Anytime I’m faced with dealing with the fairer sex, I always ask myself, “What wouldn’t a male puppy do?”

For those of you who don’t know, in play fights, male puppies will let female puppies win—even if they have a physical advantage—to sneak an opportunity to bond with the females, according to a 2008 study by Camille Ward.

And people wonder why I’m a cat person.

The fact that we as humans call this behavior cute or adorable discourages me. Mostly, it discourages me because cats run the gamut regarding  animals doing human things, and now that dogs want to give it a try is just unsettling.

But it’s also discouraging that we could consider this behavior human-like at all.

We engage in this behavior on a near-daily basis but never stop to think about what lies beneath the surface of this seemingly nice, friendly and progressive behavior.

We see this let-the-girl-win attitude expressed in everything from gender-specific beer pong rules to a harsher punishment for a man who assaults a woman instead of a man regardless of context.

Yeah, putting women first, that’s what feminism is all about, right? No. It’s just sexist.

Yes, despite what many ignorant people that talk politics say, letting women take the upper hand or giving them advantages men don’t get is not, in fact, feminism, but a form of sexism.

Specifically, it’s benevolent sexism, sexism that seems nice and friendly and well intended but born of an ingrained belief in male superiority .

Peter Glick and Susan Fiske, who coined the term in a 1996 essay about ambiguous sexism, defined benevolent sexism as, “a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling tone.”

What does that mean? Basically, though it may seem nice to go on about how delicate and kind women are and how wonderful they are at balancing motherhood with another job, it’s more detrimental than helpful.

Benevolent sexism differs from hostile sexism in a few ways. We see hostile sexism when men say women must do the cooking because it’s their place. We see benevolent sexism when men say women make better cooks than men.

Hostile sexism might suggest that a woman walking home alone in a revealing outfit is fair game for any guy who wants her. Benevolent sexism, on the other hand, suggests women carry weapons—pepper spray, knives or even brass knuckles—everywhere in case of an attack.

While this notion not only fails to advise men not to attack (an entirely different problem), it perpetuates the idea that women are not capable of defending themselves from (presumably) unarmed men without aid.

Encouraging women to carry weapons is, in essence, letting them win. And letting them win on the basis of sex is, surprise, sexist.

So why is this an issue if it seems so nice?

First, let’s look at a very stripped and basic definition of feminism.

In a column for Salon, author Mary Elizabeth Williams said that if you believe in the strength of women, you’re soaking in feminism.

But when we compare this to influential female pop stars’ views on feminism, we see an alarming discrepancy.

“I’m not a feminist, but I do believe in the strength of women,” said Katy Perry, after winning the Billboard Award for Woman of the Year in 2012.

It isn’t just Katy Perry. Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift and other influential women have expressed similar views, which trickle down into mainstream thought.

People tend to think feminism is about hating men or putting women above men. But as we’ve learned, putting women above men is just another form of sexism. Letting women win is the exact opposite of a belief in the strength of women.

It’s easy to see how confusing a movement with what that movement combats can be troubling.

Not only does letting women win provide a false sense of security and make no room for them to gain any political leverage, it also does an enormous disservice to the feminist movement in perpetuating sexist behavior that the general public confuses for feminism.

Worst of all, a study by Julia Becker and Stephen Wright found that those exposed to benevolent sexism were less willing to engage in anti-sexist behavior, believing sexism a problem extinguished. On the other hand, those exposed to hostile sexism demonstrated opposite results.

Belief that sexism is no longer a problem typically leads to “system justification,” a term Melanie Tannenbaum defines as, “a process by which people justify the status quo and believe there are no longer problems facing disadvantaged groups.”

What this means is that, because benevolent sexism often goes unnoticed or praised, people are more likely to think women have more valuable advantages than they do, that sexism is no more, and that sex-based discrimination is justifiable.

We refer to this as hegemonic masculinity. It is that deeply internalized, institutionalized sexism that is so ingrained into any patriarchal culture that we hardly recognize it.

We don’t need people shouting, “Oppress all women! Women are the lesser sex!” to keep patriarchy alive. All we need is the guy who insists his wife cooks for him, since women make much better food than men