About the SA Blog Network

Guest Blog

Guest Blog

Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American
Guest Blog HomeAboutContact

If It Looks Like a Compliment, and Sounds Like a Compliment…Is It Really a Compliment?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

Two weeks ago I was at Science Online 2012, the annual conference for science bloggers and writers in Raleigh, NC. While there, I attended the session on Blogging Science While Female (a more detailed summary of the session can be found here).

At the session, many of the women in the room expressed discouragement at how many comments they have received that, while seemingly complimentary, somehow still felt wrong. These comments may have focused on a blog author’s appearance rather than her post’s content, or called attention to the relative lack of women in science as if this should somehow make the addressed female scientist feel good about herself rather than marginalized. Even though these remarks can sometimes feel good to hear – and no one is denying that this type of comment can feel good, especially in the right context – they can also cause a feeling of unease, particularly when one is in the position of trying to draw attention towards her work rather than towards personal qualities like her gender or her appearance.

This isn’t just limited to Internet commenting, either. There are plenty of seemingly positive portrayals of women that nonetheless perpetuate harmful stereotypes, such as the omnipresent depiction of the “how-does-she-do-it-all” housewife. Although a woman might feel complimented by this stereotype and the way in which it paints women as the kind of people who can “magically” get so much done, it is also quite possible for a woman to feel like this stereotype creates an unfair standard of comparison, or, alternatively, like it depicts women as weak, frazzled creatures who should be receiving more help from men in order to manage their lives without suffering a nervous breakdown. In social psychology, we refer to this phenomenon as benevolent sexism. Although it is tempting to brush this experience off as an overreaction to compliments or a misunderstanding of the communicator’s benign intent, benevolent sexism is a phenomenon that is both real and insidiously dangerous.

What Is Benevolent Sexism?

In 1996, Peter Glick and Susan Fiske wrote a paper on the concept of ambivalent sexism, noting that despite common beliefs, there are actually two different kinds of sexist attitudes and behavior. Hostile sexism is what most people think of when they picture “sexism” – angry, explicitly negative attitudes towards women. However, the authors note, there is also something called benevolent sexism:

We define benevolent sexism as a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling tone (for the perceiver) and also tend to elicit behaviors typically categorized as prosocial (e.g., helping) or intimacy-seeking (e.g., self-disclosure) (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491).

[Benevolent sexism is] a subjectively positive orientation of protection, idealization, and affection directed toward women that, like hostile sexism, serves to justify women’s subordinate status to men (Glick et al., 2000, p. 763).

Essentially, there’s now a formal name for all of those comments and stereotypes that can somehow feel both nice and wrong at the same time, such as the belief that women are “delicate flowers” that need to be protected by men, or the notion that women have the special gift of being “more kind and caring” than their male counterparts. And yes, it might sound complimentary, but it still counts as sexism.

Why is Benevolent Sexism a problem?

Admittedly, this research begs an obvious question. If benevolently sexist comments seem like nothing more than compliments, why are they problematic? Is it really “sexism” if the content of the statements appears to be positive towards women?

Well, for one thing, benevolently sexist statements often depict women as weak, sensitive creatures that need to be “protected.” While this may seem positive to some, for others – especially women in male-dominated fields, or those who simply want to be seen as strong – it creates a damaging stereotype. Second of all, by depicting women as homogenously different from men in any way not directly related to chromosomes or genitalia, benevolently sexist statements sometimes justify a climate where opportunities can be withheld from women because they are somehow “different.” Indeed, as Glick and Fiske themselves note in their seminal paper:

We do not consider benevolent sexism a good thing, for despite the positive feelings it may indicate for the perceiver, its underpinnings lie in traditional stereotyping and masculine dominance (e.g., the man as the provider and woman as his dependent), and its consequences are often damaging. Benevolent sexism is not necessarily experienced as benevolent by the recipient. For example, a man’s comment to a female coworker on how ‘cute’ she looks, however well-intentioned, may undermine her feelings of being taken seriously as a professional (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491-492).

