Benevolent sexism and the "dangerous nature" of "life satisfaction"

Via a recent New York Times debate on reviving chivalry I came across an article with one of the most unusual abstracts I've seen in a while. Here follows the abstract from Why Is Benevolent Sexism Appealing?:

Previous research suggests that benevolent sexism is an ideology that perpetuates gender inequality. But despite its negative consequences, benevolent sexism is a prevalent ideology that some even find attractive. To better understand why women and men alike might be motivated to adopt benevolent sexism, the current study tested system justification theory’s prediction that benevolent sexism might have a positive linkage to life satisfaction through increased diffuse system justification, or the sense that the status quo is fair. A structural equation model revealed that benevolent sexism was positively associated with diffuse system justification within a sample of 274 college women and 111 college men. Additionally, benevolent sexism was indirectly associated with life satisfaction for both women and men through diffuse system justification. In contrast, hostile sexism was not related to diffuse system justification or life satisfaction. The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level. Thus, our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence.

Basically the article finds that "benevolent sexism" is positively associated with life satisfaction and then goes on to assert it's "dangerous nature". Basically the researchers are arguing that a status quo bias is preventing a better future. However finding positive associations with life satisfaction for BOTH men and women hardly seems proof of its dangerous nature unless you're working with an agenda in mind.