The Gender Double Standard

[はるひ]

Firstly, I'd like to say, if you disagree with what anyone or myself has to say, then disagree calmly. I want this to be a good discussion lol

Nowdays with the femist movement (I call them feminazis), I feel that girls are starting to get away with alot of things, things that make me raise my eyebrow.

Like... if a man were to hit a woman in public, he would get a trouble right? But if a woman did the same to a man, then she'd get away with it basically. I mean, there would be people who would report it but most of the time, it's actually encouraged or just pff ignored. Both are still physical abuse, but one can simply get away with it. Seems like men get it harder don't they?

Or how about when women get their way alot in custody battles etc? And don't forget affirmative action.

I understand equal rights but asking for more just bothers me. That do you think?

 

[Pesky Persian]

Isn't this kind of the same thing as This Thread?

Anyway, double standards pretty much suck, don't they? I feel like when it comes to the hitting part, some of it may have to do with men typically being seen as stronger and therefore doing more damage. No, that doesn't make it right or okay for any person to hit another person regardless of their sex, but I think that may be part of the mindset. Women are still often seen as the "weaker sex." As for custody battles, it could be a lot of factors. Sometimes men don't want anything to do with the child and sometimes people feel like kids should stay with their mothers. I don't think that's always the best choice and it's not fair, but I think that could be the way some people see it.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

Despite being a man, I am pretty sure that women have been able to hit men to a certain extent for longer than the modern feminist movement has been around. And to a certain extent, that's how it should be. I intend no insult when I say that men are generally stronger than women, and therefore would be more likely to hurt them badly when hitting them.

 

[CSolarstorm]

I think the other 'girls getting away with more than boys' topic has become more about discussing that one incident. This thread has the potential to talk about more young adult/adult situations.

Despite being a man, I am pretty sure that women have been able to hit men to a certain extent for longer than the modern feminist movement has been around. And to a certain extent, that's how it should be. I intend no insult when I say that men are generally stronger than women, and therefore would be more likely to hurt them badly when hitting them.

I don't think the feminist movement was really concerned with giving women the right to hit men. I think you're right, that they were doing it long before that.

I disagree that women should be able to hit men, excluding self-defense situations of course, where both genders should do what they need to. I can't think of any situation where a woman, during normal discourse needs to hit a man. If the man says something vulgar and the woman in question has higher standards than that (most female friends I know are just as vulgar as my male friends, if not more) they should just withdraw their company.

My ex used to slap/hurt me if I particularly hurt her feelings. Once when she thought I was giving a guy more attention than her (we were playing cards) she twisted my jaw. Nobody bothered to punish her...and I'm in a wheelchair. This idea of repaying something that offends you with physical pain, it either comes from being spoiled, which strikes me as un-feminist, or frankly animalistic.

 

[R4GEKILL!!!]

They already made this thread. YOU FAIL.

 

[Ritsu]

Honestly? I believe all should be treated, even physically, equal.. And I've had a girl punch me, and honestly, it HURTS. (I didnt let that go, but I wont tell the tale of how I Sparta-Kicked a girl at Hot Topic..) Self defense is self defense, idc WHO or WHAT attacks me, I have my right, and I dont go around hitting girls either, and im as weak as one, (skinny, scene, etc) so I'm clearly within my right. Women have alot of rights as well as plenty of guys in public who will be like "Maan you NEVA hit a girl" and then you get jumped, but thats whats wrong with society.. The point is, dont go up and start fights with females, but I say, if they punch like a man? Punch just as hard back..

 

[J.T.]

Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but I think the whole "girls getting away with things guys can't" is less a result of feminism (and calling feminists "feminazis" is just asking for trouble, by the way) and more a result of disgustingly pervasive gender roles - after all, I really doubt the sane feminists were actively campaigning for the right to beat men. If a man were beaten by a woman, much of society would view him as "weak" and "wimpy" if he were to complain about it, even though he would be fully within his rights to do so. Because women have been and sometimes are still considered weak and fragile compared to men, a man being beaten by a woman would elicit more of a mocking response than the serious response it deserves.

