scratch Posted July 14, 2005 Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by millefiori It's not really a double standard when you as a man are expected to refrain from hitting a woman. The majority of men is physically at advantage compared to a woman and that's why you don't hit her. Can somebody else explain the difference between a judgement as to whether a double standard exists and a judgement as to whether a double standard is appropriate? Apparently I am not getting through. Originally posted by TUDOR But we (society) set the standards of what is acceptable and what the double standards are and will be. Our actions influence the next person, so on and so forth. So if I allow myself to treat another woman less than I would treat some one I loved and some other man witnesses this which later turns out to be the man who dates my sister....what kind of standards have I just influenced on this guy? Its all relevant whether it those you love or strangers! Two sides to this coin - what if your sister, wife or mother didn't feel you treated them as if they were special? This line of argument will open up a can of worms that will spin completely out of control and will land us in a place that is absurd with regard to human behavior.
TylerC Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 What about pregnancy? Why don't men get a say in it at all? If we have to pay for the damn thing, we should get a say in it.
Kat Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by TylerC What about pregnancy? Why don't men get a say in it at all? If we have to pay for the damn thing, we should get a say in it. I have to agree. Woman gets pregnant. Woman wants to keep baby. Man doesn't want baby. Woman makes man pay through the nose. Woman gets pregnant. Woman doesn't want to keep baby. Man does. Woman gets abortion.
Zaira Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Is it double standards in all cases or just different perceptions?
millefiori Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by millefiori It's not really a double standard when you as a man are expected to refrain from hitting a woman. The majority of men is physically at advantage compared to a woman and that's why you don't hit her. Originally posted by scratch Can somebody else explain the difference between a judgement as to whether a double standard exists and a judgement as to whether a double standard is appropriate? Apparently I am not getting through. Ok, let me explain it slowly to you, so you understand it, too. Double standard: when the circumstances are the same except the genders are reversed and people will judge unfairly favoring a certain gender. Example: Man sleeps with a lot of women = great dude. Woman sleeps with a lot of men = slut. I don't see the double standard in this case as a man is physically stronger than a woman. How can you apply the same criteria to two people when you judge who are not equal?
scratch Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by millefiori Double standard: when the circumstances are the same except the genders are reversed and people will judge unfairly favoring a certain gender. Example: Man sleeps with a lot of women = great dude. Woman sleeps with a lot of men = slut. I don't see the double standard in this case as a man is physically stronger than a woman. How can you apply the same criteria to two people when you judge who are not equal? Your misconception is that all double standards are unfair. There are fair double standards as well as unfair ones, which you tend to forget in your eagerness to insist that "double-standard" must be a pejorative term. We have hoards of girls on this site who undoubtedly feel that there is a double standard in that they have earlier curfews than the boys. This can be explained as a matter of safety, for the exact reason you noted above - boys are bigger and stronger. It's still a double standard, don't you think? A better definition for double standard is: a scenario where members of each sex recieve differing treatment as a function of their gender. Within the notion of fairness, there are shades of grey as well - as I said earlier, there is some basis for the ladies' man /slut dichotomy, although not nearly as strong a basis as in the case of intergender physical aggression.
millefiori Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Your misconception is that all double standards are unfair. There are fair double standards as well as unfair ones, which you tend to forget in your eagerness to insist that "double-standard" must be a pejorative term. No. The term "double standards" has negative connotations implying unfairness. You would never use this term to describe the different criteria you use to judge a child and an adult. There you also judge differently, but you don't call it double standard. We have hoards of girls on this site who undoubtedly feel that there is a double standard in that they have earlier curfews than the boys. This can be explained as a matter of safety, for the exact reason you noted above - boys are bigger and stronger. It's still a double standard, don't you think? One of the reasons for submitting girls to stricter curfews is based on the assumption that they need to be better protected, not from sexual assaults, but from having sexual experiences. It's a moral issue, not one of physical strength or ability. A better definition for double standard is: a scenario where members of each sex recieve differing treatment as a function of their gender. I still say it needs to imply unfairness.
