Here’s an item that’s making the rounds today: it’s the abstract of a paper published in the Psychology of Women Quarterly. The topic is something called “benevolent sexism”, which refers to all those “chivalrous” things gentlemen do for ladies: holding the door for them, seating them at table, offering them your arm during a stroll, serving them first, etc.
Shockingly, it turns out that these gestures actually make everyone happier.
Here’s the abstract (my emphasis):
Previous research suggests that benevolent sexism is an ideology that perpetuates gender inequality. But despite its negative consequences, benevolent sexism is a prevalent ideology that some even find attractive. To better understand why women and men alike might be motivated to adopt benevolent sexism, the current study tested system justification theory’s prediction that benevolent sexism might have a positive linkage to life satisfaction through increased diffuse system justification, or the sense that the status quo is fair. A structural equation model revealed that benevolent sexism was positively associated with diffuse system justification within a sample of 274 college women and 111 college men. Additionally, benevolent sexism was indirectly associated with life satisfaction for both women and men through diffuse system justification. In contrast, hostile sexism was not related to diffuse system justification or life satisfaction. The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level.
All good so far, right? Well, here’s the authors’ conclusion:
Thus, our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence.
Love that “thus”. In other words:
“Here’s an ancient, natural feature of human social life that, as our own study has just shown, makes people happy. It conflicts, however, with our wholly artificial conception, for which there is absolutely no basis whatsoever in any successful culture ancient or modern, of what the “correct” relation between the sexes ought to be.
If, therefore, as appears to be the case, establishing the “correct” relation between the sexes actually decreases human happiness, then society (under the benevolent guidance of the Psychology of Women Quarterly and its contributors) shall perform whatever “interventions” are necessary for the re-education of the people, and the reprogramming of human nature.”
We see here once again, as we see everywhere, the psychotic, suicidal effect of the unitary principle that all of modern liberalism is reducible to: that the suppression and eradication of any and all discriminations, whether by Man or by Nature, is the highest possible good.
This, friends, is a world gone absolutely barking mad.