• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

The Gender Double Standard

KiraRebornXD

Well-Known Member
Ah the age old debate which gender is most fair? Well since old times it was a man who protected the woman yet in these modern times, a woman has as many rights and others as men. So, if a man hits a woman he gets it but if a woman does she doesn't. So why is that, simple, we still instictually want to protect the female gender of our species as does many other animals. We can't help it and it is only natural though that doesn't make it right.
 

Ritsu

The Insane
I just think that girls who can DO damage, deserve damage back, girls who slap or are basically weak, the least you can do is wrestle them down instead of wail on them like you should do when a strong girl hits you.. I believe in equality too.. No gender gets special treatment from me
 
You bring up double standard for females?

If a woman slept with a ton of men, she'd be a slut or a whore, but if a man sleeps with a ton of woman, he's a legend. I call that double standards, and it's all around more than woman hitting men.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
You bring up double standard for females?

If a woman slept with a ton of men, she'd be a slut or a whore, but if a man sleeps with a ton of woman, he's a legend. I call that double standards, and it's all around more than woman hitting men.

Yeah, in a way that's worse, and the double standard is worse for women, but that doesn't nullify the injustice of this widespread belief that women can hit men. They don't relate to each other, and two wrongs don't make a right.
 

Zora

perpetually tired
Double standards exist both ways. Although it's to be taken a grain of salt, TVTRopes' "Double Standard" article provides great examples all around.

Honestly, it doesn't really annoy me all that much. I have a lot worse double standards to deal with than male-vs.-female ones, to the point gender double standards often feel trivial at best.
 
On another odd note, there's a gender double-standard for clothing as well.
If a woman walks around in a man's clothing, nobody seems to care. But if a man wears a woman's clothing, he gets verbally and physically abused by the public and possibly arrested by the authorities.
 
Okay, I just have to say that the term 'feminazi' is a red herring. It's a way of silencing women, and needs to be stopped.

Feminism works against hundreds of years of discrimination. The fact that the women's movement in the US took place over a few decades is amazing, but there are still so many problems out there in regards to gender.

However, both sexes do have equality. As far as I know, I have the same rights as any one with a peinis to say.
False. In law, we do, but in practice, we don't.

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.
Again, false. Working hard does not determine your pay. White men are still top earners across all educational levels and professional fields. People say that the wage gap exists because men tend to be in professional fields and women in service or education. This again however shows a cultural value of men's over women's work. Women as nurses and teachers are not as valued as men as pilots and engineers.

I read a statistic somewhere a while back saying that the more women in career field, the lower the pay. The more men in the career field, the higher the pay. Men are simply seen as professional. When men are in female dominated fields, they are promoted faster. Women in male dominated fields have a harder time advancing.

There have been various studies as to why the wage gap exists. Sexism in general drives many employers to second guess female applicants. Stereotypes of men being seen as leaders, competitive, and competent mean that men have a better chance of being hired. Many employers also believe that women are just going to leave work in order to start a family. Again, this is sexist because it assumes a woman will leave work to have a baby, that men don't put their families first, and that women will be a burden on their paid leave system. The US is one of the only industrialized counties in the world that doesn't offer a federal family leave for women OR men.

The wage gap doesn't exist too much at certain age groups, yet as men and women age, we see a decline in women's wages compared to men's. This could be attributed to leaving work for familial purposes, lack of female promotion, hiring difficulties, and firing.


And when you consider that less than 10% of the world's billionaires are women, poverty strikes women harder than men, and that women in particular have to work longer before they retire than men do, it's no coincidence. It's just pure sexism.


And "wining" about it brings the problem to light. Imagine if women were paid equally and how much more money families would have across the country. Think about the money being lost when one of your parents isn't as valued as a worker.
 
Yeah, in a way that's worse, and the double standard is worse for women, but that doesn't nullify the injustice of this widespread belief that women can hit men. They don't relate to each other, and two wrongs don't make a right.

True, it just annoyed me that the OP listed double standards that only apply against men.
 
You bring up double standard for females?

If a woman slept with a ton of men, she'd be a slut or a whore, but if a man sleeps with a ton of woman, he's a legend. I call that double standards, and it's all around more than woman hitting men.

Well it certainly requires more skill to achieve the latter.

Anyways, the question at hand. For me, the problem lies in the fact that feminism has come to embody things which are unrepresentative of what it set out to achieve, which as far as I come to see it was the ability to be offered the same opportunities available to men providing that one has the talent to take advantage of said opportunities.

