Andrew Thomas

The benevolent sexism trap Psychological research often employs the Benevolent Sexism Scale to categorize protective instincts as subtle forms of prejudice. William Costello argues these metrics are fundamentally flawed because they pathologize standard human preferences. When Freya India reviewed statements suggesting men should cherish women, she labeled them as "good," yet the scale identifies this as sexism. This disconnect reveals a growing chasm between academic theory and lived biological reality. Science fails the evolutionary test Costello and Tania Reynolds describe a phenomenon they call the "mismeasurement of men." They contend that modern scale development ignores basic evolutionary psychology. By stripping away context, researchers treat a man's awareness of female preferences—such as an attraction to muscularity—as evidence of toxic masculinity. These tools often require an "extra inference," assuming that a desire to protect women must inherently mean a desire to limit their autonomy. Safety outweighs fidelity in dating The depth of women's preference for protection remains underestimated. A poll conducted by the group found that women viewed a man's unwillingness to protect them as more damaging to his attractiveness than a one-night stand. This evolutionary drive explains why viral videos of men failing to intervene during danger provoke such visceral public backlash. In dangerous environments, the value of male formidability becomes a primary selection criterion for many women. The aggression trade-off Selecting for a formidable partner involves a complex risk assessment. While women value the ability to deploy aggression against external threats, the difficulty lies in a man's capacity to switch that aggression off within the relationship. This biological reality creates a tension that modern sociological frameworks struggle to capture, often dismissing deep-seated safety needs as mere internalized bias.