William Costello warns psychological scales mismeasure men by pathologizing protection

The benevolent sexism paradox

Modern social psychology often utilizes the Benevolent Sexism Scale to categorize attitudes that appear positive but purportedly reinforce gender inequality. However, William Costello and Tania Reynolds argue that these metrics suffer from a fundamental "mismeasurement of men." By framing the desire to protect or cherish women as a subtle form of prejudice, researchers may be pathologizing deep-seated biological and evolutionary preferences rather than identifying genuine bigotry.

Flaws in psychological inference

The critique centers on how scales like those for Toxic Masculinity require what Costello calls "Cathy Newman-style" inferences. When a respondent agrees that women should be rescued first in a disaster, the scale interprets this as a desire to strip women of their autonomy. This leap ignores the fact that many women actually prefer and prioritize these protective behaviors. The current academic landscape often treats an awareness of physical realities—such as the significant sex difference in upper body strength—as evidence of an underlying sexist attitude rather than a simple recognition of fact.

Evolutionary drives and female preference

Data suggests that women’s preference for male protection remains exceptionally strong. In polls conducted by the panel, women indicated that a man's unwillingness to protect them was a greater deterrent to attraction than sexual infidelity. This evolutionary drive becomes visible in viral moments, such as the Thailand Robbery Video, where a man's failure to intervene was universally condemned by viewers.

The cost of intellectual isolation

By ignoring evolutionary psychology, modern social sciences risk creating an intellectual vacuum. Freya India notes that liberal women often report lower levels of happiness, potentially due to unmet needs for stability and protection that current social paradigms dismiss as sexist. When academia labels traditional protective instincts as "ambivalent sexism," it creates a disconnect between psychological theory and the lived realities of human attraction and safety.