"No Double Standards": Is there a basis that defines the lie?

• Celicia wrote on 2010-07-25 12:04
  To note, all my references come from the mere hearsay I've been fed as a child growing up.
  
  What exactly causes the so called "No Double Standard" policy to be broken? Is it because for every rule there is an exception? Of course, most can agree that the expectations for an individual are biased, and thus an ideology is formed that one is better than another and should be given special privileges. Rather than give a page or two explaining what I think causes a double standard, what're your thoughts?
  
  To get a better idea, I'll throw some brief examples:
  
  

  i.e. School is seen as a tobacco and alcohol free environment. That said, neither student nor teacher should indulge on either while on or around school grounds. Unfortunately, a student takes the risk and violates this policy by smoking on the grounds after classes end. That student is caught and suspended from school and has a possible court hearing to discuss his actions of being an infringement of the law. Later that same week, a teacher is caught doing the exact same thing, only he is not so severely punished. The teacher's penalty is to put the cigarette out; that is all.

  
  
  

  i.e. A group of friends have an outing at a local mall. Throughout the course of the day, the friends play around and make what one would usually call a ruckus. They walk up down escalators and down up escalators, order a particular meal and then change it instantly before cashing it out, making awkward conversation with other passersby and etc. As expected, the friends manage to anger most of the local businesses and shoppers in the mall. Towards the end of their day at the mall, they are tired out and are looking to exit the mall and return home. As the friends step onto the down escalators, a group of teenagers are running up them, pushing the friends off the edge. Reaching the bottom of the escalator, the friends walk through the lower level of the mall and towards the exit, peeved. As they are doing so, a gang of kids runs up to them and starts a conversation in which none of the friends could understand and then eruptively runs off to other shoppers. Now the group of friends are both confused and pissed off. Exiting the mall and driving off, the friends decide to eat out at a local fast food restaurant. When they enter, they notice that there aren't too many customers aside from themselves, however, the customer was making casual conversation with the cashier. This in turn caused the cashier to be unaware of the others in line and also causes a longer wait for the group of friends before they could order and eat their food. When night rolls around, the friends ruminate about how bothersome these people were and how those people shouldn't have done any of those problems posed to the friends. All the while, the group of friends also posed similar dilemmas to others during the day.

  
  
  I'm not trying to discuss karma nor irony, per-say. These were the examples that came to mind, of which depicted "It's right when 'so and so' does it but wrong when 'so and so' does it."
• Lan wrote on 2010-07-25 13:01
  Hmm a woman that has many partners is called a slut, a man who does is called manly and other bs.
• pinkkea wrote on 2010-07-25 14:47
  The second one made me lol a bit. "OMG LET'S GO HOLD UP THE LINE." Then, later... "WHY ARE THEY HOLDING UP THE LINE?! I HATE THEM."
• paladin wrote on 2010-07-25 15:00

  Quote from Lan;104249:

  Hmm a woman that has many partners is called a slut, a man who does is called manly and other bs.

  
  
  If he does it with alot and i mean alot
  Hes called a cheater and player
• Axx wrote on 2010-07-26 00:11

  Quote from Lan;104249:

  Hmm a woman that has many partners is called a slut, a man who does is called manly and other bs.

  
  Aside from media at general, I don't know many [intelligent] people who actually believe that nowadays. I do believe that both deserve to be called sluts.
  
  There is a huge general double standard among kids/teens and adults. Most people tend to believe that this is for the good of the kids, they're not mature enough to handle responsibility, and so on and so forth. Many times they're right, many times they're wrong.
  
  As for a 'No Double Standard' policy, I think it's rather idiotic in itself. Double/Triple/Quintuple standards are a fact of life, because there are two/three/five types of people, each of which you'd generally handle in a different way. I don't see many people cry foul when a woman slaps a man because he's offended her on a date. Most people agree that the double standard there is 'good'. [Inb4 men (being the manly men they are) can't be hurt physically by women].
• Hiccup wrote on 2010-07-26 00:43

  Quote from Lan;104249:

  Hmm a woman that has many partners is called a slut, a man who does is called manly and other bs.

