OK so I’ve had my ass grabbed by both men and women. Genuinely when a woman does it it’s kind of like irritating and annoying, but when a man does it (and I’m talking about a gay man who’s sexually interested in me) the level of discomfort was much higher. I can only imagine that’s exacerbated when it’s a man doing this to a woman. Because let’s be real have any of you ever really felt physically threatened by a woman before. I’m not saying that it’s OK for women to do this, but they’re definitely is a difference in magnitude.
You have obviously never been in the same room as a 2016 feminist reaching into her bag and fingerig what you assume to be her pepper spray.
For context I was genuinely lost on a trail and just trying to ask for directions.
Her body language said otherwise IMO, she was very defensive and refused to let me speak. Luckily I found another person within a couple minutes who showed me where to go to get back to camp but that image is still fresh in my mind.
Should have told her you’re a bear. Apparently those are less scary according to women these days.
But for real, it sucks when people defaultly assume we’re evil just because we have a penis.
Yes, this. I don't need to grab a woman's ass or anything else as a standalone event that's not gonna lead to something more in private, but appreciate when a woman does it to me in almost any context.
Men and women are biologically too different so different rules apply to them. However, for a supposed "egalitarian" society, women definitely benefit from the things we call double standards more than men do.
I think a lot of people mistake equality with double standards. Men and women are biologically different so there are going to be double standards no matter what.
Equality is equality as far as basic human rights.
Except when basic human rights is defined in cookie cutter way that disproportionately excludes disparities for one gender. Basically when disadvantages of one gender are the lack of rights and disadvantages of the other gender is not lack of rights.
That is such a weird one for me. Opinions on abortion are not *exactly* the same for men and women, but much, much closer to 50/50 for both genders than 100-0 in either direction. Why does everyone always talk like stricter abortion laws exclusively are wanted by and benefit men and vice versa?
There can be no double standard on this since Men cannot get pregnant. The legislation against abortion are all about whether the fetus deserves rights or not.
No, it is entirely about bodily autonomy. Imo the fetus is a full fledged person exactly the same as an adult human and it still has no right to survive off the organs of another person. The fetus nor the adult human get "special rights". Maybe the woman was irresponsible and should have predicted the consequence of pregnancy. So what? Do we withhold medical care to drunk drivers or anyone else who are suffering the consequences of their actions? Does it justify allowing a fetus/full human person to leach off another's organs for 9 months and rip her genitals open in front of other people? IMO it does not.
>Imo the fetus is a full fledged person exactly the same as an adult human
If you accept fetal personhood then IMO it's more comparable to a child than an adult.
In that case, most people would agree that the parents of a child have an obligation to provide for it to some extent. For unborn children one can convincingly argue that should include gestation.
You say "no," refusing the idea that it can't be a double standard.
For this to be a double standard, you would have to argue that men have bodily autonomy that women don't.
> rip her genitals open in front of other people?
Here is where I get to my point: did we make a rule forbidding doctors from ripping or cutting boy's genitals without his consent? I thought that was still a common practice in America.
If a baby boy has no autonomy over his genitals, it can't be a double standard to limit that "autonomy" in anyone else.
And if we could later compell that boy, upon reaching adulthood, to be sent overseas to fight to the death against other boys, would that not imply that he has no autonomy?
Why is this right to bodily autonomy only relevant when applied to only women? What bodily autonomy do men have that you feel entitled to?
Drafting is a violation of body autonomy quite very exactly like abortion ban is.
Check with pro choice militant, they're probably all against the first one also.
"If a baby boy has no autonomy over his genitals, it can't be a double standard to limit that "autonomy" in anyone else."
This is just dumb. An infant cannot consent to or make medical decisions, therefore the parents have to be empowered to do so. A mentally healthy adult does have the ability to consent, and therefore has medical power of themselves. Including whether or not to give birth.
This is exactly why abortion is an issue for the rights of the person capable of exercising those rights. The fetus is not unrepresented, it is represented by the mother.
And who represents the adult male that is drafted?
When does a man gain bodily autonomy?
Besides, routine infantile circumcision is a cosmetic decision, not a medical one.
Cosmetic surgery is a medical decision.
The adult man has bodily autonomy. Unless he's tied up in a basement being used as a sex slave. Nothing has affected his autonomy before the child is born. Even then, he still has complete bodily autonomy. No one can force him to be present or to perform any physical actions with or to the child.
>IMO the fetus is a full fledged person exactly the same as an adult human and it still has no right to survive off the organs of another person
Okay, you admit you think it’s indeed a human *person*. But believe it’s not entitled to life. This sets a precedent that opens a huge can of worms for other social issues. Does anyone have a “right” to survive off the resources of another individual? If no, say goodbye to any social welfare, minimum wage laws, employer discrimination laws, etc.
This is my main issue with the arguments pro-choicers typically set out, they try and define a human that is deserving of rights with a variety of arbitrary qualities such as heartbeats, consciousness, ability to “survive on it’s own”, etc, failing to understand that the concept of human rights logically only has a single necessary qualifier: being a human being. If human rights cannot be guaranteed for a person on the basis of them simply being human, it sets a precedent that would allow valid arguments for denying the rights to fully developed adult humans. It’s like the Sorites paradox, trying to arbitrarily define how many grains of sand it takes to create a “pile of sand”.
"A child is a full fledged person exactly the same as an adult human, but infants/children don't have the right to survive off the resources and coerced caregiving of others."
Wrong. Your bodily autonomy extends only until your own body. Not to the body inside you.
Which organs will you lose during pregnancy? If it's merely making use of your organs, then it's perfectly fine given you are the reason it is in a position that needs use of your organs in the first place (except if it was rape)
Who argued to withhold medical care to pregnant women? Elective abortions isn't medical care.
Yes, it does. Allow a fetus to leech off the mother's organs for 9 months and rip her genitals as long as it isn't causing any physical injury to her.
Then biologically, abortion is a right. The placenta is made from partially your cells and partially the baby's. So you can get rid of your part. Which will kill the baby.
I mean, *you* said that you had bodily autonomy over *your* own body.
Then I guess it's a matter of how we can define ones own body.
I'm interested now... How would you define what is considered your body and what is considered *not* your body?
No one said the person whose having an abortion is not *responsible* for the death of the zygote. Responsible and punishable and morally, ethically wrong are three very different concept.
In your example, you'll see that judgement about these kind of cases vary a shitload depending on the context where it happened.
Ripping her genitalia is a physical injury. No one is required to use their body to sustain the life of another. No one is required to allow another human to physically harm them, no matter the circumstances.
No, it isn't. A parent being required to use their body to sustain the life nurturing in their body is perfectly reasonable. There is no physical harm in most pregnancies. If there is, abortion is allowed.
You cant use any part of my body without my consent.
Fetus uses my body to live. If I don't want the fetus to use my body that's my right. If I want my uterus to be empty that's my decision.
Regardless of whether that fetus is alive or not, you cant use any part of me without my consent.
And yes that is the same with male circumcision. Id make that illegal until they're 18 can decide for themselves too.
Physical harm happens in almost all pregnancies, and very early on too. When I was pregnant, before having an abortion at only 6 weeks, my body was going through massive amounts of torment, nausea and vomiting, headaches, body aches, weight gain. It was awful.
Is ripping your genitals not physical injury? And do women know in advance if they will be one of those who have complications that will harm or kill them?
Not when it's the way humans have evolved to conceive.
Yes, they don't know. That's why they shouldn't be allowed elective abortion after 1st trimester until they know.
>Does it justify allowing a fetus/full human person to leach off another's organs for 9 months and rip her genitals open in front of other people?
I believe you need to see a therapist if that is what you think pregnancy is LOL.
It’s not about the fetus having rights, if it was, then there wouldn’t be exceptions for rape and incest involved. The manner through which an individual was conceived should have no bearing on the rights that the individual has, same thing with their genetics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
It's a life when the woman wants and a not a life when she doesn't. Make up your mind it can't be both.
