Double standards
Options
5th Letter
Members, Moderators, Writer Posts: 37,068 Regulator
Does anyone ever wonder why double standards exist? For example if a man is living off his woman he is considered a ? . But a woman living off her man is perfectly fine.
Just an example
Just an example
Comments
-
In that example woman can be considred a gold digger...
-
Social constructs.
-
They exist because...people like to simplify things that are naturally complicated and as well...we as human beings are ambivalent and often hypocritical. All by the nature of society.
-
its rude if a skinny person calls a fat person "fat", but if a fat person calls a skinny person "skinny" its funny....i remember one fat white chick put her arm around me and was like "oh my ? you are so skinny" in front of people and i just laughed it off ? if i got her bout her weight she woulda got all suicidal an ? (she was proper self conscious bout that)...to this day i regret never checking her for that ... double standards i hate
-
Because the government is trying to make it at least seem it's attempting to make things equal.
-
-
Men ? ' hella women.........playa
Women ? ' hella men......hoe
B.E.T.- all good
W.E.T.- (if there was one) Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and NAACP would out to get da curly head blue eyed devil fired from da network -
I think the social construct response makes the most sense. Society often perpetuates stereotypes in the name of political correctness. You can't call a woman a gold digger if she doesn't call herself one first. I think it is an attempt to promote social order disguised as 'self-esteem'. Katt Williams said it well on one of his stand up shows, something to the effect of 'It's called self esteem, simple ? . How can I ? up the way you feel about YOU'. It's over the top, but not far from the truth. We look to others to justify and support our self-esteem. I think it is an extension of our need to feel accepted. That's another topic for another day.
If social order is maintained on the level of the people, then governments can work behind the scenes to promote their agenda. So another response, the government attempting to promote equality is also certainly valid. As long as there is the perception of equality, social order is maintained. As long as social order is maintained, we don't demand any sort of change. In fact, we support the status quo. We notice double standards, but they are not enough of a problem that we are prepared to cause a ruckus, i.e. disrupt the social order. If you pay attention, as soon as someone steps up to make a real difference, they are attacked as a person. Rarely do you see ideas and thoughts attacked because we often can't separate a person from the idea. We think that since a person is morally unfit, the ideas that they possess must somehow be corrupt. A perfect example of this is in the political arena. Actual ideas are hardly ever discussed. It is always scare tactics and ad hominem attacks meant to derail the actual message.
tl;dr, social constructs perpetuated by governments keep the less informed in check so that the government can further their agenda. double standards are a natural anomaly of illogical social constructs. -
I think the social construct response makes the most sense. Society often perpetuates stereotypes in the name of political correctness. You can't call a woman a gold digger if she doesn't call herself one first. I think it is an attempt to promote social order disguised as 'self-esteem'. Katt Williams said it well on one of his stand up shows, something to the effect of 'It's called self esteem, simple ? . How can I ? up the way you feel about YOU'. It's over the top, but not far from the truth. We look to others to justify and support our self-esteem. I think it is an extension of our need to feel accepted. That's another topic for another day.
If social order is maintained on the level of the people, then governments can work behind the scenes to promote their agenda. So another response, the government attempting to promote equality is also certainly valid. As long as there is the perception of equality, social order is maintained. As long as social order is maintained, we don't demand any sort of change. In fact, we support the status quo. We notice double standards, but they are not enough of a problem that we are prepared to cause a ruckus, i.e. disrupt the social order. If you pay attention, as soon as someone steps up to make a real difference, they are attacked as a person. Rarely do you see ideas and thoughts attacked because we often can't separate a person from the idea. We think that since a person is morally unfit, the ideas that they possess must somehow be corrupt. A perfect example of this is in the political arena. Actual ideas are hardly ever discussed. It is always scare tactics and ad hominem attacks meant to derail the actual message.
tl;dr, social constructs perpetuated by governments keep the less informed in check so that the government can further their agenda. double standards are a natural anomaly of illogical social constructs.
Well,this was very thorough.
-
I never thought laying back eating off someone was perfectly fine. I don't like handouts, so it don't apply to me. Some women think that ? is cute. & thats a back in the day mentality, because the newer generation is the independent woman movement. You can barely find ones around my age who think it's cute to eat off of a man. Those types are usually older women, who believed the man suppose to take care of them. Thats more of a old school belief.
-
Simple......justification of undesireable or frowned upon behavior & as a means of social control/manipulation.
-
numbaz...80's baby wrote: »If there was a channel called White Entertainment Television ? would have a heart attack.
It's okay for Black scholarships to exist but once sum1 did a white only college scholarship ? was ? .
www.Truth.com -
numbaz...80's baby wrote: »If there was a channel called White Entertainment Television ? would have a heart attack.
It's okay for Black scholarships to exist but once sum1 did a white only college scholarship ? was ? .
These are a bad examples. A true double standard is where all things are roughly equal or on the same level for two parties yet one party gets special treatment over another.
There is a channel called Black Entertainment Televsision because the interests of black television watchers were rarely addressed on normal network tv. You could watch a full night on one of the other channels and not see a black face outside of some meaningless extra. BET was made to address that problem. The reason there would be and issue with a WET is because there is no need for it. Pretty much every channel out there still caters largely to whites and still features whites more heavily than any other group. The creation of a WET would not serve any purpose other than to alienate other groups. And why does this example always get brought up as if blacks are the only group with a channel that panders to them. On my cable there are multiple hispanic channels and multiple asian channels too.
The same goes for black scholarships. Those came from the fact that blacks were denied scholarships in the past. Even now there are tons of scholarships out there that blacks don't really have a fair shot at getting. And again blacks aren't even the only ones that do this. There are scholarships aimed at specific white groups like italians and the irish as well as other minorities. Hell, most scholarships don't even target blacks specifically. They target minorities. And by the way, if you go to an HBCU you're guaranteed to find a few white students, and guess what? They are probably there on a minority scholarship.
