The Access Hollywood tape uniquely led many powerful, White male Republicans to defect from supporting Trump. Psychological theory and research suggests why Trump’s groping comments were more offensive to conservative men than previous derogatory statements about other groups: they created a conflict between supporting Trump and maintaining a self-image as benevolent protectors and providers for the women in their lives.
In a NY Times op-ed, Frank Bruni pointed out that many Republican men who withdrew support for Trump justified doing so as protecting their wives and, especially, their daughters. In other words, personal, intimate, familial relations motivated these men to reject Trump. This reaction is consistent with research on the contact hypothesis: close relationships with people in other groups create empathy and reduce prejudice. Men’s intimate connections with women, compared to other groups with whom many White men typically lack close contact (e.g., Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans) may have sparked greater outrage when Trump was caught demeaning women.
But there’s an additional ingredient that may explain why some conservative men found the groping comments so offensive: they created a conflict between support for Trump and a fundamental aspect of their self-image: benevolent sexism.
Many social groups (e.g., based on race, ethnicity, or class) live segregated lives or have only superficial contact. By contrast, heterosexuality and familial relations ensure that men and women are closely interconnected. As a result, men have long faced a dilemma: how to maintain male dominance while having satisfying, intimate relations with women (e.g., their wives, daughters, and mothers). Benevolent sexism resolves this dilemma. It characterizes men’s greater status, power, and resources not as oppressive, but as serving the women in their lives, whom they protect, provide for, and cherish. But benevolently sexist protection comes at a cost – women are expected to earn it by remaining subservient and satisfied with the status quo.
Further, benevolent sexism offers a narrow circle of protection: toward family members and women viewed as similar to them (i.e., the kinds of women men can imagine being related to or marrying). As a result, women from different racial, ethnic, or class groups may be excluded. For example, recent research shows that Whites are less likely to extend benevolent sexism toward a Black (than a White) woman.
But for the women who fall within the inner circle, benevolently sexist men’s protectiveness reflects a deeply held self-image.Trump’s comments suggesting he had no compunctions about sexually assaulting women similar to his male supporters’ wives and daughters put these men in a bind: either reject Trump or their own cherished self-view as women’s benevolent protectors.
The problem with the “I have a daughter” line is that it translates a basic human right – nobody, male or female, should be subjected to sexual assault – into a benevolently sexist justification offering protection to some, not all . Benevolent sexism may lead men to take a protective stance, but in a manner that implicitly views women as property (“she’s mine, therefore she deserves protection”) and excludes women who fall outside of men’s psychological inner circle.
Paternalistic protection may be better than letting offensive comments go unchallenged, but affirming basic human rights for everyone is the only way to ensure equal protection across all social groups.
The Access Hollywood tape uniquely led many powerful, White male Republicans to defect from supporting Trump. Psychological theory and research suggests why Trump’s groping comments were more offensive to conservative men than previous derogatory statements about other groups: they created a conflict between supporting Trump and maintaining a self-image as benevolent protectors and providers for the women in their lives.
In a NY Times op-ed, Frank Bruni pointed out that many Republican men who withdrew support for Trump justified doing so as protecting their wives and, especially, their daughters. In other words, personal, intimate, familial relations motivated these men to reject Trump. This reaction is consistent with research on the contact hypothesis: close relationships with people in other groups create empathy and reduce prejudice. Men’s intimate connections with women, compared to other groups with whom many White men typically lack close contact (e.g., Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans) may have sparked greater outrage when Trump was caught demeaning women.
But there’s an additional ingredient that may explain why some conservative men found the groping comments so offensive: they created a conflict between support for Trump and a fundamental aspect of their self-image: benevolent sexism.
Many social groups (e.g., based on race, ethnicity, or class) live segregated lives or have only superficial contact. By contrast, heterosexuality and familial relations ensure that men and women are closely interconnected. As a result, men have long faced a dilemma: how to maintain male dominance while having satisfying, intimate relations with women (e.g., their wives, daughters, and mothers). Benevolent sexism resolves this dilemma. It characterizes men’s greater status, power, and resources not as oppressive, but as serving the women in their lives, whom they protect, provide for, and cherish. But benevolently sexist protection comes at a cost – women are expected to earn it by remaining subservient and satisfied with the status quo.
Further, benevolent sexism offers a narrow circle of protection: toward family members and women viewed as similar to them (i.e., the kinds of women men can imagine being related to or marrying). As a result, women from different racial, ethnic, or class groups may be excluded. For example, recent research shows that Whites are less likely to extend benevolent sexism toward a Black (than a White) woman.
But for the women who fall within the inner circle, benevolently sexist men’s protectiveness reflects a deeply held self-image.Trump’s comments suggesting he had no compunctions about sexually assaulting women similar to his male supporters’ wives and daughters put these men in a bind: either reject Trump or their own cherished self-view as women’s benevolent protectors.
The problem with the “I have a daughter” line is that it translates a basic human right – nobody, male or female, should be subjected to sexual assault – into a benevolently sexist justification offering protection to some, not all . Benevolent sexism may lead men to take a protective stance, but in a manner that implicitly views women as property (“she’s mine, therefore she deserves protection”) and excludes women who fall outside of men’s psychological inner circle.
Paternalistic protection may be better than letting offensive comments go unchallenged, but affirming basic human rights for everyone is the only way to ensure equal protection across all social groups.