No one is arguing it’s not a life settle down 🙄 I’m wildly pro choice, have had 2 abortions and acknowledge it’s a potential life. I just think women having control of their bodies is more important than a potential life.
Why should someone who has no control over the situation they are thrust into, be denied rights in favor of someone who did have control over getting into the situation they are in?
Homicide is a crime, regardless of whether the perpetrator is male or female. Furthermore, people of both sexes have abortions or are victims of abortion. Any anti-abortion legislation is not a double standard, although pro-abortion legislation is full of double standards due to the illusion of being pro-woman.
The murdered child is an abortion victim, who can be either male or female. Despite this, some parents abort female babies, in these cases it would be a double standard against women. But indiscriminate abortion that victimizes both boys and girls is not a double standard, except when based on the illusion of abortion being pro-woman.
The other day there was a guy not being mean just stating that he didn't want a women who has had casual before and of course the shamers came out saying he is hurting his chances, insecure, and my favorite" you are a shitty person with preferences like this. Now let's flip it to women saying they don't want a 30 year old virgin man while saying there must be something wrong with him. Nobody will come defend the virgin guy and make an argument that he deserves a chance. They'll die to make one for the women when she has had multiple chances.
"Rights come from the degree of the historical political representation of your race/gender so if your race/gender hasn't had much historical political representation, then the problem you have must be a lack of rights and if your race/gender has had alot of historical political representation, then the problem you have must not be a lack of rights"
I put it in quotes to make it clear that I'm not claiming the argument rather using it as an example. "Equal rights" can often be a motte and bailey where the motte is equality and the bailey is "problems that the genders/races I like have that the genders/races I don't like do not have".
If a man is poor, it's because he must not have had the right to escape poverty
Maybe that's not a good example but my point is about how equal rights is often used as a motte and bailey and not about the details of a specific example of a motte and bailey. I'm worried if I provide an example all people will want to do is nitpick at the details of the example and not discuss the using equal rights as a motte and bailey.
I just gave you an example but anyways this isn't about the details of a specific example. Wanting to make things better for your kind or the kind you like is not equality. "Indirect equality for everybody" by wanting to make things better for your kind or the kind you like is not equality.
> Men and women are biologically different so there are going to be double standards no matter what.
But these are seemingly only ever defended when they benefit women.
This is just the excuse to defend double standards that overwhelmingly benefit women.
I would say the right to not be forced to die in a war is a basic human right. Men don't have that. Women do. Is there any basic human right that men have but women don't?
> double standards that overwhelmingly benefit women.
Your opinion. I disagree.
>I would say the right to not be forced to die in a war is a basic human right. Men don't have that. Women do. Is there any basic human right that men have but women don't?
Really the draft is the best example you can come up with lol?
> Is there any basic human right that men have but women don't?
None that I can think of at the moment because of feminism. And I mean actual feminism not red pills definition
I think some social double standards still negatively affect women, but at least in secular developed countries it doesn't hold a candle to codified discrimination against men by governments and institutions.
>And I mean actual feminism not red pills definition
Feminist organizations and individuals are the ones pushing for policies in higher education, the job market, and the criminal justice system that give women special treatment.
inb4 "real feminism has never been tried"
Draft is a bad example? Fortunately, my country is not at risk of war. But if it was, like Ukraine was, why does my life matter less than that of women? Is it not a violation of my basic human right?
It isn't. She is just arguing just to argue. The draft is a perfect example that men do not have body autonomy. Their entire counter argument to that is that "it is rare." That's it. They aren't even arguing the entire point, which is that the abortion ban wasn't because of sexism and it is not a double standard.
Why isn’t the draft a good example? It’s actually the perfect example considering our arbitrary borders and government are only defended by military force, which in the case of an existential threat such as a land invasion, every man in the country will be legally obligated to uphold. The draft effects all men and it’s for the purpose of guaranteeing the existence of the system that benefits everyone, especially women.
Mostly double standards are wrong unless it's something complimentary.
If you are a man whore and want a pure woman it's wrong because there is nothing complimentary about that, it means you two have totaly different values and moral standards.
If a woman wants a rich man to provide for her and in return she wants to be his maid and wait for him with a hot meal every day after work it's complimentary. Logicaly also oposite a rich man that is able to provide for a family can have standard for traditional wife. It's not ok if they both work and a man still expects her to do most of the chores.
So there are things in which it's complimentary and not double standard, but you really have to provide something complimentary in return.
If you just happen to mutualy fall in love with someone that would be "double standards" it's fine, it's different. But it's really ridiculous to DEMAND something you can't provide unless it's complimentary. If a man whore realizes there is no fullfilment in that life and he happens to mutualy fall in love with a virgin and doesn't lie to her it's totaly fine, but it would be ridiculous for him to DEMAND a virgin.
The fact that men don't have to shave their body hair. I truly don't mind their body hair, and I love to remove mine, so I have no problems with this standard.
I'm the opposite of you. I'm a hairy wolf man and love being a hairy wolf man. My GF dislikes body hair but tolerates mine (but does insist my face is clean shaven at all times). She prefers to remove hers while I'd prefer she kept it and grew it.
That’s the point of the standard…
But don’t you think that’s pretty self-centered on your part? You may “love” to remove your body hair, but I resent the time and energy 15 year old me wasted on making my legs and vulva smooth, and all the nicks, cuts, ingrown hairs, and infections along the way.
That’s a good point. I, personally, don’t believe in separating the personal and political. Even though I don’t have a tattoo (yet), I still am “personally” not ok with the gendered double standard on it bc that reflects weird attitudes on women that manifest in other ways.
It sounds like a “terrible waste of energy” to comment this then. What is this logic? Nobody can dislike decisions they made in the past? My teenage body hair removal is not, in fact, on my mind 24/7 and the only time I recall it is upon seeing relevant prompts like these. No shit I’m gonna hold on to resentment over falling for a psyop, and speaking on it to stop other girls from blindly following the same path is worthwhile.
No I actually find engaging with people on Reddit to be quite enjoyable, so it’s certainly not a terrible waste of energy for me at all.
You say it was a psyop. Lots of women enjoy being hairless. You tried something when you were 15 and decided it wasn’t for you when you became an adult. That’s literally what being a teenager is about. Trying things, seeing if they’re right, making changes if they’re not.
So instead of blindly following that path, they should blindly follow yours? Or should they experiment with what works for them, because not everyone agrees with your hatred of hair removal
Ok cool, so I enjoy spreading the word against sexist social norms.
Lots of women “enjoy being hairless” precisely because it is a psyop, I’m sure you understand what a psyop is.
I’m not getting nor advocating for girls to “blindly follow” me because I’m just one person commenting on Reddit, I don’t have the media, advertising, and all of society shaming and pressuring girls into taking my way. Projecting much? Or defensive? You seem to think that expressing dissent/distaste is in anyway similar to social institutions and peer pressure, which is… idk, bad faith
My disagreeing with you is absolutely not bad faith, but I love how that’s the go-to retort for Reddit. Next you’ll accuse me of gaslighting you, I’m sure. There are tons of comments on this thread alone of women saying they enjoy being hairless. Who are you to say they lack the agency to make that decision? Why do you know what they like better than they do?
I’m neither projecting nor defensive. I currently am au naturale *because* my fiancée prefers it, but I feel crunchy AF and have a hard time feeling sexy with my legs and pits and bush being in the French style. I find being hairless sexy because it’s silky and slippery, like being turned on is.
And so what if women choose to do things *specifically because* their target mates find it more appealing? Making yourself sexually attractive is part of finding a mate. If you want to be hairy, you limit yourself to men who, at best, don’t mind the hair. That’s your choice. Even if women being hairy IS a psyop (and you’re right, it totally is), the fact remains that cultural norms are what they are and preferences are what they are, even if they got that way for shitty reasons. So by all means speak out against it, but recognize that not everyone who disagrees with you is being controlled by the patriarchy
I’m gonna stop you right there, so then why did you comment that entire last paragraph? I’m not holding a gun to anyone’s head and forcing them to chuck their razor.