In a later paper by Glick and Fiske, they examined levels of hostile and benevolent sexism across 15,000 men and women in 19 different countries. First of all, they found that hostile and benevolent sexism tend to correlate highly across nations. It is not the case that people who endorse hostile sexism don’t tend to endorse benevolent sexism, whereas those who are benevolently sexist look nothing like the hostilely sexist people. On the contrary, those who endorsed benevolent sexism were also very likely to hold explicit, hostile attitudes towards women (although one does not necessarily have to endorse these hostile attitudes in order to engage in benevolent sexism).

Secondly, they discovered that benevolent sexism was a significant predictor of nationwide gender inequality, independent of the effects of hostile sexism. Specifically, in countries where the men were more likely to endorse benevolent sexism, there were also significantly lower female participation rates in politics and the economy, and men generally had longer life expectancies, higher literacy rates, more years of education, and higher purchasing power than women. The warm, fuzzy feelings surrounding benevolently sexist statements come at a cost, and that cost is often actual, objective gender equality.

The Insidious Nature of Benevolent Sexism

A recent paper by Julia Becker and Stephen Wright details even more of the insidious ways that benevolent sexism might be harmful for both women and social activism. In a series of experiments, women were exposed to statements that either illustrated hostile sexism (e.g. “Women are too easily offended”) or benevolent sexism (e.g. “Women have a way of caring that men are not capable of in the same way.”) The results are quite discouraging; when the women read statements illustrating benevolent sexism, they were less willing to engage in anti-sexist collective action, such as signing a petition, participating in a rally, or generally “acting against sexism.” Not only that, but this effect was partially mediated by the fact that women who were exposed to benevolent sexism were more likely to think that there are many advantages to being a woman and were also more likely to engage in system justification, a process by which people justify the status quo and believe that there are no longer problems facing disadvantaged groups (such as women) in modern day society. Furthermore, women who were exposed to hostile sexism actually displayed the opposite effect – they were more likely to intend to engage in collective action, and more willing to fight against sexism in their everyday lives.

How might this play out in a day-to-day context? Imagine that there’s an anti-woman policy being brought to a vote, such as a regulation that would make it easier for local businesses to fire pregnant women once they find out that they are expecting. If you are collecting signatures for a petition or trying to gather women to protest this policy and those women were recently exposed to a group of men making comments about the policy in question, it would be significantly easier to gain their support and vote down the policy if the men were commenting that pregnant women should be fired because they were dumb for getting pregnant in the first place. However, if they instead happened to mention that women are much more compassionate than men and make better stay-at-home parents as a result, these remarks might actually lead these women to be less likely to fight an objectively sexist policy.

“I Mean, Is Sexism Really Still A Problem In 2012?”

It sometimes seems like every day, we hear people claiming that sexism, racism, or other forms of discrimination that seem to be outdated are “no longer really a problem.” Some people legitimately believe this to be true, while others (particularly women and racial minorities) find it ridiculous that others could be so blind to the problems that still exist. So why does this disparity exist? Why is it so difficult for so many people to see that sexism and racism are still alive and thriving?

Maybe the answer lies right here, on the benevolent side of prejudice. While “old fashioned” forms of discrimination may have died down quite a bit (after all, it really isn’t quite as socially acceptable in most areas of the world to be as explicitly sexist and/or racist as people have been in the past), more “benevolent” forms of discrimination still very much exist, and they have their own sneaky ways of suppressing equality. Unaffected bystanders (or perpetrators) may construe benevolently sexist sentiments as harmless or even beneficial; in fact, as demonstrated by Becker and Wright, targets may even feel better about themselves after exposure to benevolently sexist statements. This could be, in some ways, even worse than explicit, hostile discrimination; because it hides under the guise of compliments, it’s easy to use benevolent sexism to demotivate people against collective action or convince people that there is no longer a need to fight for equality.

However, to those people who still may be tempted to argue that benevolent sexism is nothing more than an overreaction to well-intentioned compliments, let me pose this question: What happens when there is a predominant stereotype saying that women are better stay-at-home parents than men because they are inherently more caring, maternal, and compassionate? It seems nice enough, but how does this ideology affect the woman who wants to continue to work full time after having her first child and faces judgment from her colleagues who accuse her of neglecting her child? How does it affect the man who wants to stay at home with his newborn baby, only to discover that his company doesn’t offer paternity leave because they assume that women are the better candidates to be staying at home?

