Double Standards

[TNHawke]

This came up in a conversation where I work yesterday, and it reminded me of some similar conversations I've had fairly recently as well. So, since I've been kind of brooding on it, I thought I would bring it up here.

Double Standards. When you have a particular view about a subject, but stand virtually on the polar opposite on a similar subject. Ok, that was my personal definition, so then I looked it up on Dictionary.com and picked up these as well.

— n
a set of principles that allows greater freedom to one person or group than to another

any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, especially an unwritten code of sexual behavior permitting men more freedom than women.

Now, I find that last definition interesting, because the discussion at work was specifically about how it seems to be more tolerable for many to allow for lesbian couples, but not gay men as couples.
One of the people in the discussion was a gay man who has personally experienced this on many occasions.
I noticed it with one of my close friends when she was in high school. When she came out as lesbian, many of the other students were fine with it, maybe incredulous at first, but accepting, or even felt it was 'cool'. However, if a young man came out as gay, he was ostracized, teased mercilessly, and in one instance, even beat up after school.

To the definition as listed, I find it true as well. Even as far back as my own Jr. High days, I remember wondering with some friends why if a teenage boy was sexually promiscuous he was 'a stud', a good thing, but if a girl was, she was 'a slut', a very bad thing.

Outside of the realm of sexuality, I find double standards elsewhere too.

A young friend recently learned that in many oriental countries, cat and dog are on the menu. In the US this is extremely unacceptable.
So, I wonder, why is it ok for us to grow and butcher cows, pigs, chickens and sheep, and even buffalo, emu, ostriches, elk and other 'exotic' meats, but it is completely unacceptable to eat horses, dogs and cats?

I, myself, have wondered recently why it is acceptable to grow rats and mice as feeders for other carnivorous pets, but many people would be appalled at using hamsters or gerbils the same way. Why is mostly acceptable to feed, say a large snake, or a captive raptor, rabbits and guinea pigs, but not kittens or puppies? Why is it ok to feed quail, chicks and pigeons, but not finches, cockatiels and parakeets?

Then I wonder if this is particularly a view in the US? or are these views held elsewhere?
I know horse is frequently eaten in Mexico, and that in the US, if a horse is going to be butchered, even for dog food, it has to be shipped to Canada and it will never be done in the US.

Even here on Magistream, I have seen a couple of double standards. One that seems to be big news right now is an undercurrent of "I want to be able to have every last gold I can scrounge together, but others should not be allowed to hoard it." And similar to that, "I want to be able to sell donation pets for as much gold as I can get, but if I'm buying, I want to get it way cheap."
That last one was even a major reason why the first attempt at shops pooling together to lower doni prices failed.

So, after all my rambling...

What are some double standards YOU hold?
What are some you are aware of?
Any thoughts on why double standards exist?

[Nightjourneys]

Speaking from a gender standpoint I've actually found some interesting reasons as to why the first situation seems to exist the way that it does. Our society in general is geared towards the idea that mostly all of the qualities that we find admirable are also associated strongly with the male gender. (I can find the text online somewhere if you'd like, this was in an old gender college text book I'd gotten at a 2nd hand store.) Even with our modern views, as a *society* we view steps towards maleness as a step UP in the chain, and steps towards femininity as a step *down*.

As a whole we're designed then to encourage those individuals moving *up*, but to shun those moving *down* so that as a group we're moving from strength to strength.

((Speaking from the standpoint I got from another guy I used to work with, Men don't generally find their own bodies or those of other men attractive. So the idea of two men is 'ugh', but women.. well, women are *lovely*, and of course, women should find *other* women attractive, since men obviously do! I was never quite sure just how serious he was with that.. ))

In general though, I think double standards must always exist because of our tendency to *needing* to group things. Horses, dogs and cats all serve very specific functions for us in the US (or did in the past). Because they were valued for the duties they performed, the idea of butchering them for food would become less and less acceptable. Whereas in the US the entire point of cows, sheep and chickens is what they *made* for us. Eggs, wool.. and food. They are cared for specifically to be able to BE eaten, not because they guard the house, keep pests away, or assist in plowing/traveling.

As far as the Magistream standards go, isn't that true of most people anywhere? YOU want to be the person that found that bargain deal, that secret gold in the attack, that hidden painting in the flea market, but you don't want to be the one that lost out because you sold some old trashy painting to some guy for twenty bucks.