A similar concept likely applies to the bias toward mothers in custody disputes. How long have mothers been considered the primary caregivers of children? That probably factors into it. Gender roles have long placed the mother as the primary caregiver and the father as the worker and breadwinner; as such, many would consider the "traditional" mother to be a better caregiver, and have a bias towards the woman in the dispute.

And affirmative action... basically, discrimination to combat discrimination. The goal of getting a more diverse and equal workplace is noble, but the methods used are... questionable.

First and foremost, feminists aren't about women getting more rights than men - that would be the kind of thinking the term "feminazi" should be applied to. Feminism is about women and men being equal. If we're going to accomplish that goal, then both sides of the equation need work. People need to realize that it is possible for women to be strong-willed, capable individuals, able to excel in careers and areas of life that have long been considered "men's work". But on the flip side, people also need to realize that men can be sensitive and caring as well. The idea that a woman being a man is a "joke" or indicative of the man being "weak" needs to stop before it kills somebody (actually, I'm almost certain it already has), and the ability of fathers to be just as capable caregivers as mothers needs to be accepted and upheld. The bonds of traditional gender roles are no longer so restrictive as to suffocate us, due in no small part to the feminist movement, but they still exist, and they still have a negative impact on both men and women.

If the sexes are to become truly equal, that goal that true feminists have sought after for so long, then we need to move past the archaic gender roles of the past - not just the women's, but the men's as well. I suppose if we use the true definition of feminism - that is, a movement to seek the equality of genders - then the problems addressed in this topic come not from feminism going too far, but from feminism not going far enough.

... That was a bit more prosaic than I thought it'd be when I first started typing.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

I don't think the feminist movement was really concerned with giving women the right to hit men. I think you're right, that they were doing it long before that.

If there were ever any statement to suggest that they wanted to hit men...that would be bad. But I'm confident that only feminists on the extreme fringe of the movement would say something like that.

I disagree that women should be able to hit men, excluding self-defense situations of course, where both genders should do what they need to. I can't think of any situation where a woman, during normal discourse needs to hit a man. If the man says something vulgar and the woman in question has higher standards than that (most female friends I know are just as vulgar as my male friends, if not more) they should just withdraw their company.

My ex used to slap/hurt me if I particularly hurt her feelings. Once when she thought I was giving a guy more attention than her (we were playing cards) she twisted my jaw. Nobody bothered to punish her...and I'm in a wheelchair. This idea of repaying something that offends you with physical pain, it either comes from being spoiled, which strikes me as un-feminist, or frankly animalistic.

I agree with the above almost completely. That was why I originally used the phrase "to a certain extent" in my original argument. There is a big difference between some of the hilarious stuff you see on TV (which is likely not to hurt anyway if the dude is a bodybuilder or something like that), and some strong, mean woman punching a not-bodybuilder guy.

 

[はるひ]

A more fitting title, thanks mods~

And ooh... this thread was already made? My apologies.

 

[emboarrocks]

The justice system is broken. Period.

 

[Ivanka]

Although I do like getting away with certain things (although i'm not violent or anything), I do agree with guys when they say there isn't much equality between genders. I think girls should get equal punishments and be treated the same way they treat guys. Of course with violence, that should just be stopped in general.

 

[Dragonfree]

Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but I think the whole "girls getting away with things guys can't" is less a result of feminism (and calling feminists "feminazis" is just asking for trouble, by the way) and more a result of disgustingly pervasive gender roles - after all, I really doubt the sane feminists were actively campaigning for the right to beat men. If a man were beaten by a woman, much of society would view him as "weak" and "wimpy" if he were to complain about it, even though he would be fully within his rights to do so. Because women have been and sometimes are still considered weak and fragile compared to men, a man being beaten by a woman would elicit more of a mocking response than the serious response it deserves.

A similar concept likely applies to the bias toward mothers in custody disputes. How long have mothers been considered the primary caregivers of children? That probably factors into it. Gender roles have long placed the mother as the primary caregiver and the father as the worker and breadwinner; as such, many would consider the "traditional" mother to be a better caregiver, and have a bias towards the woman in the dispute.

