusive -- "never hit a woman" has too much of the chivalrous and not enough of the just plain anti-violence, anti-abuse message much of the time, in informal/family settings.

If a man actually articulates these things - that he prefers egalitarianism but what is he supposed to do when women expect all this? - then he gets less of my sympathy. Grow a backbone. But for the great masses of ordinary men who are working with what they've been handed all their lives, I do understand how they might find it difficult and genuinely confusing sometimes.

Now, if women choose the stereotyped deferential/dependent model, they get short-term rewards in most cases, but in the long term, by being adhering to a stereotype that is essentially negative for many aspects of life, especially economic (while strength/chivalry stands men in good stead all round), they damage their long-term prospects in many ways. And that does include not just education and jobs, but also intimate relationships, since while being deferential/dependent may attract a mate and even keep a relationship running smoothly, it can also make women vulnerable to abuse.

[redqueen]

4. I am well aware that many women expect the 'ladies first' treatment...

but it's always made me uncomfortable.

Each and every time a man lets me on first, I want to apologize for the fact that for whatever reason he thinks he has to wait for me to go first.

However, there are cultures where this behavior is apparently not rewarded or encouraged, because I have had many men actually push past me to get on first, when I was actually closer to the elevator or what have you.

People should just be polite. That's how I see it.

[iverglas]

7. "People should just be polite"

Absolutely!

It's the defining of "polite" where the problem comes in.

For thee and me, it's treating everybody like a human being, equal in every way to every other human being: deserving of help when it's needed, deserving of respect for their own competence otherwise.

For those who internalize the cultural chivalry model, it's not the same thing. Somehow, many of them even manage to live with what would be the intolerable dissonance, for me, of "women are equal but" should have their doors held for them, their way paid for them ...

That's an interesting response to the knee-jerk chivalrous types: to feel guilty that they think they need to wait for you to to first. Me, I just feel like I'm being herded, which is really what is happening. But I might try reacting as if I feel guilty, some time. No, dear, that's all right, you don't have to sacrifice for me.

Along the lines of what you said about men pushing past, it's interesting to note how chivalry does so often go out the window when it actually does mean real sacrifice. I remember boarding a small (about 14-seater) commuter plane a few years ago for a flight I'd taken several times before. It was going to be full, and if you didn't get one of the few decent seats, it was going to be a deafening couple of hours. I'd been chatting with an older woman before boarding, and when it came time to walk half a block across the tarmac to board, I stayed beside her as she walked slowly to the plane. A dozen men in suits with briefcases rushed past us to climb aboard. Now, maybe chivalry didn't call for them to hang back behind us as we shuffled along ... but surely they should have saved us the good seats! Need I say ... they didn't.

[redqueen]

10. Hah yes, good point...

in some cultures the concept of waiting in line for things just does not exist, so pushing and shoving aren't considered rude at all.

[spooky3]

14. Also, in some middle eastern cultures, men are served first in restaurants, walk ahead of women, etc

What is "polite" is sometimes culturally dependent. Obviously, if the decision rule is based on gender (whether the man or the woman goes first, etc.), it is arguably sexist.

[seabeyond]

15. a man who converted to judism and is taking it way far

was going to lead us to our table at MY club. i jumped in front of him. i was not gonna follow.

i had just read on du about keeping women in back of bus and telling when to step aside when a man walked by so he didn't inadvertently touch her cause she was dirty. i was already pissed when i looked at his wife and two daughters dressed like amish and the whole "in their place" going on. i hadn't seen them for a couple years and boy did things change in that family. night and day.

[Tumbulu]

30. Oh how hard to watch!

I lived in West Africa for a year and there the women grew the crops, gathered the firewood, cooked the food, gave all the food to the men to eat first and then the women and children got what was left over after the men ate.

The husband was also obligated to beat his wife (wives) once a year or a man dressed up in a scary outfit would come out once a year and beat with sticks any woman whose husband had not beat her. Oh yes, and they practiced female genital mutilation.......

I had to leave, but I can never forget these women.

We shine the torch for so many still.

[Mimosa]

21. I appreciate a heavy door being held for me...

and when somebody is pushing a stroller I hold the door open for her.

I don't look old and I'm a few years away from medicare age but I am not strong or healthy. Observant people can see i have difficulty in walking, for instance. So I don't get offended if a man helps me in any way.

