William%20Costello

The flawed metrics of modern sexism Psychological research often leans on the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory to categorize gendered behaviors. William Costello argues that current academic scales fail to distinguish between genuine antipathy and adaptive evolutionary preferences. When researchers label the desire to protect women as "benevolent sexism," they often pathologize natural human instincts. This mismeasurement suggests that acknowledging biological realities—such as the sexual dimorphism in upper body strength—is a sign of toxic masculinity rather than an observation of fact. Evolutionary roots of the protector instinct Data indicates that women prioritize physical protection even over romantic fidelity. Tania Reynolds and Costello point to a significant disconnect between academic theory and female preference. In a high-stakes scenario, such as a viral incident in Thailand where a woman was forced to fight off an armed thief while her male companion hid, public sentiment was universal: the failure to protect is viewed as a profound moral and social failing. This reveals that the "pedestal" criticized by psychologists is often a position women actively seek for safety and stability. The high cost of suppressing aggression Chris Williamson notes that the modern world offers few healthy outlets for male formidability. While society demands that men "turn off" aggression in domestic settings, the innate desire for a partner capable of controlled violence remains. This creates a trade-off. Women in dangerous ecologies often select more formidable, aggressive mates as a survival strategy, despite the potential risks of that aggression bleeding into the relationship. When psychological scales label these protective behaviors as sexist, they ignore the complex safety calculations women make every day. True resilience in relationships requires understanding these evolutionary pressures rather than dismissing them as outdated social constructs.