And affirmative action... basically, discrimination to combat discrimination. The goal of getting a more diverse and equal workplace is noble, but the methods used are... questionable.

First and foremost, feminists aren't about women getting more rights than men - that would be the kind of thinking the term "feminazi" should be applied to. Feminism is about women and men being equal. If we're going to accomplish that goal, then both sides of the equation need work. People need to realize that it is possible for women to be strong-willed, capable individuals, able to excel in careers and areas of life that have long been considered "men's work". But on the flip side, people also need to realize that men can be sensitive and caring as well. The idea that a woman being a man is a "joke" or indicative of the man being "weak" needs to stop before it kills somebody (actually, I'm almost certain it already has), and the ability of fathers to be just as capable caregivers as mothers needs to be accepted and upheld. The bonds of traditional gender roles are no longer so restrictive as to suffocate us, due in no small part to the feminist movement, but they still exist, and they still have a negative impact on both men and women.

If the sexes are to become truly equal, that goal that true feminists have sought after for so long, then we need to move past the archaic gender roles of the past - not just the women's, but the men's as well. I suppose if we use the true definition of feminism - that is, a movement to seek the equality of genders - then the problems addressed in this topic come not from feminism going too far, but from feminism not going far enough.

... That was a bit more prosaic than I thought it'd be when I first started typing.

I could not possibly agree more with this post.

Gender-based double standards hurt everyone by pushing people into molds they don't necessarily fit into. Most feminists don't like the "rule" that women are allowed to hit men but not vice versa. Gender disparity, whichever gender appears to 'benefit' from it, always sprouts from the basic idea that the genders are fundamentally different, that men are strong and tough and intellectual and take action and can take a beating and women are weak and frail and emotional and passive and need to be protected. It's that idea that feminists generally want gone, most of all - and with it both the unfair standards it imposes on men and women.

In an ideal world, nobody should hit anybody, and nobody should give a damn about the genders of either the person who hits or the person who got hit. That's what I fight for as a feminist.

I feel like when it comes to the hitting part, some of it may have to do with men typically being seen as stronger and therefore doing more damage.

That ought to mean people should consider it worse to hit people hard than to hit people weakly. Noticing gender is correlated with how hard people hit and subsequently deciding what sort of hitting is bad based on gender is ridiculous; it's introducing an unnecessary intermediary factor into the calculation when you could just be dealing with the actual meaningful value (the hardness of the punch) in the first place.

 

[はるひ]

Although I do like getting away with certain things (although i'm not violent or anything), I do agree with guys when they say there isn't much equality between genders. I think girls should get equal punishments and be treated the same way they treat guys. Of course with violence, that should just be stopped in general.

I agree. And that's what I've been tryin' to say, that men have been kinda left behind by the system.

 

[Pesky Persian]

That ought to mean people should consider it worse to hit people hard than to hit people weakly. Noticing gender is correlated with how hard people hit and subsequently deciding what sort of hitting is bad based on gender is ridiculous; it's introducing an unnecessary intermediary factor into the calculation when you could just be dealing with the actual meaningful value (the hardness of the punch) in the first place.

I don't think it's okay to hit anyone for any reason unless it's self-defense and absolutely necessary. I was just pointing out that the reason that many people think it's worse for men to hit women is because men are typically seen as stronger (and biologically, they usually are) but that doesn't mean I agree with hitting anyone. Honestly, I don't have much to add to the debate. I just didn't want to post "This debate is pretty much the same as another debate we already have" without adding anything relevant to the thread at all.