[Gormy Cuss]

22. But does it matter to you whether it's a man or a woman who helps you that way?

I hold doors open whenever I see someone who may have some difficulty doing it alone. Sometimes it leads to a comical standoff because the man with the cane or pushing the stroller is hardwired to think that it's a man's job and he insists on taking the door from me before proceeding. The problem is that I'm hardwired to help people and I'm a little slow at recognizing why there's a problem when a woman holds the door open

[redqueen]

23. Oh no, I'd never get offended.

In fact I always say thank you. My discomfort with this social custom is my own, I'm not about to be rude to someone when they're doing something that is considered polite and respectful, despite whether the reasons for the custom are problematic.

I just think it's unnecessary unless the person has their hands full or is otherwise having difficulty, that's all.

[seabeyond]

5. damn, can you stuff any more into your posts? lol

what a post. excellent.

something that happened recently, with my son older and dating. i asked, are the girls paying? he says no, the guys pretty much pay. no way, i say. (it has been 18 yrs out of the scene). surely that has come around. surely we are not still playing those roles. no way.... i could not believe it.

dating in my 20's and early 30's, i would insist i pay for at least half. the movie. or the dinner. but we shared. men had issues with that. but it was firm. either i pay part or i don't do it. once the guy got past the abnormal of it, they became comfortable, quick and even found it kinda fun.

i would have thought almost a couple decades since, that would be an accepted given.

i started a thread on old du about this, asking people their thought. the majority feel men should pay. of BOTH genders, lol. it was the few of both genders that it should not be the man that pays.

i don't get that. i couldnt/wouldnt/didnt do that.

for a number of reasons.

on the social rules, i love what you posted. raising two boys i am teaching to let the girl/woman walk first. but now i see the issue. gonna be dinner conversation tonight.

[iverglas]

8. "i don't get that"

Do you find yourself scratching your head that way a lot?

I know I do ...

[seabeyond]

9. actually,

this is not the first time i have posted this just on the new du3, lol. but mainly it is an invitation for someone to reasonably explain it to me.

[redqueen]

11. The only rationale I can think of...

is that women are still paid less so often.

So for me it's not so much the sex that matters, as who earns more. At least in relationships.

During dating I agree with splitting the bill. But I have to say I mostly did that to avoid the guy thinking I owed him anything for buying me dinner.

[seabeyond]

12. i generally made as much as the man,

i didnt want him to have any illusion i "owed" him. i dont like to take from anyone, ever. and i have heard so many men whine about it, i feel uncomfortable them graciously paying to my face and whining about it behind my back

all four, equally.

[redqueen]

13. "graciously paying to my face

and whining about it behind my back"

Oh hell no. That's a serious character flaw right there.

[iverglas]

16. that's the whole deal at that eHarmony board

The men hang around pissing and moaning about how (a) women don't want short men, and (b) women want equality and expect men to pick up the tab (open doors, hold chairs ...).

And vast numbers of women say exactly (b). If he doesn't insist on paying for the first date (the first date is always the hot topic), he's no good. If a man doesn't think you're worth paying for, throw him back! Then they piss and moan about how men won't date fat chicks. I actually didn't know the world was still populated by people like these -- grown-ups all -- until I stumbled on those boards one night after watching one too many eHarmony commercials. I live a very sheltered life, quite truly. Really don't get out much.

On the question of who has more money -- if I were going somewhere with a pure buddy, male or female, I wouldn't pick somewhere they couldn't afford, if I were the one making the money (which I generally have been). Unless I said I wanted to treat them, either just to treat them or so we could go somewhere I really wanted to go. A buddy friendship can't really be built on one person paying all the time, and I don't think a "dating" relationship can really either -- I mean, not one I'd want. If one person has bags of money and one person is broke, eat at home and watch a video, except for occasions when somebody treats.

I just don't think women ought to use the old 70% argument to justify demanding to get paid for, or allowing themselves to be paid for. We wouldn't expect our better-off girlfriends to do it, so why would we expect our dates to? One lives within one's means, not somebody else's.

So ... if you're bored and like soap opera ...

http://advice.eharmony.com/boards/

On the Dating board, you could start with "after sex I get dumped" ... or "women are like cats" ... Ack, I actually don't see one about Who Pays on the first page or two! If I find any I'll report back.