scratch Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by millefiori No. The term "double standards" has negative connotations implying unfairness. You would never use this term to describe the different criteria you use to judge a child and an adult. There you also judge differently, but you don't call it double standard. Weak example. Children become adults, so the standard is the same for everyone. I've heard arguments that double standards exist with regard to handicapped and able people. Originally posted by millefiori One of the reasons for submitting girls to stricter curfews is based on the assumption that they need to be better protected, not from sexual assaults, but from having sexual experiences. It's a moral issue, not one of physical strength or ability. One of the reasons, not necessarily the main one. Girls also have rules like not being allowed to go places alone at night, not being allowed to take cabs or public transit, and so forth. There are several rules that have their primary basis in safety, yet still dictate disparate treatment.
millefiori Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Sincerely, I'm sure you're using the term "double standard" wrong. Having double standards does not only imply having two standards, it implies an unfair treatment. You can not treat people who are not the same, in the same way. Sometimes you have to treat them differently in order to be fair = different standards. Which is not the same as having double standards. The example with the children and the adults is valid. Juvenile offenders don't get the same sentence (or at least they shouldn't) as an adult offender. There are different standards here.
scratch Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by millefiori Sincerely, I'm sure you're using the term "double standard" wrong. Having double standards does not only imply having two standards, it implies an unfair treatment. You can not treat people who are not the same, in the same way. Sometimes you have to treat them differently in order to be fair = different standards. Which is not the same as having double standards. The example with the children and the adults is valid. Juvenile offenders don't get the same sentence (or at least they shouldn't) as an adult offender. There are different standards here. Two items. First, you passed over my explanation that age doesn't created double standards because we are all the same age at some time or another. Second, you passed over my point that girls aren't allowed to travel by themselves without addressing whether it was a double standard or not. I'd like to hear your counterpoints.
millefiori Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Two items. First, you passed over my explanation that age doesn't created double standards because we are all the same age at some time or another. Second, you passed over my point that girls aren't allowed to travel by themselves without addressing whether it was a double standard or not. I'd like to hear your counterpoints. Ok, I don't get your argument with the age. Explain it again. I find it understandable that parents don't want their daughter to be alone at night somewhere as she is weaker and more prone to any kind of attacks than a guy. That's not really a double standard, not according to my definition at least.
scratch Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by millefiori Ok, I don't get your argument with the age. Explain it again. Sure. Age, of course, is not constant. Therefore, you're not really using a double standard against a person based on age, but treating everyone the same, simply at different times. Age is not a permanent immutable characteristic the way that race or gender is. Originally posted by millefiori I find it understandable that parents don't want their daughter to be alone at night somewhere as she is weaker and more prone to any kind of attacks than a guy. That's not really a double standard, not according to my definition at least. I agree with you that it isn't a double standard, according to your definition. However, I'm sure many girls who wanted to go on a road trip or to go to a party from which they would have had to take a bus home and were not allowed while their brothers were allowed (at the same age) did feel it was a double standard. The problem with your definition is that it makes the question completely turn on subjective notions of unfairness.
d'Arthez Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by scratch A better definition for double standard is: a scenario where members of each sex recieve differing treatment as a function of their gender. Gender is changeable. Sex is not. My perception of gender does not necessarily coincide with your perception of gender. Gender is a psychological non-objective thing. Sex is an objective quality. You only have to check if a person has one (or more) Y-chromosome(s) or not. If gender does play a role, than also the person who ascribes qualities to the persons involved, does play a role - in short that would leave a complete mess: what to me is a double standard, is not necessarily a double standard to you.
scratch Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by d'Arthez Gender is changeable. Sex is not. My perception of gender does not necessarily coincide with your perception of gender. Gender is a psychological non-objective thing. Sex is an objective quality. You only have to check if a person has one (or more) Y-chromosome(s) or not. This is a distinction I've not heard before. I was using the terms interchangably. Flesh out your point that gender is a "psychological non-objective thing;" I'm interesting in hearing more about that. Originally posted by d'Arthez If gender does play a role, than also the person who ascribes qualities to the persons involved, does play a role - in short that would leave a complete mess: what to me is a double standard, is not necessarily a double standard to you. That makes sense, but perhaps that is already what goes on. And, perhaps we currently have a complete mess.