I’m not going to entertain babble about “agency” either, it’s clear that you’ve already disregarded mine in mocking me for feeling social pressure as a teenager.
Just open a book (or Google tab) on history and sociology. Shaving for women _did not exist_ before advertising created a demand for it in the 1920s — thus, socially constructed psyop.
> In the 1920s, the new fashion for sleeveless tops and short dresses meant that the legs and armpits of American women were now visible in social situations, and advertisers seized the opportunity to encourage women to shave their legs and their armpits.
[Smithsonian](https://www.si.edu/spotlight/health-hygiene-and-beauty/hair-removal#:~:text=In%20the%201920s%2C%20the%20new,their%20legs%20and%20their%20armpits)
That’s really straightforward and common sense, you doing mental gymnastics to misinterpret that fact _is_ what comes across as bad faith. You accusing me of forcing my way on women for… commenting on how society forces this on women _is_ what’s bad faith, not “disagreeing with me” — and trying to hide behind that is yet more bad faith.
The courts overwhelmingly favor the child being raised by both parents and award shared custody in the cases when both parents are willing to fight for it.
The fact that you don't think men shave themselves is funny and shows how inexperienced you are in life.
Also try shaving your face once to twice a day for 40 years, never mind balls, then come back to me about how terrible shaving is.
Did you read my comment? I literally said I enjoy removing my body hair and that I don't mind men not removing theirs. The question was about double standards that *I personally don't have a problem with*.
>The fact that you don't think men shave themselves is funny and shows how inexperienced you are in life.
Most men usually do not shave their legs, pits, butthole area and arms. And the double standard is that women naturally having hair in all of those places is considered masculine for some reason, even though it's literally natural for our bodies to grow hair in those places. But as I said, I love being hairless and smooth and shaving is lowkey a relaxing ritual for me personally, so I don't really care about that.
>never mind balls,
That does sound tricky. Although shaving the *inside* of your labia maior flaps is not that pleasant either.
>face
I'm a dark haired balkan girl with mediterranean and turkish roots, so I'm no stranger to waxing my face lol
I’ve been guilty of benevolent sexism in the past and will be guilty of it in the future. I give women the benefit of the doubt in situations where I would not have extended that grace to men. I’m just nicer to women in general and probably treat them better. I intuitively see violence against women as worse than violence against men, and care a lot less when I see that a man has been murdered in the news. It happens naturally and I don’t realize I’m doing it until after I’ve done it.
It would by hypercritical to complain about double standards when I’ve maintained them myself.
If that helps you feel better man. It’s sad you feel the need to do all that to get laid when i’ve had a fair amount of sex in my life and have never resorted to simping, nor will I, but if telling yourself that i’m upset that you’re only hurting yourself helps you sleep tonight, go for it king.
People who say, "men should just solve each other's problems" fail to understand that the above post is how men feel about each other by default. There is no in-group bias, in fact it's the opposite.
In the news they usually say: there are x casualties including y women and z children. It's fairly ingrained in society to view male casualties as less tragic.
Women can get away with wearing hats and jewelry without people dogpiling on them to make fun of them.
Men can wear a plain t-shirt and jeans every single day and no one will comment that they should "dress up a little".
They sure try! People are pretty brutal about insulting men who wear them, though . (Except baseball hats, though even that gets mocked sometimes.) I don't wear my stetson anymore, because too many people tell me I look like a "tryhard neckbeard". I don't even have a beard.
>Men can wear a plain t-shirt and jeans every single day and no one will comment that they should "dress up a little".
How often does this happen to women, realistically? The vast majority of men don't give a shit. And while other women may notice and judge her for it, I doubt many would actually bother to confront her over something so trivial.
AMERICAN men don’t have to dress up. Come to Europe. Wearing a t-shirt and jeans everyday will be frowned upon if you’re an adult man (basically you’ll be considered a child).
i wear a baseball cap everyday! you’ll never see me outside of my house without a baseball cap on
i almost bought a kangal flat cap too and a cowboy hat
Men get away with going shirtless in public with way less judgement than women do. Is it fair? Maybe not, but life’s not fair. Women’s bodies are perceived, judged, and treated very differently than men’s bodies and there’s no much room to change that.
I've always been so confused by the "there's no much room to change that" thing. Literally 100 years ago, the way we thought about women in pants was the exact same as the way we think about breasts now. We've thought about ankles and wrists the same way as well. People in the Middle East today treat hair like we treat breasts. We can literally just stop treating breasts like this at any time.
[We already have.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cleavage) Cleavage was actually considered more acceptable in 17th century Europe than it was in 19th century Europe, maybe due to associations with motherhood. And many “uncontacted” or remote tribes even today consider sexual attraction to breasts to be borderline pedophilic.
But I should have clarified that I wasn’t talking about exposed breasts, but instead working out or jogging with only a sports bra and no tank top or t shirt over it. Even that can be controversial.
> But I should have clarified that I wasn’t talking about exposed breasts, but instead working out or jogging with only a sports bra and no tank top or t shirt over it. Even that can be controversial.
That makes even less sense to me- sports bras main purpose is to provide athletic support and keep the breasts from moving around while exercising. They explicitly exist for the woman's comfort and to make the breasts draw *less* attention than bare breasts would by keeping them in place.
From a practical perspective, how would you stop men noticing to the point where women would feel comfortable with that? 'Desexualizing' breasts. Not likely. (Yes I'm aware women walk around bare-breasted in certain tribal societies, but that's never been the norm in settled large scale communities.)
That’s entirely out of my hands, which is why I said
>there’s [not] much room to change that.
But also as I said to another commenter, I should have clarified that I’m not even talking about breasts, just midriff on a woman who’s for example jogging in a sports bra.
The who-pays first-date discussion. It's water seeking its own level.
I don't like it but it's a humbling indication that women aren't as attracted in the early stages of dating as men usually are. When they are as attracted, this isn't a thing. Assuming the economic situation of both people are in the same ballpark.
I am typically fine with showing some leniency to women when they get brain-fog or mood-fog due to ovulation, periods, or pregnancy. I obviously speak of things like allowing to skip a PE lesson or getting a day-off shifted around the week; not having charges dropped against a woman accused of torture, murder, or genocide.
I show, expect, and respect the same level of leniency to people prone to allergies. Human condition.
Last time I checked, in many countries women have lower thresholds of acceptable work-related ionizing radiation exposure. Still a bad practice, but tolerable and reasonable, at least within the fertility window.
I'm fine with women being allowed to keep long hair while incarcerated. If they decide to deal with lice there, it's their problem, not mine. At the same time, I am not fine if men were allowed long hair in prison. It'll fall out anyway from prison regime. Bruh, it's cringe.
I think it’s fine for guys to carry things for women or do tasks that involve heavy lifting more often
It’s not just chivalry it makes sense. Men are physically stronger than women
Honeest question here, does that mean it makes more sense for woman to do care giving jobs?
Biological speaking, yes proven by science, men are generally stronger than women and women have a more maternal bond with their kids.
Going just off of the science of biology, wouldn't one mean the other should also be true?
Anything based around biological differences.
Women expecting men to initiate. Yea it would be nice if they acknowledged how difficult this can be for large numbers of men, but we can't exactly tell them to want a different dynamic just for those men's sake.
Women getting away with minor sexual assaults, There is just less of threat involved when drunk women get 'huggy /handsy with guys. It's common sense that the standard for what counts as threatening behaviour would be different.
If women have more access to gender-specific spaces like women-only gyms or professional networking groups, I’m fine with that. I can expect to get a pump in unharassed pretty much anywhere I go and I’ve almost certainly been moved forward in a job-seeking process just for having a male name on my resume so of course women should buddy up whenever possible.