[redqueen]

17. Wow...

that's some sad stuff. Thanks for the link, I doubt I'll ever get that bored, though!

[seabeyond]

18. If a man doesn't think you're worth paying for,

i can't stand that one.

i agree with your perception on the money issue. that is how i see it, too. i dont have to have costly. i do well as a spend thrift, lol. i never find the need to spend much money.

[redqueen]

19. I see it as the same thing as

if a woman doesn't care enough to 'take care of herself' (not about health but appearance - stay a certain size, dress a certain way, do hair, apply makeup).

Some women think of men as their bank accounts, and some men think of women as their looks. Those types deserve each other I think.

[seabeyond]

20. agree. there are enough of us

that we dont need to be a part of that world. i agree.

[spooky3]

25. I think the "who pays for" argument is not just about who is underpaid.

It's about who does the asking.

On an individual level, it's easy to have a non-sexist rule -- if you ask, you pay, or at least offer to do so.

But at the societal level, there is still a norm that men do most of the asking, that women are perceived as being pushy or desperate if they ask men out, etc., which then may lead them to be unappreciated/taken for granted if a relationship develops. Along with that, there is a second norm that men who are really interested in you or believe you are a good "catch" are happy to pay for a nice date--that if a man won't spend anything, he's saying he thinks you are "easy" or not worth making much effort for. Many women have probably had the experience where a man offered her cheap dates, only to find herself taken for granted because of the man's value system, not hers, and/or that the same man had no problem spending on dates with other women.

Even if some may point out that this is changing, that they personally don't follow these norms, the fact remains that at a societal level many people's views have NOT changed, even if they SAY it's ok for women to take the initiative. If gender equality were really here, both sexes would be equally likely to propose marriage, for example. But it's still the man who does the asking, most of the time, even if the topic has been discussed.

So until that norm changes, I don't think women are out of line to wonder what signal they are getting or sending if men ask them out but don't want to pay. It may not be about wanting to exploit someone else financially, but society's training and messages that if you're too "easy", no one will respect you, etc. I personally have always been in favor of alternating or splitting both asking and costs. But again, this is an individual thing, and the more important factor is that social institutions that are slow to change, even among young people.

[redqueen]

26. Excellent, excellent post.

Thanks for going into the macro level analysis of this stuff. So much.

[spooky3]

27. thank you!

[seabeyond]

28. you know what, i am really tired of my behavior being influenced by what some man thinks about me

fuck it
fuck them

we cant win. even when we walk their narrow tightrope they give us, they will still dehumanize us and say dna makes them do it.

anyone, including men, who are going to judge me so harshly over something so little with absolutely no thinking on their part, aren't worth my time.

[iverglas]

29. "because of the man's value system"

And that's just what I was saying too about the whole chivalry thing in general -- if a man has been reared to believe it's "polite" to hold doors blah blah and doesn't do it, then it may truly be an indication that he's a rude jerk.

Myself, I don't hang out with people who haven't examined these things for themselves, and come to the same conclusions as me, so the issues just don't arise. And of course since I've been living with somebody for 12 years ... and I am the sole earner in the household ... they especially don't arise for me.

But I can't see a feminist wondering what signal she was getting if the man did not assume he was paying / offer to pay -- because what feminist would be on a date with a man who did??

If somebody says gender equality is okay but still acts according to these attitudes, well what would a feminist want with him anyhow?

And for "cheap dates", well, I guess the thing is that if the woman wasn't expecting the man to pay every time, it would be a little easier to tell what it meant. But gosh, this whole idea of somebody has to spend their money on one to prove they want to spend time in one's company ... it really is just ick to me.

Even back when I was of the "dating" age, just pre-1970 and after, I didn't actually "date" so it's all foreign to me anyhow. At university, there were gangs of us who lived and hung out together, and we were all flat broke, and people I knew just didn't "date" anyhow, we went to concerts and rock festivals and bars and meetings and demonstrations and each other's houses, and slept with each other when we felt like it. In my slightly more mature adulthood, I had various serial relationships that involved meeting somehow and making a connection that became a relationship, which involved things like going out occasionally to eat or see a movie or some performance, spending time at each other's places, sleeping together, and whatnot for a period of a few weeks to a couple of years, then having it end. (I tended to get dumped because, unbeknownst to me in my 30s, I had been on an extended interview for the job of wife and mother for which I hadn't applied, and had failed probation. So yeah, I didn't have the art of selecting down quite pat for a while!) And at some point starting a new similar scenario. My feeling has always been that if I don't want to do all those things with somebody, why the hell would I want a "date" with him? I actually don't ever recall being asked out on a "date", i.e. by somebody I wasn't well acquainted with or at least didn't already know enough about for there to be mutual interest. Comes from being intimidating, I guess. Self-selecting: only the ones I'm likely to be interested in are interested. I've always found it worked for me!

