Benevolent Sexism: Calling BS on Workplace “Chivalry”
“You don’t need to take that on, it might be too much with all your responsibilities outside work.”
“You’re so good with people, you’d be perfect for this support role.”
On the surface, these comments sound considerate, even complimentary. But they often reflect a subtle form of bias that shapes who gets opportunities, who is protected, and who is held back in the workplace.
When we think about sexism, we often picture overt discrimination in the form of visible hostility, exclusion, harassment, or open resistance to gender equity. But some of the most persistent forms of gender inequity are reinforced through praise, protection, and seemingly positive beliefs about women.
This is the terrain of benevolent sexism.
What is benevolent sexism?
Benevolent sexism refers to beliefs that women are caring, nurturing, morally superior, or in need of protection (Glick & Fiske, 1997).
Benevolent sexism consists of three components:
Heterosexual intimacy
“A good woman should be set on a pedestal by her man”
To be fulfilled, men need women as romantic partners
Complementary Gender Differentiation
“Women have a quality of purity that few men possess”
There are inherent differences between men and women – each gender holds unique qualities the other does not
Protective Paternalism
“Women should be cherished and protected by men”
Men should protect and provide for women
In the workplace, benevolent sexism can look like:
Protecting women from unpleasant news, independently of their preferences
Assigning women easier tasks so that they do not have to struggle
Insisting that men help women, even when they do not need it
Lightening the workload of women when it is not necessary
Giving women less work so they don’t get overwhelmed
Calling women ‘sweetie’, ‘honey’, ‘love’, or other diminutive terms
Benevolently sexist attitudes are often experienced as complimentary. Women are framed as warm, selfless, emotionally intelligent, and nurturing. And more often than not, these beliefs come from well-meaning people (both men and women), who don’t consciously realise the impact of these attitudes.
However, research consistently shows that these same assumptions reinforce traditional gender roles and subtly undermine women’s autonomy, leadership opportunities, and perceived competence (Glick & Fiske, 2001; Bareket & Fiske, 2023).
Ambivalent sexism
Benevolent sexism
Hostile sexism
Benevolent sexism forms one half of what is known as ambivalent sexism, alongside hostile sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1997). While hostile sexism reflects overtly negative attitudes toward women, particularly those who challenge male dominance, benevolent sexism is subjectively positive in tone, but ultimately restrictive in effect.
“Oh, Amina would be great on that project, but the hours and travel wouldn’t work for her. She has two young kids, and her husband works a demanding job. It wouldn’t be fair to put that pressure on her right now. We should assign Marcus instead. He’ll require more guidance, but he’s ready for the challenge.””
Benevolent sexism is often displayed openly and socially rewarded, particularly in organisational and public settings (Chisango et al., 2015). Its polite, protective framing makes it less likely to be recognised or challenged, which is precisely what gives it such staying power.
Large-scale cross-national research demonstrates that while women consistently reject hostile sexism, they are more likely to endorse benevolent sexism, especially in more sexist cultural contexts (Glick & Fiske, 2001). This pattern highlights how deeply normalised these beliefs are, even among those they disadvantage.
Why Benevolent Sexism is Harmful
Although benevolent sexism can look and feel affirming, it reinforces gender inequity in meaningful and enduring ways. By framing women as naturally caring and self-sacrificing, benevolent sexism legitimises unequal expectations around responsibility, support, and care across families, communities, and organisations.
At the same time, benevolent sexism undermines perceptions of women’s competence. When women are valued for warmth, politeness, and the ability to resolve conflict, they are valued for traits associated with subordinance, not valid promotional criteria (Biernat et al., 2012; Dardenne et al., 2007). This increases the likelihood that they will be overlooked for promotions, leadership roles, and positions associated with authority or technical expertise.
Research has also demonstrated that when women experience benevolent sexism, it increases intrusive thoughts and feelings of incompetence, lowers their confidence and negatively impacts their performance (Dardenne et al., 2007; Dumont et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2014).
At the same time, benevolent sexism creates a particularly insidious trap for women in the workplace: the double bind.
When women are primarily valued for warmth, nurturance, and interpersonal sensitivity, they are implicitly expected to embody these traits. But leadership is culturally coded as assertive, decisive, and authoritative; qualities that sit in direct tension with those expectations (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Women who conform to benevolently sexist expectations are seen as likeable, sweet, or relational, but not leadership material. Those who reject them and display confidence, authority, or ambition are more likely to be seen as competent but instead face social penalties for violating gender norms, including being perceived as cold, aggressive, or difficult (Rudman & Glick, 2001).
Therein lies the double bind; whichever path women take, there is a cost. Compliance reinforces their exclusion from leadership; deviation invites backlash. In this way, benevolent sexism functions as a quiet enforcement mechanism, rewarding women who stay within prescribed gender roles and penalising those who step outside them, all while appearing protective, chivalrous, and even kind.