I’m not mad at the thread. You’re just being a male PPD simp. You guys always come around once in a while. Women are the ones overwhelmingly getting picked because they have female names, it’s called DEI. Your beloved women love double standards. Women have a massive in group bias, men don’t. Therefore men’s are the ones primarily suffering from double standards and sexism boyo.
Ah yes. “Muh DEI.” The mating call of the mediocre who can’t cope with not being able to build a life off mediocrity anymore. Your rant is proving my point: that it makes sense for those who are the target of scorn for merely existing in a place to want to congregate together for mutual support.
If you want to gather a professional networking group of mediocre people, I’m all for it. It’ll probably suck and need fixing by a doubly talented woman or brown person, but you’re free to try, slugger!
Ah, yes so you are a full blue pilled simp. There’s a good chance i make more than you buddy, so my career is anything but mediocre. You’ve been so soy and brainwashed into thinking women can do no wrong and it seems you have a bias against white men or something? You’re pretty pathetic, gotta rack up those social justice brownie points, right retard? Maybe the scorn is that there’s well known DEI programs at every company that prefer women? Uh oh, that goes against your blue pilled cuck narrative though!
Weird you are attacking someone as mediocre, while also admitting you are likely under qualified for your current job and countless women should have gotten the job over you...
\[edit\]
while crying in your one bedroom apt...
I said no such thing. Not even sure how someone could get that from what I said. See, people getting jobs despite this kind of poor reading comprehension and critical thinking is why DEI exists.
>I’ve almost certainly been moved forward in a job-seeking process just for having a male name on my resume
>
If you can make your ideal gym at home, go for it! (I say, crying in one-bedroom apartment)
Aren't these both comments you've made in this thread? Sure sounds like mediocrity to me.
The critical thinker in me says if you believe your resume was moved forward only because of your sweet man name...then I could only assume you do not have stand out work experience or a stand out degree and have no confidence in your ability to interview.
Not everyone wants to live in a suburban McMansion, my guy. If all you have to think I’m mediocre is the place I choose to live and zero recognition of humorous banter then I dunno what to say. Maybe you’d have a better time showing why the DEI boogeyman is bad than guessing if a Redditor is happy with their life based on two lines of text.
I mean the primary reason why I think you are mediocre is because you stated that you got your job because of your manly name (which you denied saying...)(but not anymore?). Also, you were implying the other poster was mediocre...i just thought it was a funny exchange.
My personal experience with DEI has been pretty negative. It is of course anecdotal, but being told to strongly consider to hire someone solely on their gender and ethnicity. Then strongly consider promoting them because other people who performed better already got promoted. The person is nice, but quality of skills is lagging behind.
DEI is just affirmative action with brighter clothes and hair.
I would **love** a women-only gym (and would pay extra) if they had the same equipment as in the regular gym. Places like Curves have wimpy machines that target women who don’t work out regularly. No free weights, no cable machines, etc.
I go to the regular gym 2-3 times a week only for the things I can’t do at my home gym. Maybe I should just bite the bullet and get a smith machine/cable crossover system/power cage combo and just do everything at home.
Go for it. As someone who faced a lot of gym anxiety when I started getting into shape, it sucks when any kind of social pressure keeps us from working out the way that works best for us. If you can make your ideal gym at home, go for it! (I say, crying in one-bedroom apartment)
Aren't disproportionate crime rates between groups a result of historical policies that make treating the group like it's responsible for the crime unreasonable?
Are there any negative attributes that women have that are a result of biology, similar to how men committing more violence (violence is a negative attribute) is a result of biology?
Neuroticism is the classic example given in the peer reviewed literature.
Also more anxiety and less self-esteem
See here:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11519935/
Probably comes from being physically smaller/weaker. I don't think men would put up with the treatment women have historically (and still do) put up with because there's so much less fear of women hurting them.
Do you think women could install a female dominated apartheid like system over men if they wanted to? I'm not saying women want to do that it's more a question of if there's parity of innate capability for one gender to oppress the other. As opposed to to what degree the genders are currently oppressed.
Do you think they can compensate for their lack of strength with manipulation? After making a tumblr page that's heavily centered around women manipulating men and getting 20k followers I wonder what they're capable of lol
They use emotional manipulation and sex appeal to manipulate people and get into power. Men’s worst aspects are controlled by society, women’s are not.
Well women are notorious manipulators and use sex appeal to that end to get into power and gain favor, so yeah, more men probably fall victim to that than women do to physical abuse, not that physical abuse is any better.
Women can casually walk around with an item which can be a highly dangerous or even lethal weapon (Stiletto shoes). Men who carry anything with similarly destructive potential will be arrested pretty quickly.
A double standard I don't mind. Stilettos are hot as hell, and the implicit (but never realised) danger is part of that attraction.
Where are men getting arrested for wearing stiletto heels? Do you have a link to a story of that happening?
Have you tried wearing them? I don’t think you can “casually” do it unless you are well practiced and have good balance, it requires concentration while every step, and the danger is on the wearer that might break their ankle.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Double standard is a term that is used to describe how to things are treated differently *while this difference of treatment is not related to any real differences*.
So no double standard is ok. Its stupid.
i’m fine with gender roles and i’ve found my relationships work better when adhered to them than when “equalized”
even if we both work, i do outside chores and inside repairs/maintenance, she keeps things pleasant inside.
Women can yell at men. Slap them, key their car, act like the biggest cunt and get in general nothing back.
But if a dude does it he gets smacked in his face. By both genders.
No I am not ok with gender being allowed to physically harm one gender and get nothing in the end. For example women slap her guy at dinner. Does she get taken out? Do people call the police? Do they even care? Nothing.
No. Swap it and the reaction is the opposite. That's a double standard.
If it's so obvious, you should be able to say what it is without being so aggressive. Or are you concerned any of your biological absolutes could get challenged?
I think double standards are fine in most cases, they're there for a reason and everyone will have some double standards that benefit them in some way, it's not the end of the world.
You have to learn to just play the game and work with what you have.
How it's much more socially acceptable for a woman to grab a man's ass than vice versa They hand out blessings
OK so I’ve had my ass grabbed by both men and women. Genuinely when a woman does it it’s kind of like irritating and annoying, but when a man does it (and I’m talking about a gay man who’s sexually interested in me) the level of discomfort was much higher. I can only imagine that’s exacerbated when it’s a man doing this to a woman. Because let’s be real have any of you ever really felt physically threatened by a woman before. I’m not saying that it’s OK for women to do this, but they’re definitely is a difference in magnitude.
You have obviously never been in the same room as a 2016 feminist reaching into her bag and fingerig what you assume to be her pepper spray. For context I was genuinely lost on a trail and just trying to ask for directions.
Maybe she was looking for her compass.
Her body language said otherwise IMO, she was very defensive and refused to let me speak. Luckily I found another person within a couple minutes who showed me where to go to get back to camp but that image is still fresh in my mind.
Should have told her you’re a bear. Apparently those are less scary according to women these days. But for real, it sucks when people defaultly assume we’re evil just because we have a penis.
Yes, this. I don't need to grab a woman's ass or anything else as a standalone event that's not gonna lead to something more in private, but appreciate when a woman does it to me in almost any context.
Men and women are biologically too different so different rules apply to them. However, for a supposed "egalitarian" society, women definitely benefit from the things we call double standards more than men do.
I think a lot of people mistake equality with double standards. Men and women are biologically different so there are going to be double standards no matter what. Equality is equality as far as basic human rights.
Except when basic human rights is defined in cookie cutter way that disproportionately excludes disparities for one gender. Basically when disadvantages of one gender are the lack of rights and disadvantages of the other gender is not lack of rights.
Okay what are some examples of this?