So I'm kind of like an alien when it comes to this stuff. I've just never got it at all.

[seabeyond]

24. this morning on the way to school, my youngest son held the door open for me and waved me thru

after you, he says.

this thread popped into my mind, but more, i wanted to go the other way to turn light out in basement my other son left on.

you shot me down, he says. i was trying to be a gentleman....

hence, our conversation on the way to school discussing this and what i was taught yesterday. and the uncomfortable position of not sure now what to do and how that makes things awkward. i found in NO the men in hubby's family did not necessary live by this manner. whereas the guys in my family have always been and will always be. so in NO i would start going forward in the restaurant to realize these men dont do it, creating awkward movement, forward, stop, hesitate. they come around, remember, stop..... lol

son and i concluded whatever the rule is, we need CONSISTENT.

but it was a fun conversation driving to school this morning.

[mistertrickster]

32. Can someone explain to me why

"women should be saved before men" is sexist?

I don't get that one.

[Neoma]

33. I always think of the Titanic movie.

Loads of men trapped behind bars while the boat's sinking. Sickening.

[Gormy Cuss]

35. It specifies gender and declares a preference. How is it NOT sexist? n/t

[mistertrickster]

36. So if men (as a group) are bigger and stronger and the ship is going down,

they should just grab the women and the smaller men and children and shove them aside so they can get to the life boats?

That would then be NOT sexist?

[Gormy Cuss]

37. Men as individuals weren't always bigger and stronger. Elderly men, for example.

But yes, if the biggest and strongest pushed aside the weaker, that's not sexism. That's behaving badly (and depending on the culture, also immorally or unethically.)

[mistertrickster]

38. I'm trying to figure out what the ideal way would be

to choose who gets on the lifeboats.

We can't use gender because that's sexism.

Age? Because younger people have more years left? So Grandma gets tossed to the sharks?

Worst swimmers? Because the good swimmers can tread water? So all the non-physically-fit get saved?

What would be the feminist criteria for who gets first seats on the lifeboats?

[Gormy Cuss]

39. The feminist ideal would be the same as anyone's -- enough lifeboats.

However, there were two other factors that often came to play in big ship disasters of that era, namely ticket class and whether the person was a paying guest or crew/employee.

[mistertrickster]

43. Okay, I saw "Titanic" too . . .

but forget about that: let's say there are enough lifeboats but there may not be enough time to get everyone in the lifeboats before the ocean-liner sinks.

How do you (or anyone else) determine who goes first since "women and children first" is sexist?

[Gormy Cuss]

47. Lacking time, there's evidence that a fight-or-flight instinct supersedes social order.

IOW, it's every person for him/herself.
Here's one article discussing an analysis of survival by various domains (age, gender, etc.) of the Titanic vs. the Lusitania, the latter sinking much more quickly than the former.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1969142,00.html

There have been other comparative analyses showing the same.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Parents with small children. The elderly, sick, infirm, or otherwise handicapped.

And yeah, enough lifeboats for everyone.

[mistertrickster]

41. Aren't you discriminating against the handicapped

by putting them in the lifeboats first?

And you're assuming that the ocean liner is not sinking too fast for everyone to get in the lifeboats, even if there were enough.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Am I?

Then I guess I am.

[mistertrickster]

44. Once you abandon "women and children first"

because it's sexist, what does one put in its place?

"Have enough life-boats" doesn't answer the question.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Funny, I thought I answered that. PARENTS with small children. The elderly. Ppl in wheelchairs.

The sick, infirm & handicapped.

If you *stay* with women & children first, what about the gay male couple with a baby? Isn't that a bit unreasonable to tell them to get to the back of the line?

[mistertrickster]

46. Yup, that's a pretty good answer

I think. Maybe a little unwieldy in a panic situation, but it makes sense ethically.

[quakerboy]

48. What does going first have to do with gender?

Why would going first have anything to do with gender?