At the end of the day, “good intent” is not a panacea. Benevolent sexism may very well seem like harmless flattery to many (or most) people, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t insidiously dangerous, with far-reaching consequences for men and women alike.


Becker, J., & Wright, S. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (1), 62-77 DOI: 10.1037/a0022615

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (3), 491-512 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491

Glick, P., Fiske, S., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoun, B., Osagie, J., Akande, A., Alao, A., Annetje, B., Willemsen, T., Chipeta, K., Dardenne, B., Dijksterhuis, A., Wigboldus, D., Eckes, T., Six-Materna, I., Expósito, F., Moya, M., Foddy, M., Kim, H., Lameiras, M., Sotelo, M., Mucchi-Faina, A., Romani, M., Sakalli, N., Udegbe, B., Yamamoto, M., Ui, M., Ferreira, M., & López, W. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 763-775 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.763

Melanie Tannenbaum About the Author: Melanie Tannenbaum is a doctoral candidate in social psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where she received an M.A. in social psychology in 2011. Her research focuses on the science of persuasion & motivation regarding political, health-related, and environmental behavior. You can add her on Twitter or visit her personal webpage. Follow on Twitter @melanietbaum.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Comments 18 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. willfree 1:35 pm 01/31/2012

    Men can also face the consequences of benevolent sexism directed toward men. The “big, strong man” can feel that he must be the muscle rather than the brains on a team, or simply feel inadequate in comparison to the stereotype when failing to open a jar of pickles.

    Link to this
  2. 2. rebeccainthewoods 3:49 pm 01/31/2012

    Yes, yes, yes! I experienced this while working as a field assistant on a bird behavior study – we were at a remote field station in Australia and the PIs were all macho guys, and one of them in particular was constantly calling the young women pet names like “poppet” (he was English), asking solicitously if we were all right, etc. It really bothered me, for just the reasons you describe here.

    Link to this
  3. 3. denysYeo 5:28 pm 01/31/2012

    I am someone (male) who comments on Blogs quite frequently. I try hard to focus on commenting on the content, irrespective of who has written the Blog, with the aim of trying to add my own perspective to what I think the author is trying to say. If I want to compliment the author I will compliment them on the content, not on who they are as a writer. In fact, I have often read a blog, and formed an opinion, before I know who has written it. I think it is unfortunate that some people use the comment option to further their own agenda, even if (as I think you are saying here) that agenda can sometimes be somewhat hidden. If they have something to say then they should write their own blog, not try and squeeze it into someone else’s work under the guise of (say) a compliment.
    Overall, I think the idea of Benevolent Sexism as something to be concerned about is absolutely right. Because it is much harder to change hidden agendas than agendas that are “in your face”, pointing out the role that commenting on Blogs may have in perpetuating this agenda is potentially very useful. It would be good to disseminate this message as widely as possible; particularly in Blog forums where people who are most likely to engage in this type of behaviour reside.

    Link to this
  4. 4. Paleoecologist 6:39 pm 01/31/2012

    Thank you so much for writing this– I find that benevolent sexism is one of the absolute hardest issues to communicate. I’m book-marking this post for a handy go-to reference when the need arises (and apologies in advance for any trolls that may send your way!). ~@JacquelynGill

    Link to this
  5. 5. kclancy 12:37 am 02/1/2012

    This is great Melanie — thanks for such a thoughtful, well-researched post! Like Jacquelyn, I am bookmarking this to share with many, many others.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Desert Navy 3:31 am 02/1/2012

    So wouldn’t this make affirmative action “benevolent” racism/sexism?

    Link to this
  7. 7. Melanie Tannenbaum 10:51 am 02/1/2012

    @ Desert Navy:


    Long story short, here’s the main difference: Benevolent sexism, no matter how benign the intention, has the ultimate outcome of taking opportunities *away* from women by perpetuating stereotypes (e.g. “wow, you’re really pretty, especially for a scientist” –> it’s harder for that woman to be taken seriously as a scientist).

    Affirmative action, regardless of anyone’s personal opinion about its efficacy, is designed to have the ultimate end goal of *providing* opportunities to minorities, women, etc. It does not take those opportunities away, or make it harder for women/minorities to succeed. In fact, its purpose is the opposite (meaning, it is intended to “even the playing field” and correct for the negative effects of sexism).