In order for us to grow as a society we need competing groups, competing standards, or else.. what is it that we have to strive for/against? I am not in *any* way endorsing those negative stereotypes, but being able to understand why they exist is... useful.

Aaand that's the end of my rambling, I promise!

[BBkat]

A young friend recently learned that in many oriental countries, cat and dog are on the menu. In the US this is extremely unacceptable.
So, I wonder, why is it ok for us to grow and butcher cows, pigs, chickens and sheep, and even buffalo, emu, ostriches, elk and other 'exotic' meats, but it is completely unacceptable to eat horses, dogs and cats?

I wouldn't really call that a double standard so much as a cultural difference. Certain animals have just always been raised for a specific purpose-horses for work or pleasure, cattle for food- so using them for something different seems odd to us.

A better double standard for animals (that I've seen) is when people go on about animals deserving to be protected and the like, and then immediately hating on others(i.e unattractive looking ones) simply because they are not "cute'.
A very common example are the ones who immediately jump on 'save the wolves' (or any other 'cute' animal) but when confronted with any other animal that needs saving that isn't what they deem cute (i.e a spider) are completely against that animal.
I hope that made sense.

Even as far back as my own Jr. High days, I remember wondering with some friends why if a teenage boy was sexually promiscuous he was 'a stud', a good thing, but if a girl was, she was 'a slut', a very bad thing.

I have been trying to understand this too.

[MissMurderPaws]

I do see what you mean, we are the first to get shocked at another country, when we do something they think is far worse. I don't much like double standards, but i don't think there's much wecan do to change it. I believe that no matter what we do, we will always use double standeards, think of how many you might use and not even notice it

[ParaLLL]

I think it depends on what exactly you consider a double standard. "Double standard" seems to be one of those terms that a lot of people use, but no one is quite sure what the exact definition is, just that it's not a good thing and has something to do with hypocrisy (which people may or may not be equally unclear on). Double standards by any definition are certainly common, but not necessarily impossible to ever get rid of.

(On a side note, I think 'hypocrisy' and 'arbitrary' are also going to need to be clarified at some point in this.)

For double standards I've seen, there is of course everything that's already been listed, but I also took a class a while ago where the teacher wanted us to do something 'culturally inappropriate (but not illegal),' and some suggestions were things like crossdressing, eating with your fingers at a fancy restaurant, or asking about starting a club for a unpopular religion. The eating and religion ones are valid too, but what I particularly noticed is that it's a lot more difficult for a girl to crossdress than a guy, simply because there are very few items of clothing left that women don't regularly wear, but skirts (among other things) are still near-exclusively feminine clothing. Hair... things (clips, hair ties, whatever else) also seem to be almost always a feminine thing. (In the US anyway; I'm not certain about anywhere else.) So basically, anything associated with 'making yourself look pretty' is fairly limited.

[TxCat]

I try not to hold double standards and to deal with persons and situations individually as their actions or events warrant. That said, I'm only human and I'm not always successful.

I expect respect, but I don't always give it. There are some behaviors I find so publicly offensive that I can't seem to help commenting on them, particularly if it's someone large and they're wearing what I consider inappropriate clothing (too tight, showing too much of sexual parts, or completely the wrong pattern for that body type or a person that age). I know that I ought to be applauding them for being comfortable enough with their bodies that they can wear what they want but...I just can't. It makes it all the more a double standard and a cowardly act that I can't even say these things to their faces, politely or not, but will instead wait until I'm in the car with family or until I can get home and write about it in my journal.

I maintain that people are often ignorant on a subject and that providing good information and a good example will do a lot to change that but...sometimes I run out of patience. The second or third time on my pagan mailing list, for instance, that a newcomer asks for a spell to do X or Y and I ask if they've got any basic magical training (needed before you do anything magically) and they have no idea what I'm talking about I want to reach through the 'net and strangle the person. Especially when we've just posted a bunch of useful information about that very subject and the archives are full of it. It sometimes --- more often than I like --- ends up in a passive-aggressive post telling people in general that if they can't say something intelligent then they ought not to comment. Of course, the response is usually "But how will we learn?" and they're partially right.

