"Women find Benevolent Sexist men attractive because BS attitudes and behaviors signal that a man is willing to invest."

In addition, as Bourdieu writes:

"Because differential socialization disposes men to love the games of power and women to love the men who play them, masculine charisma is partly the charm of power, the seduction that the possession of power exerts, as such, on bodies whose drives and desires are themselves politically socialized.”

Benevolent Sexism and Mate Preferences: Why Do Women Prefer Benevolent Men Despite Recognizing That They Can Be Undermining?

Abstract

Benevolent sexism (BS) has detrimental effects on women, yet women prefer men with BS attitudes over those without. The predominant explanation for this paradox is that women respond to the superficially positive appearance of BS without being aware of its subtly harmful effects. We propose an alternative explanation drawn from evolutionary and sociocultural theories on mate preferences: Women find BS men attractive because BS attitudes and behaviors signal that a man is willing to invest. Five studies showed that women prefer men with BS attitudes (Studies 1a, 1b, and 3) and behaviors (Studies 2a and 2b), especially in mating contexts, because BS mates are perceived as willing to invest (protect, provide, and commit). Women preferred BS men despite also perceiving them as patronizing and undermining. These findings extend understanding of women’s motives for endorsing BS and suggest that women prefer BS men despite having awareness of the harmful consequences.

Here is from the TV series 'Happy Endings':

In Masculine Domination (1998), the French philosopher and sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) describes marriage as a rite of institution of masculine domination. Women gain in respect and consideration when the achieve a good marriage. Spinsters are frowned upon, unlike confirmed bachelors. So unlike men, women would sport the ring on their finger as a sign of accomplishment.

Bourdieu cites Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): ‘Just as it is not woman’s role to go to war,’ says Kant, ‘so she cannot personally defend her rights and engage in civil affairs for herself, but only through a representative’ (I. Kant, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View) and comments:

“Clearly Otto Weininger was not entirely wrong in claiming to speak for Kantian philosophy when, having reproached women for their readiness to adopt their husband’s name, he concluded that ‘woman is essentially nameless because she intrinsically lacks personality.‘“

As Bourdieu says, “renunciation, which Kant ascribes to the female nature, is inscribed at the deepest level of the dispositions constituting the habitus, a second nature which never looks more like nature than when the socially instituted libido is realized in a particular form of libido, in the ordinary sense of desire. Because differential socialization disposes men to love the games of power and women to love the men who play them, masculine charisma is partly the charm of power, the seduction that the possession of power exerts, as such, on bodies whose drives and desires are themselves politically socialized.”

We will use an excerpt of Pride and Prejudice (1813) by Jane Austen (1775-1817) to illustrate Bourdieu’s point. In her novel, the one who is considered as one of the first feminists, describes the relief of Charlotte Lucas’s family when the gross Mr. Collins proposed to her:

“The whole family, in short, were properly overjoyed on the occasion. The younger girls formed hopes of coming out a year or two sooner than they might otherwise have done; and the boys were relieved from their apprehension of Charlotte’s dying an old maid. Charlotte herself was tolerably composed. She had gained her point, and had time to consider of it. Her reflections were in general satisfactory. Mr. Collins, to be sure, was neither sensible nor agreeable; his society was irksome, and his attachment to her must be imaginary. But still he would be her husband.

Without thinking highly either of men or of matrimony, marriage had always been her object; it was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and however uncertain of giving happiness, must be their pleasantest preservative from want.”

(TV series Happy Endings. S03E13: What is the point of getting married if no one can see?)

. . . . . . .

Since we are already addressing the joys of marriage, we might as well take a look at

Sex through a sacred lens: Longitudinal effects of sanctification of marital sexuality.

Abstract

Research attending to the role of religion and spirituality in enhancing sexuality in marriage is virtually absent. In response to this scarcity, this longitudinal study examined the sanctification of marital sexuality among newly married, heterosexual individuals (N = 67; married 4-18 months at Time 1). Greater sanctification of marital sexuality early in the marriage predicted more frequent sexual intercourse, sexual satisfaction, and marital satisfaction 1 year later for individual respondents, after controlling for initial levels of the dependent variable as well as age, frequencies of religious service attendance and prayer, and biblical conservatism. Greater sanctification continued to longitudinally predict greater sexual frequency and sexual satisfaction after also controlling for initial marital satisfaction. Participants with higher initial levels of sanctification of marital sexuality, relative to those with lower levels, experienced smaller declines in sexual satisfaction across 1 year. Findings add to empirical evidence that greater sanctification of close relationships facilitates relational well-being.

Gee, we've come a long way. Who would have thought what sanctification can achieve.