    I hope this makes sense!

    Link to this
  8. 8. northernguy 5:32 pm 02/2/2012

    Anybody who thinks the only difference between male and female is the shape of their genitals and their chromosome structure is someone who has little to contribute to any discussion of gender relations.

    Link to this
  9. 9. Desert Navy 10:15 pm 02/2/2012

    @ Melanie Tannenbaum

    I appreciate your personal comment and I know you have limited space for a response but the comparison you offer seems a non sequitur to me.

    I could easily have made the argument that “‘X’ persons cannot compete in ‘Y’ endeavor without extra assistance in the form of affirmative action.”

    As a disabled veteran I have taken advantage of many government benefits not available to the public at large, so I’m not taking an ‘adversarial’ position to the need or propriety of such programs. Additionally, as the father of three and grandfather of one girl (no boys!) this is a topic that sincerely concerns me and has interested me for quite some time (the topic of your blog, NOT affirmative action.)

    Would it be sexist to comment on an attractive male scientist? What about an attractive female garbage collector?
    I’m just not persuaded by the evidence given that any conclusions can be drawn.

    I’ve never met a woman that thought a man they found attractive was being sexist, and likewise if they find a man unattractive his wishing a “good morning” is often construed as harassment. (Men are not exempt from these unintended duplicities.)

    Link to this
  10. 10. Melanie Tannenbaum 12:39 pm 02/3/2012

    For everyone’s reference, I want to publicly post an e-mail that I received this morning, and my response. I’m posting this in case anyone is tempted to make similar arguments, so you know what my response will be. Seeing as I’ve heard this argument several times, and it’s one that particularly annoys me (as I consider myself to be a kind and gracious person), I’m hoping that this will clarify some things for anyone else tempted to make this same argument.

    This is the e-mail that I received:

    I pity you, constantly looking for victimhood even when people are being nice.

    You are why I don’t open doors for women, after being cussed out by women like you.

    When I open a door for a man, he thanks me.

    This is my response:

    Hello XXX,

    I was tempted not to respond, but I figured I would anyway. I’ve never cursed anyone out for doing something nice for me. When people hold doors open for me, male or female, I thank them. I also hold doors open for the people behind me. I never said anything about being annoyed with or angered by simple acts of kindness. You’re setting up a fake argument, here.

    What I’m saying is problematic is the idea that someone *has* to do things like hold doors open for me, or pay for dinner, or anything like that, because they perceive that I am too weak or incompetent to do it for myself. Unless someone explicitly says something like that, I don’t automatically assume that is what he is thinking. I thank them and am gracious that someone did something nice for me, and I assume they would do the same thing for a man. I can’t speak for every other woman on the planet, but I can speak for myself. My first assumption is never sexism if I’m not given a reason to think that it’s warranted. But, sometimes it is warranted. From what you are saying, if you open doors for both men and women, and if all you were doing was holding a door open, I would certainly not cuss you out. All women are not the same, and all women do not have the same reactions to things. If another woman cussed you out for something as simple as holding a door open, then that’s not right. But I am not that woman. Please do not make assumptions.

    Thank you for your feedback, but I can assure you I am not a horrible person. I appreciate basic human kindness when it is directed at both men and women, and am always gracious when people do nice things, including holding doors open. I only have a problem with people explicitly saying that I am too weak to do things like that for myself, or that they should do things like that for me *because* I am a woman. If you also open doors for men, I have no problem with what you do. Hopefully you understand what I am saying.


    Link to this
  11. 11. sharayurkiewicz 12:56 pm 02/3/2012

    I absolutely agree with Melanie. What she has written is logical, well-researched, persuasive, and sensible.

    Link to this
  12. 12. spiegelmama 7:29 pm 02/3/2012

    Desert Navy, first of all, thank you for your service to our country. I regret that it caused you harm.

    Benevolent sexism is a little bit like the uninvited solicitousness of people who hold doors for you, get things off shelves, push your wheelchair (theoretical – I don’t know if that’s your disability), and otherwise treat you like a disabled person instead of a person. I mean, they’re being nice, but their niceness diminishes your personhood. Or for any veteran, the person who is trying to be nice but assumes you are horribly scarred psychologically and won’t want to watch, I don’t know, M.A.S.H. It might come from a good intention, but it serves to wall you off.