 

[Chibi Pika]

First and foremost, feminists aren't about women getting more rights than men - that would be the kind of thinking the term "feminazi" should be applied to. Feminism is about women and men being equal. If we're going to accomplish that goal, then both sides of the equation need work. People need to realize that it is possible for women to be strong-willed, capable individuals, able to excel in careers and areas of life that have long been considered "men's work". But on the flip side, people also need to realize that men can be sensitive and caring as well. The idea that a woman being a man is a "joke" or indicative of the man being "weak" needs to stop before it kills somebody (actually, I'm almost certain it already has), and the ability of fathers to be just as capable caregivers as mothers needs to be accepted and upheld. The bonds of traditional gender roles are no longer so restrictive as to suffocate us, due in no small part to the feminist movement, but they still exist, and they still have a negative impact on both men and women.

If the sexes are to become truly equal, that goal that true feminists have sought after for so long, then we need to move past the archaic gender roles of the past - not just the women's, but the men's as well. I suppose if we use the true definition of feminism - that is, a movement to seek the equality of genders - then the problems addressed in this topic come not from feminism going too far, but from feminism not going far enough.

You brought up a lot of really excellent points here. It's left me wondering something, though (and this is addressed at everyone):

How feasible is it that we will ever be able to entirely move past the old-style gender roles? While there are still massive strides that could be taken towards this ideal, won't the undeniable general biological and psychological differences, at some basic level, prevent that from ever being a reality? And now my question is--is that wrong? Can't we achieve true equality while still acknowledging differences? (I'm not saying I necessarily believe that, it's more of a rhetorical question, and I'd like to see people prove it in either direction.)

Don't get me wrong, preconceived notions about someone based on their gender bother me just as much as they do anyone (and possibly more than a lot of people.) Although...now that I think about it, the problem isn't with acknowledging the differences so much as treating them as a hard-and-fast rule, which we humans do way the hell too often (you could say that's the root of a lot of humanity's problems.) I guess that was what I was trying to get at all along.

 

[J.T.]

How feasible is it that we will ever be able to entirely move past the old-style gender roles?

It'll take a while, but I'm fairly confident we eventually could. Although that might just be my optimistic side talking.

While there are still massive strides that could be taken towards this ideal, won't the undeniable general biological and psychological differences, at some basic level, prevent that from ever being a reality?

Not unless those "biological and psychological differences" honestly affect the ability of one gender to be equal to the other. Which they don't.

And now my question is--is that wrong? Can't we achieve true equality while still acknowledging differences?

Not if we hold those differences as stereotypes. Thinking of women in general as, to use Dragonfree's words, "weak and frail and emotional and passive", and men as "strong and tough and intellectual and take action", is a problem for both genders. Sure, we could consider that (and I'm not sure if any scientific study has actually confirmed this) the average woman may be less physically fit than the average man, but we can't use this stereotype as a reason to reject a woman for a job involving physical labour simply because she's a woman. We could consider (and I'm almost positive no study's ever supported this one) that women may on average be better individual parents than men, but we can't use that as an excuse to deny a capable father his child in a custody battle. We can acknowledge that differences may exist, but we can't achieve equality until we move past those differences and judge people on an individual basis, becoming blind to their gender and instead focusing on their abilities and traits as people.

 

[xsedr]

As far as I see it there are two big branches of feminism which then link down to the many, MANY groups of feminists out there. One is Equilists who still want equal treatment, which includes both negatives and positives. I agree with this group, we need equality between sexes. The next group are what I, as well as the TV Tropes community, call Straw Feminists, who want Matriarchy. This group is no better than sexist men, they want to be untouchable and make men suffer for events that were out of there hands and occasionally say things such as "we don't need men" and act as if our gender is composed entirely of stupid, brutish, animals thinking with their genitals and wallowing in the mud beating each others brains in. Double Standards are stupid. I hate all of this entertainment that acts like Abuse and Rape are okay, even funny, if it's female on male. Want a good example, watch Harry Potter 6, the love potion scene. Various girls were trying to force infatuation and possibly sexually abuse Harry. The scene is played as comedic and no one points out how terrifying the ordeal was for Harry (it is in the book) or how horrendous the act is, but if the sexes had been reversed it would have been terrifying without need of explanation and would have never made cut.