The problem I think now is that feminism for many has manifested itself and taken on many uber materialistic and dare I say it selfish characteristics.

Take a show like Sex and the City for example. For years, a lot of woman have peddled this as some kind of feminist bible. The women all work, are successful in what they do, and achieve much of their goals without the aid of a man.

However, ignoring the fact that its heroine is nothing but a spoiled brat, the problem with SATC is that at its heart is a rather dirty materialism. The women are obsessed, literally obsessed with material goods. It defines them, and men are placed in a position of being almost inanimate objects collected by women on their rise to the top. Those who can't afford the lifestyle are essentially looked down upon. The same can be seen in many women's magazines, from low brow to high end. So much is placed on having this, having that, having it all essentially. I don't really think feminism was built on such principles. It was simply built on giving women the chance to achieve the same things men do (in terms of achievement, not in material possession).

This obsession with having it all (job, husband, kids, money) also seems to have become a talking point in recent years. However, I can't for the life of me understand why. The concept of "having it all" is in many cases little more than a pipe dream, yet many women seem to have grasped onto it like some kind of holy grail, a summit which they all must seek to attain.

I don't understand why this is. It seems pretty obvious to me that in ninety nine percent of cases, this ideal is not reasonable. As much as women would like to believe it possible, I don't see how one can fully devote time to a job, children and husband and still be at the top of their game in all three. This applies to men too. So many men just seem to chase working goals, or see children and a wife as a notch on the belt. Having it all is built on selfish often unobtainable ideals. However, a lot of women do need to appreciate the strain that getting pregnant puts on a small private business.

As for dating etiquette, it's better not to get me started. I have found most women to be complete morons and essentially misandrists in that field.

Oh, and the term feminazi is not a red herring. A lot of women simply hate men and build their own sex up to ridiculous levels, something not helped by the waves of sexist advertising around in the world today. Men are useless lulz.

And "wining" about it brings the problem to light. Imagine if women were paid equally and how much more money families would have across the country. Think about the money being lost when one of your parents isn't as valued as a worker.

What an erroneous train of thought this belongs to, especially if we take the fact that as you mentioned earlier re. women working in the public sector.

If public sector wages escalate out of proportion, nobody really wins. Wealth is not generated, and the very families who would "have more money" would in actuality suffer from raised taxes and higher living costs to plug the financial gap created by overpaying public sector workers. Men work in the public sector too btw.

To be honest your whole private/public argument was sexism masked as feminism. Teaching and Nursing is "women's work" hey? If I was a tool I'd be a little bit offended at that banal analysis.
 
Last edited:

Dragonfree

Just me
Snorunt conservationist said:
To be honest your whole private/public argument was sexism masked as feminism. Teaching and Nursing is "women's work" hey? If I was a tool I'd be a little bit offended at that banal analysis.
This is one of the most inane "counterarguments" I have seen in my entire life. If you had any interest in actually understanding what she was saying you would have gotten that she was talking about the fact society perceives these things as women's work and that that very fact makes them poorly paid, and that this is bad.

Furthermore, she was not suggesting public sector wages should "escalate out of proportion"; she was suggesting women should get paid the same amount men do. Seriously, are you deliberately twisting her words to mean something completely different so you can go "lulz feminazi" or something?


I don't know anybody who considers Sex and the City a paragon of feminism, personally (I haven't seen it but my vague understanding is that the main characters' lives revolve around men and shopping, which is a sexist stereotype if I ever saw one), but it wouldn't really surprise me because there are a lot of things some people think of as being feminist and others really, really don't. In general, however, I think you're completely mischaracterizing the feminist movement by saying it's come to be about materialism. Women's magazines are not the be-all end-all of feminism.

As for dating etiquette, it's better not to get me started. I have found most women to be complete morons and essentially misandrists in that field.
And men aren't?

Oh, and the term feminazi is not a red herring. A lot of women simply hate men and build their own sex up to ridiculous levels, something not helped by the waves of sexist advertising around in the world today. Men are useless lulz.
There exist "feminists" who genuinely believe, say, that all heterosexual sex is rape by definition, or that their lives improved greatly when they stopped listening to what men have to say. However, do you have any idea how obscenely few these people are? Yes, there's a stereotype that men are useless. There is also a stereotype that women are shrill and hyperemotional. This is not a one-sided issue of wide-spread man-hate that reflects upon the feminist movement as a whole, as the term "feminazi" implies. Most people who casually enforce stereotypes don't hate the group in question; they're just oblivious to the harm that stereotyping can do.