    For the record, I have definitely thought people I found attractive were sexist. I’ve broken up with people for being sexist, and I’ve turned people down for being sexist. I’m highly attuned to and intolerant of that, having seen my share of sexism, benevolent and not. The best we can all do, though, is examine ourselves and our attitudes, and actually listen when someone tries to explain why they were offended. (Man, that can be uncomfortable, as I learned when a friend came out to me so that he could explain why a term I used casually was offensive. But I cut that word out of my vocabulary and watched myself for other issues that might arise, and we’re both a little happier for it.)

    I think you’re fine, by the way. Your girls will keep you in check! Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

    Link to this
  13. 13. MarkAA 11:26 am 02/4/2012

    Sorry, but the responses to Desert Navy & XXX fall flat, and highlight the severe limitations to your perspective. In short, your observations say much much more about the ‘recipient’ than the ‘sender’ of any ‘message.’ I.e., if one is looking for offensive comments or actions, one is going to perceive the ‘dark side’ of any comment of action, regardless of intent. The ‘opening doors for everyone’ scenario is not some ‘straw [wo]man’ argument – my roommate in college opened doors for everyone, male, female, wheelchair, carrying packages, etc. And yet, he was severely criticized in public by a number of women for doing so. As if it was necessarily ‘sexist’ and ‘demeaning’ to open a door for someone following you in … get real.

    This is the problem with focusing on the re-action, rather than the action, and then trying to impute intent to the actor. Yes, there may be some ‘victims,’ but too many re-actors believe in their own victim-hood.

    Contrary to your contention, affirmative action necessarily implies that the one being ‘helped’ needed the help, and couldn’t make it on their own – else why any ‘action’ at all? My African-American roommate in college spent a lot of his time explaining that he made it to & thru law school not ‘because’ of his skin color, but because of his own hard work, and the content of his character. And having been on the hiring end & in management, plenty of women & those with colored skin have to content with the perception that they aren’t really qualified, precisely because they just might be AA-tokens.

    Link to this
  14. 14. Melanie Tannenbaum 1:50 pm 02/4/2012

    @MarkAA –

    Actually, it’s not “my perspective.” This is not an opinion piece. I am writing about scientific data that have been around for almost two decades, with findings that have been replicated several times in different studies conducted by different laboratories over the past 16 years. This is not me saying, “Hey, I think this is a thing, and it bugs me personally, who’s with me?” This is me saying, “Hey, there are data and scientific studies showing that this thing has actual harmful consequences.”

    As the saying goes, anecdotes are not data. I wrote about data. You and XXX wrote about anecdotes.

    Data wins.

    And by the way, the “door opening” example was a straw man argument. I never mentioned “holding the door open” at any point in my piece, not even once. Why? Because in my experience, holding the door open for the person behind you has become an everyday, completely ungendered act of normal human decency. Bringing it up was weird and a complete non-sequitur, with no relation to anything I actually wrote about. Honestly, I just have nothing else to say about it because this idea of women cursing out men for holding doors open is so foreign and odd to me, and so completely far removed from anything I’ve ever experienced or even witnessed, I can’t even offer any commentary on it. This is either completely exaggerated, fabricated, or a population of people I’ve never once come into contact with in my entire life. So, I just have nothing to say about it, other than the fact that I personally doubt this ever really happens. But again, anecdotes are not data. So I have to leave it at that.

    Finally, I did my job by reporting on scientific findings and explaining them for the purpose of this article. Now that the piece has been published, I am under no further obligation to argue with commenters, respond to e-mails sent to my personal e-mail account (which, by the way, is not directly linked to on this page), or go into any more detail on anything that was discussed. Any time I’ve taken to do so is, honestly, extra effort. And I have a pretty tiring day job as a graduate student, which doesn’t leave much time in my life for “extra effort.” So no, I don’t consider it a good use of time to continue arguing with people about this piece. I wrote about science. The data say what the data say. That’s that. If you don’t like it, sorry. But this is not just my opinion that we’re talking about here.