What This Means for Workplaces and Leadership
Imagine you are in a team meeting where a high-profile, high-risk project is being assigned. Your manager pauses, then turns to you and says, “You’ve got a lot on your plate, I don’t want to overload you.” The project goes to a male colleague with similar experience.
Later, in your performance review, you are praised for being “supportive,” “collaborative,” and “great with people.” Your colleague is described as “strategic,” “decisive,” and “ready for the next step.”
Nothing explicit has happened. No one has questioned your ability. But the outcome is clear. One of you is being prepared for leadership, and the other is being positioned to support it.
Despite sustained attention to gender equality, women remain significantly underrepresented in organisational leadership. Globally, women hold only 31% of leadership roles (World Economic Forum [WEF], 2022). While more women are joining the paid workforce, they continue to face several barriers to achieving equal opportunities in leadership positions, such as gender bias and stereotypes (United Nations Development Programme, 2023).
Gender stereotypes continue to shape who is seen as leadership material. Where benevolent sexism perpetuates beliefs regarding women being innately warm, empathic, and interpersonally capable; at the same time, leadership remains culturally coded as decisive, authoritative, and strategic (Glick & Fiske, 1997; Koenig et al., 2011).
Although effective leadership in practice requires a broad range of relational and task-oriented competencies, the double bind shows us that these qualities are not evaluated neutrally. Instead, women’s relational strengths are often treated as natural or expected, while men’s leadership behaviours are more readily interpreted as evidence of competence and potential (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007).
Over time, these dynamics funnel women into roles focused on people management, wellbeing, and organisational care, while men are more frequently channelled toward positions associated with power, advancement, and organisational prestige (Vial & Cowgill, 2022). Benevolent sexism also shapes performance evaluations, promotion decisions, and perceptions of leadership potential, with women more likely to be assessed on interpersonal style and fit, rather than strategic impact or authority (Barreto et al., 2009). Together, these processes reinforce gendered leadership pipelines and sustain inequity at the highest levels of organisations.
Why Benevolent Sexism Persists
Benevolent sexism persists because it aligns with deeply ingrained cultural narratives about gender, care, and morality. It feels familiar and socially acceptable, and it is often reinforced by both men and women, not out of malice, but because it is embedded in dominant ideas about what it means to be a “good” woman. In parallel, narrow definitions of masculinity also shape expectations about authority, emotional restraint, and leadership in ways that are similarly limiting.
Because it is framed as supportive rather than discriminatory, it is less likely to be questioned, interrupted, or even recognised.
Challenging benevolent sexism can therefore feel uncomfortable. It requires questioning beliefs that are often experienced as respectful or protective. Without confronting these beliefs, however, gender inequity remains intact, simply expressed in softer language.
What you can do about it
Addressing benevolent sexism in the workplace can start with something incredibly simple: increasing awareness of what it is and how harmful it can be (Becker & Swim, 2012).
When people can recognise what benevolent sexism looks like, they can start to address their own behaviour, the behaviour of others and the systems that uphold benevolent sexism within their organisations.
Combatting benevolent sexism in the workplace:
Look for how inequity is maintained through everyday expectations, praise, and assumptions about gender.
Examine how leadership potential is defined and rewarded.
Value care, collaboration, and competence for all employees, regardless of gender,
Provide opportunities for authority, influence, and advancement that are equally accessible to all.
Support a culture where people of all genders are encouraged to lead, support others, and set boundaries without penalty.
At a societal level, addressing benevolent sexism demands a fundamental shift in how we understand women’s value. Gender equity is not achieved by placing women on a pedestal, but by dismantling the pedestal altogether and trusting that women belong in the same roles, institutions, and positions of authority as men, based on merit alone.
References
Bareket, O., & Fiske, S. T. (2023). A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men's power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles. Psychological Bulletin, 149(11–12), 637–698.
Barreto, M., Ryan, M. K., & Schmitt, M. T. (Eds.). (2009). The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11863-000
Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2012). Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs: Differential effects of addressing harm versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Social Psychology, 43, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000091
Biernat, M., Tocci, M. J., & Williams, J. C. (2012). The language of performance evaluations: Gender-based shifts in content and consistency of judgment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611415693
Chisango, T., Mayekiso, T., & Thomae, M. (2015). The social nature of benevolent sexism and the antisocial nature of hostile sexism: Is benevolent sexism more likely to manifest in public contexts and hostile sexism in private contexts? International Journal of Psychology, 50(5), 363–371.
Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women's performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 764–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 119–135.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological bulletin, 137(4), 616–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00239
Sgarra, D., Cleva, M., Nanni, S., Montalti, M., Piraccini, A. M., & Brunelli, A. (2025). Hostile and Benevolent Sexism: Prioritizing Prevention Strategies Through a Cross-Sectional Study in a Northern Italian City. Societies, 15(3), 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15030061
Vial A and Cowgill C (2022) Heavier Lies Her Crown: Gendered Patterns of Leader Emotional Labor and Their Downstream Effects. Frontiers in Psychology 13.