X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Blogs

Don’t knock ‘benevolent sexism’ – it makes us happy

25 March 2014

2:00 PM

25 March 2014

2:00 PM

The American-led Left has a new fixation: ‘benevolent sexism’. Recent examples found here, here and here.

According to one definition: ‘Ambivalent or benevolent sexism usually originates in an idealization of traditional gender roles: Women are “naturally” more kind, emotional, and compassionate, while men are “naturally” more rational, less emotional, and “tougher,” mentally and physically.’

I don’t want to say anything that could get me arrested in Belgium, but men are on average physically tougher than women. And I would have thought that stating women have – on average – greater empathy is was not likely to get you an auto-da-fé.

[Alt-Text]


I imagine that ‘benevolent sexism’ is enduringly popular because people quite like it, women included:

‘For men, BS was directly associated with life satisfaction. For women, the palliative effect of BS was indirect and occurred because BS-ideology positioning women as deserving of men’s adoration and protection was linked to general perceptions of gender relations as fair and equitable, which in turn predicted greater levels of life satisfaction.’

As so often, the things that we’re told are ‘bad’ actually make us happy, while the things that we’re supposed believe to be good actually make us sad.

Sexual freedom, for example, makes people depressed much of the time, especially adolescent girls, judged cruelly by their ability to attract the opposite sex. A money-obsessed culture, with its intense competition, stress and inequality, also causes us to be miserable, although few Conservatives acknowledge this except for Jesse Norman. Ethnic diversity we know makes people unhappy because they vote with their feet. Likewise sexual equality, or at least sexual equality that refuses to acknowledge the biological reality of sex; and I can’t imagine the idea of ‘microaggressions’, in which people are encouraged to see slights in every experience, is very good for one’s mental health.

There’s a parallel between modern political ideas and modern urban living, which also makes us unhappy a lot of the time because we feel lonely and isolated. That is why rural romanticism will always have an appeal, both on the Left and Right, even when the reality of rural life has historically been awful for the vast majority of people. (I like a good bit of it myself, gazing at a beautiful country scene while on holiday, paid for with money I’ve made by working in a city.)

Cities are good things in themselves; the trick is to combine urban living with aspects of a traditional, more human existence that we feel happy with. The same is true of politics, and the aim of Burkean conservatism is to achieve progressive political ends by building on tradition and emphasising institutions, manners and social trust, rather than utopian ideas that ignore human nature.

That’s my philosophy, at any rate; the equivalent of one of those rural-style gastropubs one finds in nicer parts of London that have their own microbrewery attached.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close