are there double standards in L&D?

Post Reply New Topic

I also don't see how this argument relates to the thread. It's off topic, and is combating double standards by promoting double standards elsewhere. Somewhat ironic.

who says im promoting the double standards? I wish it would be the same for both. Sadly DWH my friend wanted to do combat with all her friends, she ended up in a base in japan. They just wouldnt put her there. Also higher paying combat jobs? Those are the ones that women can join, like field doctors and engineers and such.

Have i ever said i dont agree with equal rights? Why are you making me to be a bad guy, if anything im trying to get real equal rights and not the fallacy we currently have.

Two posts while informative were quite focused on how there is an inequality with rising to the call of duty between men and women. It's true, and yes this is something that might need to be looked at, but I probably misinterpreted them as being points to justify some of the double standards seen within this section of the boards. For that I am sorry. However, if anything it's definitely veering off the topic.

seeing as post of that manner where what started this thread i dont see how its offtopic to show examples of double standards in real life. Its tough to see a clear line of double standards in LnD because of the differences of why on average members of a certain gender post. On average it is guys wanting to date and women wanting either a way to help their relationship or looking to move up. They each will have specific responses to their category, so its hard to see a double standard in responses. The only one you could argue iss the ammount of responses the average guy post and average girl post get. But the ammounts of guy posts to girl posts probably balance that out

Being a doctor or an engineer involves a higher level of education. so, irrelevant.
I'm not talking about being deployed bases outside if the middle east. I'm talking about women deployed to the middle east in 'non-combat roles'. Being in an officially dedicated combat role entitles you to bonus pay that women of comparable rank and education levels are denied even when their jobs place them in combat situations. This restriction also hinders rank advancement for women.
So the military has issues yes, but they don't privilege women.

Military issue had been handled, perspectives have been heard, moving on.

I agree that the idea society is currently equal is false, there's a lot of "you've come a long way baby" that completely ignores how far we have to stop the systemic oppression of women the world over. We've internalized this idea that women's lib is over and now everything is hunky dory but it's really not. We see things that are deeply unequal as fair simply because in the past it was even worse.
'It’s common for people who are sexist to be unable to see equality as just. For instance, in a discussion that happened at a college, students were polled on how they feel about women changing their names to the man’s surname after marriage. “Would you be opposed to marrying a woman who wanted to keep her name?” One young man answered that yes, he would be opposed to that. When asked why, he replied, “Because if she kept her name, then everyone would know who REALLY was in charge in THAT relationship.”
In other words, if they’re both exactly equal, it’s perceived as unequal. If a woman doesn’t lose part of herself, submit, blend her identity into the man’s, it’s not “as it’s supposed to be.” Despite being equal, the woman is being seen as in charge–in a way that is unbecoming or appalling. This guy actually saw it as an inequality when the man and the woman both keep their names in the marriage. If equality looks to you like male subjugation just because he is denied his “right” to “be in charge,” you don’t have to look any farther to see where the problem is.'
I'm not trying to take a stance on surnames, the point is perception. (Another study found that a group that is exactly half women will be seen as mostly women and a group that is half black will be seen as mostly black. Groups in which white men were a majority were seen as equal.)
We perceive inequality as equal.
I think this goes a long way to explaining why some people "just don't see a double standard" because we're primed not to see it.

yes, thanks for that. the existence of double standards in the real world is not the subject of the thread.

True it is not the double standards are related to WP not in the real world but in the cyberworld so to speak.

Disclaimer: I don"t read this board often enough to be sure of the patterns.

But from what I've seen, this is probably true. Still ... I am wondering, how much of it do we women bring on ourselves? Not all, no way, there is a lot of illusions and faulty assumption expressed on these boards (IMHO as an older married woman), but bear with me. It tends to be we women, after all, who will try to encourage men who feel they aren't good looking enough or earning enough by reminding them that many women do not care about those standards, that women in general seem to value different things in relationships than men do. So do we somehow make it difficult for others of our gender, when we do that, to express standards?

What I find problematic with people saying that is that it's always a game of pointing at others. Consider the following situation. You're in an elevator with two other people. Suddenly, you smell something. Someone has farted. However, if you ask, and one person decides to lie, you'll never know who did it. Basically, and essentially, I've observed situations where women said those things. Usually, they had the implied value 'we care about that, but some other women might not'. Now, here's the catch. A lot of women seem to say that, and the rest more openly rejected the men I've observed in those situations. These guys are bounced back and forth, and it's a game I refuse to partake in.

so should we assume that you are a psychopathic abuser because some other men are? or should we assume that MOST of them are like that?

If almost all men you've met were psychopathic abusers, you'd probably start to believe in that. This is my interpretation of the situation. I haven't been able trust any woman not part of my family. Some of them damaged my possessions, some of them gossiped, but all of them were ultimately hostile. I always have to keep an eye out for something they might be doing. One of them was suddenly friendly, but then I remembered how she had completely screwed someone I knew over to a point where he just avoided her wherever he went, and gossiped about a girl while acting like a friend when she was around.

Your assumption, in my case, would be half right. I've been described as a psychopath before.

if i believed such things about all men it would do non-psychopathic men a disservice. ultimately it would hurt me more than it hurt them, but nonetheless it's a ridiculous conclusion.

i think that a female cannot behave in a way that you would find acceptable because you have already prejudged them all according to past experiences (and perhaps you don't even see the positives because you only believe the negatives). you sound like your thoughts and actions have become quite paranoid about them. i hope that you understand that this issue arises from your own mind, and not from the people around you.

i am glad you finally explained your experiences regarding women, so that members can see that you are coming from a very skewed perspective regarding females, and therefore your posts must not be taken as objective.

Double standards are a two way street.

Of course they can behave in a way I'd find acceptable. Some of them do - but they're either members of my family who have known me for all of my life, or women whose job description includes appearing friendly. From what I've seen, I've developed a distaste for what seems to be universal behaviour. Even though I know little women in-depth, they're extremely over-represented in that compared to men I know. If they would, so callously, betray and hurt someone else, then they'd have no problem doing that to me. Now, I'm not immediately hostile - I try to be friendly, and on rare occasions, they're friendly. But nothing beyond that.

The main issue I have here is the two-faced nature I've encountered too often. When they're talking to someone, conversation is full of compliments and had a friendly tone. However, as I noticed between classes a while ago, they'll equally ridicule and insult those same people they've been friendly to only five minutes later.



I've yet to see any opinion that should be taken as objective. Of course my perspective is skewed, as women hate me before I meet them. As in, act aggressively even if I don't know them and have no intention of speaking to them at all. Sometimes, they try to command me, or act faux-friendly.

All women always hate you before you meet them?

Even I'm struggling in this topic where a woman has said they hate him.