millefiori Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Sure. Age, of course, is not constant. Therefore, you're not really using a double standard against a person based on age, but treating everyone the same, simply at different times. Age is not a permanent immutable characteristic the way that race or gender is. Well, I was taking the crime as the fix point. An adult and a teenager commit the same crime, but won't get the same sentence - different standards because of different ages. Theoretically, they should be treated the same, they committed the same crime and only because of their age they get different treatment. I don't call it a double standard either, but not for the same reasons as you do. I agree with you that it isn't a double standard, according to your definition. However, I'm sure many girls who wanted to go on a road trip or to go to a party from which they would have had to take a bus home and were not allowed while their brothers were allowed (at the same age) did feel it was a double standard. Yes, it's not fair. And? The girl can still start to argument with their parents and try to find a solution. If she's allowed to go out late if an adult or male person accompanies her home then it's not a double standard. If she still is not allowed to do things even if the security question is solved just because she's a woman, then yes, it's a double standard. The problem with your definition is that it makes the question completely turn on subjective notions of unfairness. Why? Double standards do not offer any explanation for the different treatment of women and men. If you can explain to me why a men should be allowed to sleep with a lot of partners and be excused and a woman not, then I wouldn't call it a double standard anymore. Your moral is purely gender-based and that's hypocritical and therefore a double standard. My head is smoking because of this arguing with you.
A Fly onThe Wall Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by millefiori My head is smoking because of this arguing with you. I'm just on the sidelines watching the thread play out and my head is smoking too for the same reason
millefiori Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by TUDOR Puff, puff....give. Huh, what do you mean?
A Fly onThe Wall Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by TUDOR Puff, puff....give. Uncle
scratch Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by millefiori Well, I was taking the crime as the fix point. An adult and a teenager commit the same crime, but won't get the same sentence - different standards because of different ages. Theoretically, they should be treated the same, they committed the same crime and only because of their age they get different treatment. I understood what you meant. I was explaining the overlap between age discrimination and equity, as you requested. Originally posted by millefiori Yes, it's not fair. And? The girl can still start to argument with their parents and try to find a solution. If she's allowed to go out late if an adult or male person accompanies her home then it's not a double standard. If she still is not allowed to do things even if the security question is solved just because she's a woman, then yes, it's a double standard. So, if a girl can only go out with an adult chaperone but a boy can go out alone, it's not a double standard? I expect some of the ladies reading this to take issue with your not considering that a double standard. Good luck defending that one. Originally posted by millefiori Double standards do not offer any explanation for the different treatment of women and men. If you can explain to me why a men should be allowed to sleep with a lot of partners and be excused and a woman not, then I wouldn't call it a double standard anymore. Your moral is purely gender-based and that's hypocritical and therefore a double standard. See posts 22, 24 and 25 for explanations of the rationale behind this double standard. Also, recally my thread on evolution. I'm not sure what you mean by "my moral." Hypocrisy is asking for one thing, and giving something less. How am I being hypocritical?
TUDOR Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by millefiori What are you guys talking about???? Just having fun with your smoking head comment, nothing really.. You're doing good, keep your gloves up and use the jab....ding, ding, ding.
millefiori Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by TUDOR Just having fun with your smoking head comment, nothing really.. You're doing good, keep your gloves up and use the jab....ding, ding, ding. Aha, so he's kicking the sh*t out of me and you guys are standing at the sideline, cheering for me? Thank you, you guys are sooo cute. ( )
A Fly onThe Wall Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by millefiori Aha, so he's kicking the sh*t out of me and you guys are standing at the sideline, cheering for me? Thank you, you guys are sooo cute. ( ) We are just trying to live a double standard
scratch Posted July 15, 2005 Posted July 15, 2005 Originally posted by A Fly onThe Wall We are just trying to live a double standard Yep, you're the a**h*** who made me spit water on my desk today. Good one.
Recommended Posts