Double Standards are a reality

Double Standards are a Reality

be a gentleman and live by double standards
be a gentleman and live by double standards

There are many people out there waking up to the hypocrisy and tyranny of feminism, yet in their criticism and polemics against it, unwittingly support it by following the same ideals premised by feminism, they reject feminism’s effects without rejecting feminism itself. They are not against feminism (which is the equality between men and women) but the feminists who have not lived up to their end of the bargain, basically accepting it in theory but rejecting how it has been done in execution. Ultimately they will defend and promote the idea of gender equality between men and women which is illogical and contrary to being human.

So people with good intentions then point out the flaws and lies of feminists, such as how there are double standards that negatively affect men (since feminists love to talk about double standards that negatively affect women) and that although feminism has done much to help empower women it did so at the expense of men and therefore is not true Equality. Those who argue in such a way implicitly think that equality entails women taking on the role of men which means that they truly don’t think that men and women have inherent inborn traits or essences which differentiates them from one another and are simply amorphous beings that are interchangeable with one another especially in circumstances of a modern society and that this path to equality entails having two polar opposites having identical jobs.  

So let’s point out the eternal Double Standards which have a basis in reality and are in no way arbitrary or unfair.  


  • Scenario 1: A man beats his wife.


Scenario 2: A woman beats her husband

The Egalitarian Perspective: Since men and women are equal and it is unlawful to assault a person, whoever inflicts harm shall be punished. To have more sympathy for the wife being beaten by her husband than the man being beaten by his wife is sexist because since both are equal and independent showing more pity for one implies that women are somehow defenseless and somehow less independent and therefore deserve more pity. The inverse applies to the man.

The Egalitarian Experiment: There is a social experiment with actors showing a woman being beaten by a man in public and it is met with swift retribution or justice in the hands of strangers. However, societal inequality is exposed when a woman beats a man and nobody does anything and merely ignores it.

The Double Standard Reality: Men and Women are different. Men are leaders of women and are higher socially and since women are subordinate and weaker it is seen as a cruel abuse of power when a man beats a woman unfairly. The instinctive reaction of seeing this beating belies the atavistic idea that women are dependent and cannot fend for themselves. The reaction of a woman being brutally beaten by a man is similar to a lesser extent to a child being brutally beaten by an adult. A man who is brutally beaten by another man will never be as sympathized as a beating of a woman or child and does not have the same instinctive indignation which belies the fact that men are independent and are responsible for bearing the brunt of suffering. A man who is beaten by his wife is seen as a wimp and is not a person to be sympathized, but to be laughed at like the butt of a joke. This is in no way unfair, but right.

Addendum to 1

Scenario 1: A robber goes into a store and steals some items. A male officer attempts to stop the robber but is brutally beaten and the robber escapes

Scenario 2: Same as above but the officer is a woman

The Egalitarian Perspective: It is irrelevant to list 2 different scenarios, for they are both officers and gender has nothing to do with it. To show sympathy for the female officer and to have additional anger towards the criminal for beating a woman is sexist since it implies that she is somehow less capable than a man and deserves sympathy off the basis of being a woman. The criminal is punished and vilified socially off the basis of committing theft and assault of a police officer.

The Double Standard Reality: When the woman put on the badge and uniform, she put herself in a man’s position which entails all the responsibilities and burdens which come with being a man. When she was brutally beaten by the robber, she cannot cry foul off the basis that she is a woman (you can’t hit a girl!) and criminals do whatever they want without moral impediments since they are criminals. When a woman decides to place herself in a man’s world she repudiates her femininity in favor for masculinity and since these are mutually exclusive, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. This logic applies to women in the armed forces.


  • Scenario: The terrorist organization ISIS went into a city plaza and indiscriminately butchered everyone in sight, newspapers and media outlets are in an uproar at the atrocity, titling the killings along the lines of: “ISIS MASSACRE! WOMEN AND CHILDREN KILLED!”


The Egalitarian Perspective: The title is intended to catch the reader’s attention as to the horrors and lack of morality that ISIS has when they are willing to kill even women and children. The title is condescending in its sexism since to label women alongside children shows that women are innocent and dependent in some way and are not just labeled with the men killed. Why are women being massacred any worse than men?

The Double Standard Reality: Women and Children are precious fragile creatures who deserve to be protected and kept out of harm’s way. Men take the burden of suffering the atrocities of life and are seen as more expendable than women and children due to their superior hardiness and essence of being masculine, and the heroic trait entails selflessness to due in place of those who are weaker and more dependent (women and children). For a terrorist group to be indiscriminate in killing men, women, and children shows a higher level of inhumanity and evil.


  • Equal Pay


What is erroneous is that feminists complain that women make less than men or are underrepresented in some jobs. Maybe it is because men are superior to women in many tasks? Ever notice how feminists reframe all feminine roles and jobs as demeaning and worthless, while the male ones are the only ones of importance and deserving of prestige? It is envy for those who are not content with being women. They hate that there are less women in leadership positions (president, CEO, military officer) and the sciences, and in the workplace. Why just leave it at that? I don’t see feminists fighting for a higher quota of women in physical trades such as carpenters, electricians, or coal miners, or working the oil fields? It is probably since these jobs aren’t as prestigious and are simply too dangerous for strong independent women.

Why leave it at the inequalities and grievousness of the women if they strive for equality for all? Female strippers and pornstars make significantly more money than their male counterparts in multitudes, and women in internet webcam based jobs can effortlessly make money, something that cannot be said of the men.


  • Thought Experiment 1: Imagine a young man who has recently become homeless and is begging for money at the streetlights. His rationale and plight are written on a cardboard paper written: girlfriend left me alongside a sad expression on the verge of tears. How would the general populace react? Most people would see this as a bad joke and give him nothing but their contempt and he is seen as nothing but a pitiful man. The more sympathetic good Samaritans might give him some change to help.   


Thought Experiment 2: Imagine a pretty young girl who has recently become homeless and is begging for money at the streetlights. Her rationale and plight are written on a cardboard paper written: boyfriend left me alongside a sad expression on the verge of tears. How would the general populace react? Most people would see this as a tragic event and bask her with their sympathies and probably be contemptuous of the man who abandoned her. Don’t expect her to get much in the way of monetary donation, as men would offer her a ride and a place to stay in short notice.


  • Person 1: A man is whimsical, indecisive, shy, dependent on others, and has low sense of confidence, he is also very physically weak


Person 2: Same as above, but a woman.

The Egalitarian Perspective: It is wrong that men looked down upon with those traits, yet people don’t have a problem with a woman who exhibits the same traits!

The Double Standard Reality: The man described above is a fag, and nobody respects a fag. Those traits are feminine traits and they are not expected to be the idealization of the opposite of those, who are masculine traits.


  • Complaint: How come when a man sleeps with many women he is seen as a stud or successful but when a woman does that she is a slut and a loser?


The Double Standard Reality: A key that can open many locks is a masterkey. A lock that can be opened many keys is a crappy lock. Men are active. Women are passive. Men initiate and are the aggressors in the sexual realm. A woman who does that takes on the characteristics of a man and is immoral, and there is no finesse involved unlike a man. Women get nothing out of multiple short-term trysts and belies a poor sense of judgment in doing so.

Conclusion: I am quite certain that you can find hundreds of other scenarios but let’s get down the underlying themes that explain it all: Women are dependent and men are independent, and men have a higher social standing than women. With the greater responsibilities conferred to men off the basis of being men they are given less sympathy, less assistance, and are expected to do things on their own. It is a mandatory obligation for men to help and put themselves aside in order to help women and children, who are more dependent than they are off the basis of not being men.