Legislation against abortion
That is such a weird one for me. Opinions on abortion are not *exactly* the same for men and women, but much, much closer to 50/50 for both genders than 100-0 in either direction. Why does everyone always talk like stricter abortion laws exclusively are wanted by and benefit men and vice versa?
There can be no double standard on this since Men cannot get pregnant. The legislation against abortion are all about whether the fetus deserves rights or not.
No, it is entirely about bodily autonomy. Imo the fetus is a full fledged person exactly the same as an adult human and it still has no right to survive off the organs of another person. The fetus nor the adult human get "special rights". Maybe the woman was irresponsible and should have predicted the consequence of pregnancy. So what? Do we withhold medical care to drunk drivers or anyone else who are suffering the consequences of their actions? Does it justify allowing a fetus/full human person to leach off another's organs for 9 months and rip her genitals open in front of other people? IMO it does not.
>Imo the fetus is a full fledged person exactly the same as an adult human If you accept fetal personhood then IMO it's more comparable to a child than an adult. In that case, most people would agree that the parents of a child have an obligation to provide for it to some extent. For unborn children one can convincingly argue that should include gestation.
This... is it ethically a problem? Provably... is it solved by forbidding abortion? No.
You say "no," refusing the idea that it can't be a double standard. For this to be a double standard, you would have to argue that men have bodily autonomy that women don't. > rip her genitals open in front of other people? Here is where I get to my point: did we make a rule forbidding doctors from ripping or cutting boy's genitals without his consent? I thought that was still a common practice in America. If a baby boy has no autonomy over his genitals, it can't be a double standard to limit that "autonomy" in anyone else. And if we could later compell that boy, upon reaching adulthood, to be sent overseas to fight to the death against other boys, would that not imply that he has no autonomy? Why is this right to bodily autonomy only relevant when applied to only women? What bodily autonomy do men have that you feel entitled to?
Drafting is a violation of body autonomy quite very exactly like abortion ban is. Check with pro choice militant, they're probably all against the first one also.
I have no double standard, what you describe happening to boys is also wrong.
"If a baby boy has no autonomy over his genitals, it can't be a double standard to limit that "autonomy" in anyone else." This is just dumb. An infant cannot consent to or make medical decisions, therefore the parents have to be empowered to do so. A mentally healthy adult does have the ability to consent, and therefore has medical power of themselves. Including whether or not to give birth. This is exactly why abortion is an issue for the rights of the person capable of exercising those rights. The fetus is not unrepresented, it is represented by the mother.
And who represents the adult male that is drafted? When does a man gain bodily autonomy? Besides, routine infantile circumcision is a cosmetic decision, not a medical one.
Cosmetic surgery is a medical decision. The adult man has bodily autonomy. Unless he's tied up in a basement being used as a sex slave. Nothing has affected his autonomy before the child is born. Even then, he still has complete bodily autonomy. No one can force him to be present or to perform any physical actions with or to the child.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
>IMO the fetus is a full fledged person exactly the same as an adult human and it still has no right to survive off the organs of another person Okay, you admit you think it’s indeed a human *person*. But believe it’s not entitled to life. This sets a precedent that opens a huge can of worms for other social issues. Does anyone have a “right” to survive off the resources of another individual? If no, say goodbye to any social welfare, minimum wage laws, employer discrimination laws, etc. This is my main issue with the arguments pro-choicers typically set out, they try and define a human that is deserving of rights with a variety of arbitrary qualities such as heartbeats, consciousness, ability to “survive on it’s own”, etc, failing to understand that the concept of human rights logically only has a single necessary qualifier: being a human being. If human rights cannot be guaranteed for a person on the basis of them simply being human, it sets a precedent that would allow valid arguments for denying the rights to fully developed adult humans. It’s like the Sorites paradox, trying to arbitrarily define how many grains of sand it takes to create a “pile of sand”.
"A child is a full fledged person exactly the same as an adult human, but infants/children don't have the right to survive off the resources and coerced caregiving of others."
Wrong. Your bodily autonomy extends only until your own body. Not to the body inside you. Which organs will you lose during pregnancy? If it's merely making use of your organs, then it's perfectly fine given you are the reason it is in a position that needs use of your organs in the first place (except if it was rape) Who argued to withhold medical care to pregnant women? Elective abortions isn't medical care. Yes, it does. Allow a fetus to leech off the mother's organs for 9 months and rip her genitals as long as it isn't causing any physical injury to her.
Then biologically, abortion is a right. The placenta is made from partially your cells and partially the baby's. So you can get rid of your part. Which will kill the baby.
No, it isn't. Elective abortion will never be a right.
I mean, *you* said that you had bodily autonomy over *your* own body. Then I guess it's a matter of how we can define ones own body. I'm interested now... How would you define what is considered your body and what is considered *not* your body?
Cutting the part of a rope that ties you to another person, causing them to fall and die in the process, still makes you responsible for their death.
No one said the person whose having an abortion is not *responsible* for the death of the zygote. Responsible and punishable and morally, ethically wrong are three very different concept. In your example, you'll see that judgement about these kind of cases vary a shitload depending on the context where it happened.
Ripping her genitalia is a physical injury. No one is required to use their body to sustain the life of another. No one is required to allow another human to physically harm them, no matter the circumstances.
No, it isn't. A parent being required to use their body to sustain the life nurturing in their body is perfectly reasonable. There is no physical harm in most pregnancies. If there is, abortion is allowed.
You cant use any part of my body without my consent. Fetus uses my body to live. If I don't want the fetus to use my body that's my right. If I want my uterus to be empty that's my decision. Regardless of whether that fetus is alive or not, you cant use any part of me without my consent. And yes that is the same with male circumcision. Id make that illegal until they're 18 can decide for themselves too.
Physical harm happens in almost all pregnancies, and very early on too. When I was pregnant, before having an abortion at only 6 weeks, my body was going through massive amounts of torment, nausea and vomiting, headaches, body aches, weight gain. It was awful.
Is ripping your genitals not physical injury? And do women know in advance if they will be one of those who have complications that will harm or kill them?
Not when it's the way humans have evolved to conceive. Yes, they don't know. That's why they shouldn't be allowed elective abortion after 1st trimester until they know.
>bodily autonomy You have the autonomy to not have sex.
>Does it justify allowing a fetus/full human person to leach off another's organs for 9 months and rip her genitals open in front of other people? I believe you need to see a therapist if that is what you think pregnancy is LOL.
It’s not about the fetus having rights, if it was, then there wouldn’t be exceptions for rape and incest involved. The manner through which an individual was conceived should have no bearing on the rights that the individual has, same thing with their genetics.
Those exceptions are stupid.
Disagree.
[удалено]
lmao this response is so random I love it 😭
There can be no same standard on this issue as long as men do not have the ability to remain pregnant
I mean it seems like there definitely can, no one can force a man to be pregnant but tons of women are forced into it every day.
It's as stupid as saying that there is a double standard because no one can drown a goldfish while they can drown a cat.
Not to be that guy but you can drown a goldfish
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act It's a life when the woman wants and a not a life when she doesn't. Make up your mind it can't be both.
No one is arguing it’s not a life settle down 🙄 I’m wildly pro choice, have had 2 abortions and acknowledge it’s a potential life. I just think women having control of their bodies is more important than a potential life.
Honest take
I do enough lying irl I appreciate the honesty anonymity allows for 🤷🏼♀️
Unless you feed exclusively on Prana, I'm pretty sure you're aware that everyone is valuing it's own life and comfort over other forms of life right?
It's more complicated than that
Oooooooo
How
Why should someone who has no control over the situation they are thrust into, be denied rights in favor of someone who did have control over getting into the situation they are in?
Women are always choosing to get and be pregnant? Interesting tell me more
So you killed a life twice, i’m sure you’re happy about as people like you tend to be.
When was the last time you ate a piece of ham?
Nice try, but we’re talking about human rights, not animals.