Also, I don't know if you're aware, but there are crazy misogynist men out there, too. Give them a cute portmanteau "nazi" name, too.
 
This is one of the most inane "counterarguments" I have seen in my entire life. If you had any interest in actually understanding what she was saying you would have gotten that she was talking about the fact society perceives these things as women's work and that that very fact makes them poorly paid, and that this is bad.

Unfortunately that claim is complete and utter rubbish. She described professions such as teaching and nursing as "women's work", with no attempt at a distinction. She's helping to create gender differences by pigeonholing professions. Way to go sister! Public sector workers are undervalued because public sector jobs are undervalued by society, men and women alike. She also makes a horrible attempt to isolate a tiny number of public sector professions in order to make her sexist claims.

Indeed, at least in the U.K, these arguments could be considered erroneous. Admittedly I can't speak for the U.S or any other country but Britain, but public sector workers are now paid more than their private sector counterparts. So much for devaluing "women's work". Their pensions aren't half bad either.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/05/public-private-pay-gap-widens

Furthermore, she was not suggesting public sector wages should "escalate out of proportion"; she was suggesting women should get paid the same amount men do. Seriously, are you deliberately twisting her words to mean something completely different so you can go "lulz feminazi" or something?

In the public sector, a man with the same job as a woman will get paid the same. Now, in the private sector, that is admittedly up for debate (though I believe it's far less of a problem than it's made out to be). If you're going to make a claim, clarify and contextualise it.

I don't know anybody who considers Sex and the City a paragon of feminism, personally (I haven't seen it but my vague understanding is that the main characters' lives revolve around men and shopping, which is a sexist stereotype if I ever saw one), but it wouldn't really surprise me because there are a lot of things some people think of as being feminist and others really, really don't. In general, however, I think you're completely mischaracterizing the feminist movement by saying it's come to be about materialism. Women's magazines are not the be-all end-all of feminism.

No they're not, but you can find one in pretty much any weekend newspaper (tabloid or broadsheet), or simply on the shelf throughout the week, and it pretty much peddles the same **** and ideals just with a range of prices. I'm attempting not to mishcharacterise the feminist movement, it's other people that are doing that.


And men aren't?

Your point being?


There exist "feminists" who genuinely believe, say, that all heterosexual sex is rape by definition, or that their lives improved greatly when they stopped listening to what men have to say. However, do you have any idea how obscenely few these people are? Yes, there's a stereotype that men are useless. There is also a stereotype that women are shrill and hyperemotional. This is not a one-sided issue of wide-spread man-hate that reflects upon the feminist movement as a whole, as the term "feminazi" implies. Most people who casually enforce stereotypes don't hate the group in question; they're just oblivious to the harm that stereotyping can do.

Also, I don't know if you're aware, but there are crazy misogynist men out there, too. Give them a cute portmanteau "nazi" name, too.

Go nuts, I couldn't care less.

However, my point embodied more than that. The fact is, in the past few years there has begun to exist this mindset, especially in the advertising world, and the tv world to some extent, that men pretty much suck ***. They do, but no more so than women.
 
Last edited:

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Color me old fashioned Sno, but as a man, I don't need an advertisement to tell me what I want/need. I need a pair of pants I go to a store and buy them... if I like the ones they have. I know in my home my wife is the more discriminating shopper so for her those TV Ads are very important, because they make the retailers more money per ad than ones pointed towards men.

In my job, everyone gets paid the same. Let me clarify. In the ranks of Machining Specialists and Toolmakers at R&E All Toolmakers & all Machining Specialists are paid the same wage. Yes it's Union enforced, but at least it isn't biased against one group or another. Some of the old timers would prefer it to be otherwise since we have the first women toolmakers in our region. But that's old school thinking at work.

As for teaching and nursing being "women's work" sure it's stereotyping, but it comes from a psychological view. Women tend to be more nurturing than men, and therefore better suited for work involving a nurturing technique.
 
Last edited:
Color me old fashioned Sno, but as a man, I don't need an advertisement to tell me what I want/need. I need a pair of pants I go to a store and buy them... if I like the ones they have. I know in my home my wife is the more discriminating shopper so for her those TV Ads are very important, because they make the retailers more money per ad than ones pointed towards men.