    Link to this
  15. 15. RogerTheGeek 12:59 pm 02/6/2012

    I’ve been chewed out for opening doors for women before. I got over it quick. Women can be jerks too. I just smile and walk away. Many women haven’t really figured out what this feminist thing is so they show it in unproductive ways. Everyone is in a different state of maturity. I’ve known women who refused to get a male pet because they felt it would somehow contaminate their house. It doesn’t mean that feminists are wrong that some are extremists.

    I’m curious now about the benevolent sexism as the brother to four sisters.
    I will need to learn a lot more about it before I understand the data you presented. Is there more work being done in this area? Any links or specific researchers to follow?

    Link to this
  16. 16. Melanie Tannenbaum 2:47 pm 02/6/2012

    Hi RogerTheGeek,

    First of all, thank you for providing a difference of opinion in a respectful manner. Honestly, I really do appreciate it, especially after a week’s worth of attacks.

    In response to your first comment, yes. Part of the problem that I have with some people’s commentary is this idea that all feminists/women/etc. are the same and our reactions are interchangeable. No, we are not a monolith. There are some jerk feminists, and some jerk women, just like there are some jerk men. Thank you for acknowledging that, and not tying feminism or a willingness to understand and learn more about the roots and consequences of sexism to the actions of a small number of women.

    Now, in response to your second comment, I am happy to provide you with some further sources. The research of Peter Glick and Susan Fiske is most important here, as they laid the foundations for “ambivalent sexism” in their papers back in the late 90s and early 2000s. You can Google their names and/or the term “ambivalent sexism” to learn more. If you would like more specific PDFs, articles, citations, etc. I am happy to provide them, though I’m not sure this comment section is the right place. Feel free to e-mail me at and I will send over some PDFs, citations, etc. at my earliest convenience.

    Thank you again for your interest and curiosity!

    Link to this
  17. 17. TheAdmiral 3:38 am 12/10/2012

    I’m probably pretty late to this, but, I figured I’d write anyways.

    I suppose I’m curious and a little confused, and perhaps you can offer some perspective on it. For whatever reason, and perhaps this is part of what I hope to find out, reading this sort of thing makes me feel rather uncomfortable. Perhaps it’s because I worry that, as a male, maybe I’ve done some of these things and not realized it? Or I’m possibly afraid that I might accidentally do some of these things. But, I feel like there’s sort of an issue with someone being “accidentally” prejudiced. I understand that a person can have some degree of prejudice internalized as a result of cultural and social norms, but it still distresses me to think that I might be sexist and not even know it. Or even, how can I know if I’m sexist or not? I actively dislike and opposite the idea of sexism, but I’m very afraid that maybe I might be. How can I know whether I’m being sexist or not? Is it possible to offer compliments or comments to a woman that have traditionally feminine connotations without it being offensive, and if so, how do I do so? And perhaps most strangely of all, is it benevolent sexism to be so concerned about this? To think that I, as a male, have to go well out of my way to make sure I don’t insult or offend women?

    For the most part, in terms of sexism, I tend to think that I should treat women as I treat men, though it seems to be more complicated than that. For one, it needs to be considered that through much of history, society has been patriarchal, and has put women in a position of disadvantage. I don’t think it’s benevolent sexism, or sexism otherwise, to say that, as it’s clearly been established that sexism still exists and that women bear practically all of it. So, in interactions with women, and in considering the effects of my actions on them, I have to keep that in mind. However, that in itself is a difference between men and women beyond the purely biological, and one with more effect on interactions. It seems to imply to me, and maybe I’m mistaken, that I need to give more care to potentially offending or disenfranchising women than I do to men, as men are already in an advantageous position, and even if something I say may affect their potential for opportunities, they already have a head-start, and so it’s not quite a problem. I feel like there’s some kind of paradox where acting equally to both parties may inherently be unequal (i.e. assuming the stance that sexism does not exist and that the “field is level”) Perhaps I’ve misunderstood something, or perhaps I’m over-thinking things.

    Link to this
  18. 18. nutcase 6:41 pm 09/1/2014

    why me lie and women cry was an interesting book.It changed my perception that men and women are equal, it helped me appreciate they are different.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article