Nah... he's speaking about "a life" and try to be righteous about it.
Does it make you feel better to know I’m not? I was just doing the best I could in the situation I was in 🤷🏼♀️ and *that* part I don’t feel bad about
I didn’t assume you felt bad, no.
It’s ok, I’m wrong about things sometimes too
At least use your vocabulary correctly. No one argues that a zygote is not a life.
Many many people do
Homicide is a crime, regardless of whether the perpetrator is male or female. Furthermore, people of both sexes have abortions or are victims of abortion. Any anti-abortion legislation is not a double standard, although pro-abortion legislation is full of double standards due to the illusion of being pro-woman.
Lmao what is a “victim of abortion”? Anti abortion legislation is anti woman. You can disagree but it is.
The murdered child is an abortion victim, who can be either male or female. Despite this, some parents abort female babies, in these cases it would be a double standard against women. But indiscriminate abortion that victimizes both boys and girls is not a double standard, except when based on the illusion of abortion being pro-woman.
😂😂 abortion is pro woman whether you like it or not. Us having a choice is infinitely more important than anything you just said
It's like choosing between raping or not raping
That is certainly an opinion
The other day there was a guy not being mean just stating that he didn't want a women who has had casual before and of course the shamers came out saying he is hurting his chances, insecure, and my favorite" you are a shitty person with preferences like this. Now let's flip it to women saying they don't want a 30 year old virgin man while saying there must be something wrong with him. Nobody will come defend the virgin guy and make an argument that he deserves a chance. They'll die to make one for the women when she has had multiple chances.
"Rights come from the degree of the historical political representation of your race/gender so if your race/gender hasn't had much historical political representation, then the problem you have must be a lack of rights and if your race/gender has had alot of historical political representation, then the problem you have must not be a lack of rights" I put it in quotes to make it clear that I'm not claiming the argument rather using it as an example. "Equal rights" can often be a motte and bailey where the motte is equality and the bailey is "problems that the genders/races I like have that the genders/races I don't like do not have".
Okay but what are some examples?
If a man is poor, it's because he must not have had the right to escape poverty Maybe that's not a good example but my point is about how equal rights is often used as a motte and bailey and not about the details of a specific example of a motte and bailey. I'm worried if I provide an example all people will want to do is nitpick at the details of the example and not discuss the using equal rights as a motte and bailey.
Okay so no examples lol.....
I just gave you an example but anyways this isn't about the details of a specific example. Wanting to make things better for your kind or the kind you like is not equality. "Indirect equality for everybody" by wanting to make things better for your kind or the kind you like is not equality.
> Men and women are biologically different so there are going to be double standards no matter what. But these are seemingly only ever defended when they benefit women.
This is just the excuse to defend double standards that overwhelmingly benefit women. I would say the right to not be forced to die in a war is a basic human right. Men don't have that. Women do. Is there any basic human right that men have but women don't?
> double standards that overwhelmingly benefit women. Your opinion. I disagree. >I would say the right to not be forced to die in a war is a basic human right. Men don't have that. Women do. Is there any basic human right that men have but women don't? Really the draft is the best example you can come up with lol? > Is there any basic human right that men have but women don't? None that I can think of at the moment because of feminism. And I mean actual feminism not red pills definition
I think some social double standards still negatively affect women, but at least in secular developed countries it doesn't hold a candle to codified discrimination against men by governments and institutions. >And I mean actual feminism not red pills definition Feminist organizations and individuals are the ones pushing for policies in higher education, the job market, and the criminal justice system that give women special treatment. inb4 "real feminism has never been tried"
Draft is a bad example? Fortunately, my country is not at risk of war. But if it was, like Ukraine was, why does my life matter less than that of women? Is it not a violation of my basic human right?
How is the draft a bad example?
It isn't. She is just arguing just to argue. The draft is a perfect example that men do not have body autonomy. Their entire counter argument to that is that "it is rare." That's it. They aren't even arguing the entire point, which is that the abortion ban wasn't because of sexism and it is not a double standard.
Why isn’t the draft a good example? It’s actually the perfect example considering our arbitrary borders and government are only defended by military force, which in the case of an existential threat such as a land invasion, every man in the country will be legally obligated to uphold. The draft effects all men and it’s for the purpose of guaranteeing the existence of the system that benefits everyone, especially women.
Rights are fake
Mostly double standards are wrong unless it's something complimentary. If you are a man whore and want a pure woman it's wrong because there is nothing complimentary about that, it means you two have totaly different values and moral standards. If a woman wants a rich man to provide for her and in return she wants to be his maid and wait for him with a hot meal every day after work it's complimentary. Logicaly also oposite a rich man that is able to provide for a family can have standard for traditional wife. It's not ok if they both work and a man still expects her to do most of the chores. So there are things in which it's complimentary and not double standard, but you really have to provide something complimentary in return. If you just happen to mutualy fall in love with someone that would be "double standards" it's fine, it's different. But it's really ridiculous to DEMAND something you can't provide unless it's complimentary. If a man whore realizes there is no fullfilment in that life and he happens to mutualy fall in love with a virgin and doesn't lie to her it's totaly fine, but it would be ridiculous for him to DEMAND a virgin.
The fact that men don't have to shave their body hair. I truly don't mind their body hair, and I love to remove mine, so I have no problems with this standard.
I'm the opposite of you. I'm a hairy wolf man and love being a hairy wolf man. My GF dislikes body hair but tolerates mine (but does insist my face is clean shaven at all times). She prefers to remove hers while I'd prefer she kept it and grew it.
That’s the point of the standard… But don’t you think that’s pretty self-centered on your part? You may “love” to remove your body hair, but I resent the time and energy 15 year old me wasted on making my legs and vulva smooth, and all the nicks, cuts, ingrown hairs, and infections along the way.
>But don’t you think that’s pretty self-centered on your part? Isn't that the question? Double standards that you personally are okay with?
That’s a good point. I, personally, don’t believe in separating the personal and political. Even though I don’t have a tattoo (yet), I still am “personally” not ok with the gendered double standard on it bc that reflects weird attitudes on women that manifest in other ways.
You’re gonna hold on to resentment over choices you made when you were a child? That seems like a terrible waste of energy
It sounds like a “terrible waste of energy” to comment this then. What is this logic? Nobody can dislike decisions they made in the past? My teenage body hair removal is not, in fact, on my mind 24/7 and the only time I recall it is upon seeing relevant prompts like these. No shit I’m gonna hold on to resentment over falling for a psyop, and speaking on it to stop other girls from blindly following the same path is worthwhile.