I couldn't really care less either, problem is they're a lot of chumps out there who are lulled by this ****. The fact is, we all must accept that advertising has an affect on people's consciousness, otherwise it wouldn't exist. If this consciousness is fed a continuous stream of sexist propaganda about men, then opinions towards men will be affected accordingly.
 
Last edited:
You bring up double standard for females?

If a woman slept with a ton of men, she'd be a slut or a whore, but if a man sleeps with a ton of woman, he's a legend. I call that double standards, and it's all around more than woman hitting men.

True. Don't forget that's it's okay for women to cheat for fun and for revenge but not for men to do it.
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
Double standards are never a good thing, everybody should be threathed equel it may take some time for that to happen, but it will happen eventualy, also everyone losses with double standards, not just man, not just woman, but everyone.
 
Unfortunately that claim is complete and utter rubbish. She described professions such as teaching and nursing as "women's work", with no attempt at a distinction. She's helping to create gender differences by pigeonholing professions. Way to go sister! Public sector workers are undervalued because public sector jobs are undervalued by society, men and women alike. She also makes a horrible attempt to isolate a tiny number of public sector professions in order to make her sexist claims.
No no no. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Dragonfree did a great job reiterating what I said. I was using teaching and nursing as an example. There's no doubt that those sectors are female dominated. I'm not saying that it's all "women's work". The example I'm using provides insight to the devaluation of women in the workforce due to lower pay. Like I said, the more women in the job, the less payment its workers get. Maybe public sector jobs are undervalued due to the types of people filling those positions?

I know men make up a great deal of nursing and teaching professions. I never said that it's all just women.

Indeed, at least in the U.K, these arguments could be considered erroneous. Admittedly I can't speak for the U.S or any other country but Britain, but public sector workers are now paid more than their private sector counterparts. So much for devaluing "women's work". Their pensions aren't half bad either.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/05/public-private-pay-gap-widens
I was using the US an an example. I'll admit that I don't know much about the UK's wage gap.





However, my point embodied more than that. The fact is, in the past few years there has begun to exist this mindset, especially in the advertising world, and the tv world to some extent, that men pretty much suck ***. They do, but no more so than women.
Where? Men are still represented everywhere in government and media at disproportionate levels. If you're talking about advertising, it's harmful to everyone.

As for teaching and nursing being "women's work" sure it's stereotyping, but it comes from a psychological view. Women tend to be more nurturing than men, and therefore better suited for work involving a nurturing technique.
Are you sure about that? Nurturing has been socially defined as feminine. How can it be "natural" if you're basing the statement off of stereotypes?
 

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
Are you sure about that? Nurturing has been socially defined as feminine. How can it be "natural" if you're basing the statement off of stereotypes?

I actually have to agree with Malanu on this one. If he had said all women are more nurturing than men, that would be basing his statement off of a stereotype. However, he didn't say that. He said women tend to be more nurturing, which is generally true due to biology. Is it always true? No, but Malanu brings up a good reason as to why those are typically female-dominated careers and why they have sometimes been regarded as "women's work."
 
Besides the fact that women have children, tell me how it's true.

Women tending to be nurturing is still a stereotype. Being nurturing is a human quality just like being confident, emotional, passionate, gentle, outgoing, and quiet.
 

Chaos Emperor

No hope.....
please dont get me started on this. my solution to this is to simply hide from the world, cause the feminazis (i didnt say feminist, i said feminazi) will not stop til they control the whole world. regular feminists, if there are any left, would be content with equality.
 

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
Besides the fact that women have children, tell me how it's true.

I honestly believe that the fact that women have children may actually have a lot to do with it. Or rather, I think think the fact that we have been largely in charge of taking care of offspring throughout our species' history has a lot to do with it. I don't see anything wrong with that. However, I will admit that me bringing up biology may have been inaccurate. Some studies say it has an evolutionary basis and others say it is more social conditioning that causes it. There has not been any conclusive study on either side, so I apologize for that.

Women tending to be nurturing is still a stereotype. Being nurturing is a human quality just like being confident, emotional, passionate, gentle, outgoing, and quiet.

Yes, of course being nurturing is a human quality. However, there are natural differences between men and women that are largely due to biology, especially hormones. I certainly think society has something to do with it as well, but it's not the only factor. Of course every person is different and every person is capable of expressing any human qualities, but there are some things that are often more prevalent in one sex than the other. And really, not all stereotypes are bad and it seems like just about everything is a stereotype these days.
 
Last edited:
Top