  
  
  Wrong. Its called being a manwhore
• Cannibal wrote on 2010-07-26 01:23
  Actually, I've personally seen the "girl slut, man manly" double-standard applied in real life, especially in school. A girl sleeps with a guy, and she's a whore/slut/what have you. A guy sleeps with a few girls, and he's cool, because he got laid. It seems like a girl can't get laid and tell someone without being a whore, but a guy doing it is perfectly fine. So, no, people don't always refer to them as "manwhores."
• paladin wrote on 2010-07-26 01:27
  You see it even as adults
  For work your not suppose to choose between gender for employees of equal skill
  Due to before the whole man> women thing
  But know its become that some men can sue company for taking a women over him when there both equal skill and sometimes better
• Zid wrote on 2010-07-26 03:24
  It's how one react to somebody else when a specific situation happens, I guess. Yes, perspective-based. But the reason why it's called a "standard" is because society encourages or even enforces it on its own individuals. That's why the "No Double Standard" policy is soooooo easily broken, because different people view the same situation differently.
  
  I think no matter what, as long as the idea of free will and perspective exist, the ideology of everybody following a "No Double/Triple/Quadruple/Nth Standard" is a pure whim, a virtual impossibility.
  
  I think the easiest example of "Multiple Standards" anybody can relate to is racism. Like a white man tried in court vs. a black man tried in court.
  
  EDIT: I also wanted to point out we have double standards even at an everyday level. What is your behavior when you talk to a stranger? What about your behavior when talking to a close friend?
• Lan wrote on 2010-07-26 03:25
  Do we have something concrete to debate about?
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-07-26 04:29

  Quote from Lan;104638:

  Do we have something concrete to debate about?

  
  
  

  What exactly causes the so called "No Double Standard" policy to be broken?

  
  
  It's unfair. That's what.
  
  Hmm, how about this question? Should there be an exception to every rule?
  
  Like Nixon, for example. I would have thrown his butt in jail. President of the United States and thief.
  
  Sometimes we let people get away with too much.
• JustNoOne wrote on 2010-07-26 04:47
  Sorry, but the first example doesn't really sound right so I'll assume this school takes place in an odd society since I never ever see kids going to court because they smoke underage, they're usually taken care of in custody.
  
  The kid or the teacher should get the same punishment as one another since a policy is made to have a rational outcome, they both tried to break the rule and they both did, regardless of age the punishment should not changed according to the status of one person...
  
  Of course this is in the other world, in reality, this does occur since we can see the example of juvenile jail and regular jail. A young person may not know the seriousness of a murder while an adult of the same guilty conscious have years to know that murder is a very serious crime. The young person can change it around in their later years, the adult had those years to think about it and did it anyways (but this shouldn't affect the sentence of the crime just so you know, this is just how I feel).
  
  So yeah... I mean heck, we even use "Double Standards" when children perform accidents and when adults do them.
• Tedio wrote on 2010-07-26 04:53
  One time me and my friend were talking and I got to a topic of fighting with people. He said that he wouldn't hit women just because they are women. I asked him why does the same not apply for males. He couldn't give me a good answer. I dont like the idea of people thinking that you should be a certain way to a certain gender. Why cant the same work for both? Heck, alot of girls could beat me up.
• JustNoOne wrote on 2010-07-26 04:59

  Quote from Gargamaru;104728:

  One time me and my friend were talking and I got to a topic of fighting with people. He said that he wouldn't hit women just because they are women. I asked him why does the same not apply for males. He couldn't give me a good answer. I dont like the idea of people thinking that you should be a certain way to a certain gender. Why cant the same work for both? Heck, alot of girls could beat me up.

  
  
  Certain people are held back by the idea of "Ohh, it's not right!" or "I don't believe that's an option", but really... there is nothing to say that what you're doing is right or wrong but yourself; to combat the option point... as long as you can do it, it's an option.
  
  Also try using the idea of not hitting a girl to this scene:
  
  If there's a girl (10-15 years old so we can assure this person is a girl) and she's out to hunt you down and kill you till the end of time, would you not attack her?
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-07-26 05:10
  I would kill her.