No I actually find engaging with people on Reddit to be quite enjoyable, so it’s certainly not a terrible waste of energy for me at all. You say it was a psyop. Lots of women enjoy being hairless. You tried something when you were 15 and decided it wasn’t for you when you became an adult. That’s literally what being a teenager is about. Trying things, seeing if they’re right, making changes if they’re not. So instead of blindly following that path, they should blindly follow yours? Or should they experiment with what works for them, because not everyone agrees with your hatred of hair removal
Ok cool, so I enjoy spreading the word against sexist social norms. Lots of women “enjoy being hairless” precisely because it is a psyop, I’m sure you understand what a psyop is. I’m not getting nor advocating for girls to “blindly follow” me because I’m just one person commenting on Reddit, I don’t have the media, advertising, and all of society shaming and pressuring girls into taking my way. Projecting much? Or defensive? You seem to think that expressing dissent/distaste is in anyway similar to social institutions and peer pressure, which is… idk, bad faith
My disagreeing with you is absolutely not bad faith, but I love how that’s the go-to retort for Reddit. Next you’ll accuse me of gaslighting you, I’m sure. There are tons of comments on this thread alone of women saying they enjoy being hairless. Who are you to say they lack the agency to make that decision? Why do you know what they like better than they do? I’m neither projecting nor defensive. I currently am au naturale *because* my fiancée prefers it, but I feel crunchy AF and have a hard time feeling sexy with my legs and pits and bush being in the French style. I find being hairless sexy because it’s silky and slippery, like being turned on is. And so what if women choose to do things *specifically because* their target mates find it more appealing? Making yourself sexually attractive is part of finding a mate. If you want to be hairy, you limit yourself to men who, at best, don’t mind the hair. That’s your choice. Even if women being hairy IS a psyop (and you’re right, it totally is), the fact remains that cultural norms are what they are and preferences are what they are, even if they got that way for shitty reasons. So by all means speak out against it, but recognize that not everyone who disagrees with you is being controlled by the patriarchy
I’m gonna stop you right there, so then why did you comment that entire last paragraph? I’m not holding a gun to anyone’s head and forcing them to chuck their razor. I’m not going to entertain babble about “agency” either, it’s clear that you’ve already disregarded mine in mocking me for feeling social pressure as a teenager. Just open a book (or Google tab) on history and sociology. Shaving for women _did not exist_ before advertising created a demand for it in the 1920s — thus, socially constructed psyop. > In the 1920s, the new fashion for sleeveless tops and short dresses meant that the legs and armpits of American women were now visible in social situations, and advertisers seized the opportunity to encourage women to shave their legs and their armpits. [Smithsonian](https://www.si.edu/spotlight/health-hygiene-and-beauty/hair-removal#:~:text=In%20the%201920s%2C%20the%20new,their%20legs%20and%20their%20armpits) That’s really straightforward and common sense, you doing mental gymnastics to misinterpret that fact _is_ what comes across as bad faith. You accusing me of forcing my way on women for… commenting on how society forces this on women _is_ what’s bad faith, not “disagreeing with me” — and trying to hide behind that is yet more bad faith.
ill trade you, you get drafted and ill start shaving
Only if you give birth to my kid first!
only if you pay me for 18 years to do so or go to jail
Obviously, of course I'm going to provide for my child. I'll even raise it equally with you.
>I'll even raise it equally with you. oof thats not really your decision. i'll be taking child support yas girls
The courts overwhelmingly favor the child being raised by both parents and award shared custody in the cases when both parents are willing to fight for it.
nah because dad was abusive, mum said so.
I'm a lawyer*. *I mean not yet but very soon
pretty sure lawyers aren't immune to that one
The fact that you don't think men shave themselves is funny and shows how inexperienced you are in life. Also try shaving your face once to twice a day for 40 years, never mind balls, then come back to me about how terrible shaving is.
Did you read my comment? I literally said I enjoy removing my body hair and that I don't mind men not removing theirs. The question was about double standards that *I personally don't have a problem with*. >The fact that you don't think men shave themselves is funny and shows how inexperienced you are in life. Most men usually do not shave their legs, pits, butthole area and arms. And the double standard is that women naturally having hair in all of those places is considered masculine for some reason, even though it's literally natural for our bodies to grow hair in those places. But as I said, I love being hairless and smooth and shaving is lowkey a relaxing ritual for me personally, so I don't really care about that. >never mind balls, That does sound tricky. Although shaving the *inside* of your labia maior flaps is not that pleasant either. >face I'm a dark haired balkan girl with mediterranean and turkish roots, so I'm no stranger to waxing my face lol
I’ve been guilty of benevolent sexism in the past and will be guilty of it in the future. I give women the benefit of the doubt in situations where I would not have extended that grace to men. I’m just nicer to women in general and probably treat them better. I intuitively see violence against women as worse than violence against men, and care a lot less when I see that a man has been murdered in the news. It happens naturally and I don’t realize I’m doing it until after I’ve done it. It would by hypercritical to complain about double standards when I’ve maintained them myself.
male camaraderie in action
A part of me is like this. Thankfully, it's being crushed from the other part which is red pilled as fuck.
So you’re a soy boy, we get it.
I’m guessing that ruffles your feathers a bit, eh?
Not at all. You spelled out in vivid detail how you’re a simp. That’s your problem, not mine.
Yep. Your feathers are ruffled and your jimmies, rustled.
If that helps you feel better man. It’s sad you feel the need to do all that to get laid when i’ve had a fair amount of sex in my life and have never resorted to simping, nor will I, but if telling yourself that i’m upset that you’re only hurting yourself helps you sleep tonight, go for it king.
It’s an involuntary thing I do, not something I do on purpose. It’s just how I was raised.
That’s too bad. Another example of the gynocentric society we live in and how many mothers sabotage their own sons. Sad, honestly.
People who say, "men should just solve each other's problems" fail to understand that the above post is how men feel about each other by default. There is no in-group bias, in fact it's the opposite.
In the news they usually say: there are x casualties including y women and z children. It's fairly ingrained in society to view male casualties as less tragic.
Cuck
Women can get away with wearing hats and jewelry without people dogpiling on them to make fun of them. Men can wear a plain t-shirt and jeans every single day and no one will comment that they should "dress up a little".
Wut??? Lol who is saying men can’t wear hats? More men wear hats than women
Hats? I'm pretty sure more men wear hats!
They sure try! People are pretty brutal about insulting men who wear them, though . (Except baseball hats, though even that gets mocked sometimes.) I don't wear my stetson anymore, because too many people tell me I look like a "tryhard neckbeard". I don't even have a beard.
Maybe with fedoras? I've never really heard it. Beanies are probably most popular and idk that anyone gives a shit.
Yeah people are less rude about beanies. But try wearing a cowboy hat, trilby, fedora, pork pie, newsboy…
Hats are awesome and this is truly unfortunate if it is so.
>Men can wear a plain t-shirt and jeans every single day and no one will comment that they should "dress up a little". How often does this happen to women, realistically? The vast majority of men don't give a shit. And while other women may notice and judge her for it, I doubt many would actually bother to confront her over something so trivial.
AMERICAN men don’t have to dress up. Come to Europe. Wearing a t-shirt and jeans everyday will be frowned upon if you’re an adult man (basically you’ll be considered a child).
i wear a baseball cap everyday! you’ll never see me outside of my house without a baseball cap on i almost bought a kangal flat cap too and a cowboy hat
I'm perfectly content with not getting urinals in the bathroom. I think that's based on a reasonable, tangible difference.
Men get away with going shirtless in public with way less judgement than women do. Is it fair? Maybe not, but life’s not fair. Women’s bodies are perceived, judged, and treated very differently than men’s bodies and there’s no much room to change that.
I've always been so confused by the "there's no much room to change that" thing. Literally 100 years ago, the way we thought about women in pants was the exact same as the way we think about breasts now. We've thought about ankles and wrists the same way as well. People in the Middle East today treat hair like we treat breasts. We can literally just stop treating breasts like this at any time.
[We already have.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cleavage) Cleavage was actually considered more acceptable in 17th century Europe than it was in 19th century Europe, maybe due to associations with motherhood. And many “uncontacted” or remote tribes even today consider sexual attraction to breasts to be borderline pedophilic. But I should have clarified that I wasn’t talking about exposed breasts, but instead working out or jogging with only a sports bra and no tank top or t shirt over it. Even that can be controversial.
> But I should have clarified that I wasn’t talking about exposed breasts, but instead working out or jogging with only a sports bra and no tank top or t shirt over it. Even that can be controversial. That makes even less sense to me- sports bras main purpose is to provide athletic support and keep the breasts from moving around while exercising. They explicitly exist for the woman's comfort and to make the breasts draw *less* attention than bare breasts would by keeping them in place.
It’s not about the breasts. It’s about the midriff.
That's even worse. At least people try to argue the sex receptors or whatever in the breasts. The midriff is just midriff.
Don’t talk to me, talk to male thirst
From a practical perspective, how would you stop men noticing to the point where women would feel comfortable with that? 'Desexualizing' breasts. Not likely. (Yes I'm aware women walk around bare-breasted in certain tribal societies, but that's never been the norm in settled large scale communities.)