 

[CSolarstorm]

The next group are what I, as well as the TV Tropes community, call Straw Feminists, who want Matriarchy. This group is no better than sexist men, they want to be untouchable and make men suffer for events that were out of there hands and occasionally say things such as "we don't need men" and act as if our gender is composed entirely of stupid, brutish, animals thinking with their genitals and wallowing in the mud beating each others brains in.

While I don't doubt there are feminists that think this way, are you sure you understand the TV Tropes definition of "Straw Feminist"? It comes from 'strawman', an argument you pretend your opponent has so you can mischaracterize and skew them as more radical than they really are. A 'Straw Feminist' is an imaginary feminist that is so radical that she was made for everyone to hate her. Straw Feminists are just a trope, a device for making stories, not a real branch of feminism.

Double Standards are stupid. I hate all of this entertainment that acts like Abuse and Rape are okay, even funny, if it's female on male. Want a good example, watch Harry Potter 6, the love potion scene. Various girls were trying to force infatuation and possibly sexually abuse Harry. The scene is played as comedic and no one points out how terrifying the ordeal was for Harry (it is in the book) or how horrendous the act is, but if the sexes had been reversed it would have been terrifying without need of explanation and would have never made cut.

I agree that the scene in the movie did seem to make it funny for Ron to drink the Amortentia; but mostly because Rupert Grint is a comedian. I think the sudden convulsing he did after accidently drinking the poison right afterward sort of by association told the viewer that being drugged is not okay, no matter what gender does it.

 

[Chibi Pika]

Not unless those "biological and psychological differences" honestly affect the ability of one gender to be equal to the other. Which they don't.

Oh—no, I wasn't saying that the general differences between the genders would prevent equality. In fact, even I—in all my pessimistic glory—believe that true equality is well within our grasp. I was just musing on the fact that things can be different but still be equal, and wondering how that would apply to this situation.

Not if we hold those differences as stereotypes. We can acknowledge that differences may exist, but we can't achieve equality until we move past those differences and judge people on an individual basis, becoming blind to their gender and instead focusing on their abilities and traits as people.

Just quoting this to say that this is probably the best conclusion that could be drawn from the issue.

(And I don't mean to argue with you because I agree wholeheartedly with your points, but...no scientific study has ever confirmed women as physically weaker than men on average? What?)

 

[はるひ]

As far as I see it there are two big branches of feminism which then link down to the many, MANY groups of feminists out there. One is Equilists who still want equal treatment, which includes both negatives and positives. I agree with this group, we need equality between sexes. The next group are what I, as well as the TV Tropes community, call Straw Feminists, who want Matriarchy. This group is no better than sexist men, they want to be untouchable and make men suffer for events that were out of there hands and occasionally say things such as "we don't need men" and act as if our gender is composed entirely of stupid, brutish, animals thinking with their genitals and wallowing in the mud beating each others brains in. Double Standards are stupid. I hate all of this entertainment that acts like Abuse and Rape are okay, even funny, if it's female on male. Want a good example, watch Harry Potter 6, the love potion scene. Various girls were trying to force infatuation and possibly sexually abuse Harry. The scene is played as comedic and no one points out how terrifying the ordeal was for Harry (it is in the book) or how horrendous the act is, but if the sexes had been reversed it would have been terrifying without need of explanation and would have never made cut.

However, both sexes do have equality. As far as I know, I have the same rights as any one with a peinis to say. However the feminazis as I call them, want more than they have. I mean, they wine about equal pay, which by the way, depends on how hard one works and your position followed by the hours you work. So in short, no one is going to be payed the same wage because there's always some that get more or less than others.

There are other things they wine about that they already have but want more of which bothers me. Especially when they get their way in the legal system.

As for double standards, I agree. There was this experiment I saw on TV where they had two actors, one male one female, pretend to abuse each other to see what other people would do. When the male actor was yelling, screaming and hitting the female actor, the passerbys were caling the cops left and right. Now, they reversed it. The girl hitting the guy ans screaming and hollering at him and guess what... only one person reported it and others were going "yeah yew go gurl!1!". Sicking.