This last one, however, is a big peeve of mine. There is a woman who runs a blog called Dances With Fat. She's an overweight dancer who has started a fat acceptance campaign with the idea that a person can be healthy at any size if he or she is doing the right things and his or her condition, based on physical evidence, is healthy. The problem? She doesn't include people like me. I fit that definition --- my blood panels are better than many of my doctor's thin patients and he's told me so often enough; in fact, mine are on the low side of normal. However, I'm in a wheelchair and I'm fat. That, she told me, is not the 'type' of person they want representing them. Really? I thought it was about fat acceptance, the acceptance of health at any size and the idea that no one's health should be judged on looks. The whole campaign is a double standard; she talks constantly of thin privilege (as though my size 2 friend doesn't have body image problems or people coming up and telling her she needs to see a doctor or eat a sandwich; she's healthy at that size). To me, in order to get rid of the stigma of judging someone based on their fat, you have to get ride of judging based on size or appearance at all.

And she won't do it. I am currently trying to start a size acceptance group here. I wanted to talk to other groups and she invites people who want to start such groups to do so. When I used her list of contacts, I was universally told that I was NOT what they meant. Healthy and in a wheelchair apparently do NOT go together and people might look at me and assume I am in a wheelchair because I'm fat.

I work on my double standards, though. I'm not sure many other people do or even take time to think about them.

[MightyOak]

First I will address TNHawke's opening statement; Double standards in food are often simply cultural differences that lack a certain amount of understanding from one side or the other or both. Yes, cat and dog are on the menu in many oriental countries, but it's not just random cats and dogs like may people believe. They are very specific breeds raised for the express purpose of eating, just like a cow is. Eating a pet dog would be quite horrifying for them. The practice of eating horse was forbidden by the Catholic church because horse was a sacred meat to eat for the people who followed what we now call the Norse gods. It was a way to differentiate between a good christian and a heathen. Although, in Canada and France, at least, I know they still eat horse, though they don't serve it everywhere, it can be found. It's said to be good for the blood. One of the reasons, I believe, that female homosexuality is acceptable and male homosexuality isn't is because the bible very specifically says that man is forbidden to lay with man. It says nothing about women, however. To the subject of rats and mice, that's easy. We see them as vermin and disease carriers, even if they are bred in safe and healthy environments. While gerbils and hamsters are only pets. We don't hold any negative views of them that would make it okay to feed them to something else. And birds are also easy. Chicks, pigeons, and quail aren't ornamental birds or song birds. People don't eat birds that are classifieds as song birds or ornamental birds. A perhaps arbitrary line to draw, but the line is drawn none the less. And the last double standard you mentioned seemed to me to be simple economics. Buy low, sell high. It's what anyone with any sense does. It's why wallstreet needs regulation. Money has no moral compass and people trying to make a mountain of it don't either. That's why selling doni's low doesn't lower the price of donis. Supply and demand. As long as you're not creating more donis and just shifting around the existing amount with a growing population, all you get is people thinking of the profit they can make.

Here is a double standard, though, that has always driven me nuts. Men are allowed to be topless in public and women are not, under most circumstances. I grew up on the Riviera, the beaches of south eastern France. As a woman, I have the right to be topless on a beach and I take full advantage of that moment of pure physical equality. It is the rare moment where I feel myself truly to be on equal and even footing with any man. But take one step off the beach and I'd better be covered up again! My time in States (where I live at this moment) has shown me exactly where the limits are of a woman's breasts in public. It's the nipple that is the most offensive. As long as a woman has pasties on her nipples she's pretty much fine from a legal standpoint, though perhaps not a social one. The part I simply cannot fathom, and can only put down as some hold over of christian beliefs that a woman's temptations can doom a righteous man, is that a woman's nipples serve a non sexual function while a man's nipples do not. In essence, American society says that a man may expose his secondary sexual organs to anyone he chooses, but a woman who wants to feed a baby must hide in a basement to do so. This in part is also a cultural difference that I may simply not be understanding. Breasts in general are more acceptable in France, nipples and all. I see them in commercials all the time and women breastfeeding in public is a matter of personal choice and people don't bat an eye, but then woman who breast feed in public generally bring a blanket with them to shield both baby and breast from view and even then choose a quiet spot to do so.

Here is a double standard that I hold. If a man is interested in me, he'll have to make the first move. I simply won't. As a woman it is not my place to initiate courtship with a man, it's his. Why? I couldn't tell you for the life of me. Probably a primitive part of my brain wanting a male to prove his worth. If he can't step into that space of uncertainty of "will she go out with me if I ask or won't she" than he is probably not the genetic material I'm looking for. On the other hand, when it comes to women, I don't have a problem making the first move...again, probably my primitive brain saying "you see? I am self assured as any strong genetic material should be, you should go out with me".

Some double standards are cultural and societal and some are evolutionary. I am just happy that double standards are not as bad as they once were.