A New Study Says Being Polite To Women Is...Sexist??

NY Post- Chivalry isn’t dead — but perhaps it ought to be.

While mean male misogynists are rightfully villainized for their overt prejudice toward women, Prince Charming isn’t living up to his chivalrous reputation either as new findings reveal he’s just as likely to be cheating on Princess Charming — and she probably has no clue.

“Benevolent” sexism refers to a belief that women are vulnerable and need the protection of men, which can understandably be misconstrued as simply being polite. However, this seemingly protective and fatherly view of manhood is founded on the same male-chauvinistic principle — essentially, that men are superior to women — as “hostile” sexism, an open expression of contempt for women.

I thought I had seen it all, I really did, then I opened up this article which basically states that "benevolent sexism" is a lead indicator of infidelity. 

Let's read on….

Adding to that list of red flags, a new report published in the Journal of Sex Research explored whether sexist attitudes were a reliable predictor of infidelity, as well as the likelihood that benevolent vs hostile sexist men were to cheat, as opposed to those with no sexist values in either direction. They also wanted to know how well women women could sense which of these groups was most likely to cheat.

The first test involved 379 heterosexual men from the US who answered questions to assess their level of sexist values as well as their likelihood of cheating, including whether or not they’d cheated or thought about cheating in the past. The surveys confirmed both hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes as significant indicators of infidelity, and the more sexist the men were the more likely they were to have considered or committed cheating on their partner.

A follow-up trial involved another 544 straight American men to confirm the preceding results, as well as assess the importance sexist men placed on power in their relationships. Again, both forms of sexism were high indicators of infidelity, and both were strongly associated with being in a position of power in a relationship — perhaps making them more likely to cheat.

What kind of crap is this? Forget the infidelity, let's more talk about the fact that they are trying to shut down chivalry. Not on my watch! Last time i checked, holding the door, giving up a seat, or a variety of other things are just being nice. They stem from being raised correctly, not a branch of thinking you are better than anyone or sexist. At an early age I was taught the facts of life, and being chivalrous was one of those. It's very simple you were either taught that or you weren't. Not going to name names but here's some videos of non-chivalrous acts. 

Anyway, to try and shut down chivalry altogether is the dumbest thing on the planet. Think about the rationale of this article. They are saying because people who are chivalrous cheat, we must shut down chivalry altogether. Why don't we expand the search to people with brown hair? Or people who hate ketchup. The facts are the facts people are going to cheat and being chivalrous has absolutely zero to do with it. It's the craziest stretch of logic I have ever seen and it needs to stop. 

In the name of chivalry, keep holding the door, keep offering up your seat, and keep walking on the street side. Keep the tradition alive despite what anyone says.