To put things in context, I’m a 21 year old heterosexual male living in Canada. A topic that is always of interest when I talk to my friends, male, female, or trans-gendered is where to go on a first date. When I ask females where they would like to go, they usually tell me to choose. Now, I think I’m pretty creative, but there are only so many times you can take a person to the zoo. So I always insist that we do something they enjoy. And then I hear it. Why I always end up bored on first dates. ‘It’s the man’s job’. Just like I’m supposed to hold doors, lift heavy things, make the first move and pay the bill for the date.
Now, only 10% of this talk is because I’m a lazy individual. But the main reason I decided to do this is because I see two problems with this kind of chivalrous mentality. One is that a majority of women are being portrayed as ‘fragile and delicate’, which does nothing to empower women in the world. The other problem is that men feel that they are the protectors of women, and have to do things for them because they can’t do it themselves.
This is actually called Benevolent Sexism, a form of Paternalism, which limits other people’s actions ‘for their own good’. It’s like when a parent tells their child they have a curfew of 10:00pm. If I were to ask you if you considered yourself sexist, most people without a doubt would say no because they don’t express hostile sexism, which includes blatant stereotypes of women. But if I were to ask you if you were sexist based off benevolent sexism, that question might get you thinking. I know I’m guilty of this at times. Benevolent sexism still reinforces the same power structures that hostile sexism does. The problem with this is that it can be patronizing; that by ‘protecting women’, men are actually limiting them.
For those who don’t know, Chivalry was derived from the medieval Knight’s Code of Chivalry which stated that a knight would protect others who could not protect themselves, such as women, children and elders. It’s safe to say this mentality has become outdated in our modern world with regards to women and even some children and elders, as we are working towards equality and equity for all.
A study by Dardenne and colleagues found that benevolent sexism can be worse than hostile sexism when it comes to women’s cognitive performance. An explanation for this is that the disadvantaged groups are justifying the status quo due to the apparent niceness of benevolent sexism. This did nothing for empowering workers, leading to lowered self-esteem and decreased competency performance levels in the workplace.
Another study by Parker and colleagues has shown that women in male-dominated careers suffer from over performance demands because they need to over-perform in order to gain acceptance and recognition in the workplace. This has several negative health effects, ranging from distress to psychological ill health, that are well documented in the science literature (Barling et al., 1996; Brown, Campbell, & Fife-Shaw, 1995; Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997; Glomb, Munson, Hulin, Bergman, & Drasgow, 1999; Loy & Stewart, 1984; Ragins & Scandura, 1995; Schnieder, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997).
And musical artists Ne-Yo and Destiny’s Child have created songs indicating that independent women are very attractive. That’s really all the proof I need.
Chivalry becomes a cycle because if either party chooses not to follow benevolent sexism, they are considered rude. If a man does not ask to carry a woman’s bags, they are inconsiderate. And a study has found that when a woman says she does not need help in doing tasks such as carrying her bags, she is considered rude. But if she does accept help, she’s considered incompetent. Therefore, you either conform or you risk being rejected.
So am I implying the solution is to stop being nice to each other? No, the last thing I want to do is to encourage people to not do nice things. I’m saying the exact opposite. Be a gentleman, but be a gentleman to everyone. Same goes for the ladies. Some people might not be able to open doors, reach the top of shelves or lift heavy things due to physical limitations, regardless of sex or any other reason. But if you open it because it’s ‘what a man does for a lady’, that can be considered benevolent sexism. The intention matters. Start asking yourself why you do what you do.
When I think about how we as a society can better share gender roles, I look to same-sex couples as role models. A study conducted by Power and colleagues called the ‘Work, Love, Play’ study ‘ surveyed 445 same-sex parents in Australia and New Zealand. Results showcased that participants divided household labour significantly more equally than heterosexual parents. Qualitative findings from the study also show that major decisions around which parent gives up paid work, and how many hours parents choose to work, as well as decision around work/family balance, are negotiated on the basis of the couple’s preferences and circumstances rather than assumptions that one parent will be the primary child carer.
I’m also aware that this concept is culture-specific. I can only propose this shift in mentality to Western society as this is the culture I grew up in. I just want to promote the acceptance of shared gender roles and to not limit decisions based on sex. Open a door and pay for a date because you’re considerate, not because you’re expected to.
And if you still aren’t sold on fairness, here’s my final point. I know that I’m privileged to be up here today on stage doing this specific talk. If a female were to say the same things I’m saying, I’m not sure if it would be received the same way. My biggest fear as an individual is that my successes were not because I was awesome, but because I was privileged. That I was positively stereotyped either as a male, a Canadian, heterosexual or because of other privileges I’m not aware of. And then I think about people that are less privileged. Who go home that day and KNOW their failures were not because they were not capable but because they were limited by their lack of privilege.
The real reason I am here today is because I want to stop questioning myself. I want to be confident that the successes I achieve are mine alone; as an individual, not because of my gender. This goes for any other protected ground or human right, such as sex, race, and religion, to name a few. This can only happen if I can confidently say that everyone has the same opportunity as I do to achieve their goals. The only way this will happen is if we, as a society, start making an active effort to break down this divide that separates us as people, and start accepting our differences to allow everyone the chance to flourish.
So the next time somebody says ‘chivalry is dead’, tell them they’re probably right.
But equity isn’t.
Here’s to better dates!
Becker, J., Glick, P., Ilic, M., and Bohner, G. (2011). Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't: Consequences of accepting versus confronting patronizing help for the female target and male actor. European Journal of Social Psychology DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.823
Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 764.
Parker, S., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). What is so bad about a little name-calling? Negative consequences of gender harassment, over performance demands, and psychological distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 195-210.
Power, J., Perlesz, A., Pitts, M., Schofield, M.B., McNair, R., Barrett, A., et al. (2010).Understanding resilience in same-sex parented families: The Work, Love, Play study. BMC Public Health, 10(115). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2841103.
No comments:
Post a Comment