Frauen neigen eher dazu, konfliktreiche Beziehungen aufrechtzuerhalten, wenn ihr Partner wohlwollenden Sexismus zeigt
Frauen neigen eher dazu, konfliktreiche Beziehungen aufrechtzuerhalten, wenn ihr Partner wohlwollenden Sexismus zeigt
12 Kommentare
>New research sheds light on why some individuals choose to remain in romantic relationships characterized by high levels of conflict. The [study](https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.70029), published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, suggests that benevolent sexism and anxious attachment styles may lead people to base their self-worth on their relationship status, prompting them to utilize maladaptive strategies to maintain the partnership.
>Romantic relationships are a fundamental component of daily life for many adults and are strongly linked to psychological well-being and physical health. Despite the benefits of healthy partnerships, many people find themselves unable or unwilling to exit relationships that are unfulfilling or fraught with frequent arguments. Psychological scientists have sought to understand the specific mechanisms that motivate people to maintain troubled relationships rather than ending them.
>The new study, spearheaded by Carrie Underwood, focused specifically on the role of benevolent sexism in this dynamic. Benevolent sexism is a subtle form of sexism that subjectively views women positively but frames them as fragile and in need of men’s protection and financial support. The researchers aimed to determine if having a partner who endorses these views makes a person more likely to stay in a troubled union.
>“Some people find it difficult to leave romantic relationships that are characterized by high levels of conflict. This is concerning given that romantic relationships are a central part of daily life for many individuals,” explained corresponding author Rachael Robnett, the director of the Women’s Research Institute of Nevada and professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
>“We were particularly interested in whether people are more inclined to stay in conflicted relationships when their romantic partner is described as endorsing benevolent sexism, which is a subtle form of sexism that emphasizes interdependence and separate roles for women and men in heterosexual romantic relationships.”
“Benevolent sexism is a subtle form of sexism that subjectively views women positively but frames them as fragile and in need of men’s protection and financial support. “
Generally true, right?
„…benevolent sexism encourages men to protect and provide for women under the assumption that women are not well equipped to do these things themselves. Correspondingly, benevolent sexism also emphasizes that women’s most important role is to care for their husband and children in the home.”
The article then goes on to describe benevolent sexism as insidious so, you know, maybe describe it that way, as insidious sexism because there is no such thing as benevolent sexism.
Man. My wife uses benevolent sexism on me daily.
Me- „I want to teach you how to change your tire.“
Her- „I have a smart husband that can change the tire. I don’t need to know.“
Me- „what if I die?“
Her- „you wouldn’t leave me like that. I’d be helpless without you.“
Then she makes me brownies. The woman has a doctorate but refuses to learn „guy stuff.“
>Benevolent sexism is a subtle form of sexism that subjectively views women positively but frames them as fragile and in need of men’s protection and financial support. … For example, benevolent sexism encourages men to protect and provide for women under the assumption that women are not well equipped to do these things themselves. Correspondingly, benevolent sexism also emphasizes that women’s most important role is to care for their husband and children in the home.
It is actually insane how many women (particularly online) seem to hold such views without realising that this is actually sexist. This attitude is single-handedly un-doing all the work done by feminist activists over the years to bring about a mentality shift.
Would like to see a female view on this, but I have a feeling we won’t.
I’d be curious to know how benevolent sexism figures into relationships in general rather than just high conflict ones.
What makes this interesting and unsettling is how benevolent sexism works like emotional glue.
It doesn’t keep people in high-conflict relationships through fear or domination, but through meaning “ this relationship is who I am.”
Once self-worth becomes relationship-contingent, leaving doesn’t just mean ending a partnership—it feels like erasing the self
It also shows why this isn’t just a “women’s issue”
Anxious attachment + benevolent role ideals (for men or women) push people toward staying and managing conflict badly not because they’re irrational, but because their identity is on the line
That’s what makes benevolent sexism more dangerous than hostile sexism it rewards endurance, even when endurance is harmful
>Benevolent sexism is a subtle form of sexism that subjectively views women positively but frames them as fragile and in need of men’s protection and financial support.
So, women are willing to stay in high conflict relationships if they think the benefit calculus favors them enough? Not terribly groundbreaking.
I will admit though, probably anything that hammers home the point that women are doing this calculus, is worth sharing. A lot of people seem to have a big problem with talking around the obvious because of the implications for relationships and women’s general PR.
We would all be a lot better off if everyone was more honest with each other about how all this stuff truly works.
Because I didn’t know what that was:
>…benevolent sexism, which is a subtle form of sexism that emphasizes interdependence and separate roles for women and men in heterosexual romantic relationships.
“Benevolent sexism” are two words I never thought I’d see next to each other.
> The new study, spearheaded by Carrie Underwood
I’m sorry, is this the Carrie Underwood I’m thinking of?