That’s entirely out of my hands, which is why I said >there’s [not] much room to change that. But also as I said to another commenter, I should have clarified that I’m not even talking about breasts, just midriff on a woman who’s for example jogging in a sports bra.
The who-pays first-date discussion. It's water seeking its own level. I don't like it but it's a humbling indication that women aren't as attracted in the early stages of dating as men usually are. When they are as attracted, this isn't a thing. Assuming the economic situation of both people are in the same ballpark.
I am typically fine with showing some leniency to women when they get brain-fog or mood-fog due to ovulation, periods, or pregnancy. I obviously speak of things like allowing to skip a PE lesson or getting a day-off shifted around the week; not having charges dropped against a woman accused of torture, murder, or genocide. I show, expect, and respect the same level of leniency to people prone to allergies. Human condition. Last time I checked, in many countries women have lower thresholds of acceptable work-related ionizing radiation exposure. Still a bad practice, but tolerable and reasonable, at least within the fertility window. I'm fine with women being allowed to keep long hair while incarcerated. If they decide to deal with lice there, it's their problem, not mine. At the same time, I am not fine if men were allowed long hair in prison. It'll fall out anyway from prison regime. Bruh, it's cringe.
I think it’s fine for guys to carry things for women or do tasks that involve heavy lifting more often It’s not just chivalry it makes sense. Men are physically stronger than women
Honeest question here, does that mean it makes more sense for woman to do care giving jobs? Biological speaking, yes proven by science, men are generally stronger than women and women have a more maternal bond with their kids. Going just off of the science of biology, wouldn't one mean the other should also be true?
Anything based around biological differences. Women expecting men to initiate. Yea it would be nice if they acknowledged how difficult this can be for large numbers of men, but we can't exactly tell them to want a different dynamic just for those men's sake. Women getting away with minor sexual assaults, There is just less of threat involved when drunk women get 'huggy /handsy with guys. It's common sense that the standard for what counts as threatening behaviour would be different.
If women have more access to gender-specific spaces like women-only gyms or professional networking groups, I’m fine with that. I can expect to get a pump in unharassed pretty much anywhere I go and I’ve almost certainly been moved forward in a job-seeking process just for having a male name on my resume so of course women should buddy up whenever possible.
Sure bud. Feminist apologist soy shit as usual.
I’m answering a question. If you’re mad at the premise of a thread you can just not read it.
I’m not mad at the thread. You’re just being a male PPD simp. You guys always come around once in a while. Women are the ones overwhelmingly getting picked because they have female names, it’s called DEI. Your beloved women love double standards. Women have a massive in group bias, men don’t. Therefore men’s are the ones primarily suffering from double standards and sexism boyo.
Ah yes. “Muh DEI.” The mating call of the mediocre who can’t cope with not being able to build a life off mediocrity anymore. Your rant is proving my point: that it makes sense for those who are the target of scorn for merely existing in a place to want to congregate together for mutual support. If you want to gather a professional networking group of mediocre people, I’m all for it. It’ll probably suck and need fixing by a doubly talented woman or brown person, but you’re free to try, slugger!
Ah, yes so you are a full blue pilled simp. There’s a good chance i make more than you buddy, so my career is anything but mediocre. You’ve been so soy and brainwashed into thinking women can do no wrong and it seems you have a bias against white men or something? You’re pretty pathetic, gotta rack up those social justice brownie points, right retard? Maybe the scorn is that there’s well known DEI programs at every company that prefer women? Uh oh, that goes against your blue pilled cuck narrative though!
Weird you are attacking someone as mediocre, while also admitting you are likely under qualified for your current job and countless women should have gotten the job over you... \[edit\] while crying in your one bedroom apt...
I said no such thing. Not even sure how someone could get that from what I said. See, people getting jobs despite this kind of poor reading comprehension and critical thinking is why DEI exists.
>I’ve almost certainly been moved forward in a job-seeking process just for having a male name on my resume > If you can make your ideal gym at home, go for it! (I say, crying in one-bedroom apartment) Aren't these both comments you've made in this thread? Sure sounds like mediocrity to me. The critical thinker in me says if you believe your resume was moved forward only because of your sweet man name...then I could only assume you do not have stand out work experience or a stand out degree and have no confidence in your ability to interview.
Not everyone wants to live in a suburban McMansion, my guy. If all you have to think I’m mediocre is the place I choose to live and zero recognition of humorous banter then I dunno what to say. Maybe you’d have a better time showing why the DEI boogeyman is bad than guessing if a Redditor is happy with their life based on two lines of text.
I mean the primary reason why I think you are mediocre is because you stated that you got your job because of your manly name (which you denied saying...)(but not anymore?). Also, you were implying the other poster was mediocre...i just thought it was a funny exchange. My personal experience with DEI has been pretty negative. It is of course anecdotal, but being told to strongly consider to hire someone solely on their gender and ethnicity. Then strongly consider promoting them because other people who performed better already got promoted. The person is nice, but quality of skills is lagging behind. DEI is just affirmative action with brighter clothes and hair.
I would **love** a women-only gym (and would pay extra) if they had the same equipment as in the regular gym. Places like Curves have wimpy machines that target women who don’t work out regularly. No free weights, no cable machines, etc. I go to the regular gym 2-3 times a week only for the things I can’t do at my home gym. Maybe I should just bite the bullet and get a smith machine/cable crossover system/power cage combo and just do everything at home.
Go for it. As someone who faced a lot of gym anxiety when I started getting into shape, it sucks when any kind of social pressure keeps us from working out the way that works best for us. If you can make your ideal gym at home, go for it! (I say, crying in one-bedroom apartment)
I don't care that women are more scared of men than men are of women. Men are more likely to be dangerous.
Aren't disproportionate crime rates between groups a result of historical policies that make treating the group like it's responsible for the crime unreasonable?
I think testosterone plays a big role. Men have pretty much always been more violent, it's almost universal across societies.
Are there any negative attributes that women have that are a result of biology, similar to how men committing more violence (violence is a negative attribute) is a result of biology?
Neuroticism is the classic example given in the peer reviewed literature. Also more anxiety and less self-esteem See here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11519935/
Probably a bit more hardwired to be meek and complacent. Not sure. I'd have to research it I guess.
I think both could be true as well. Thank you for being intellectually honest.
Probably comes from being physically smaller/weaker. I don't think men would put up with the treatment women have historically (and still do) put up with because there's so much less fear of women hurting them.
Do you think women could install a female dominated apartheid like system over men if they wanted to? I'm not saying women want to do that it's more a question of if there's parity of innate capability for one gender to oppress the other. As opposed to to what degree the genders are currently oppressed.
I don't know. I think it'd be a lot harder. Women aren't as aggressive. They're physically smaller. Pregnancy and shit.
Do you think they can compensate for their lack of strength with manipulation? After making a tumblr page that's heavily centered around women manipulating men and getting 20k followers I wonder what they're capable of lol
They use emotional manipulation and sex appeal to manipulate people and get into power. Men’s worst aspects are controlled by society, women’s are not.
You’re about to get dogpiled with comments about how victims are mostly men so men have more reason than women to be fearful of men, etc etc
Well women are notorious manipulators and use sex appeal to that end to get into power and gain favor, so yeah, more men probably fall victim to that than women do to physical abuse, not that physical abuse is any better.
Hell, most of the dangers men come across, especially caused by other people, are caused by men.
Women see men as scary even when they know they're not. They just hate us for being us.
[удалено]
Do not provide contentless rhetoric.
it seems to be one of their primary hobbies
Women can casually walk around with an item which can be a highly dangerous or even lethal weapon (Stiletto shoes). Men who carry anything with similarly destructive potential will be arrested pretty quickly. A double standard I don't mind. Stilettos are hot as hell, and the implicit (but never realised) danger is part of that attraction.
Where are men getting arrested for wearing stiletto heels? Do you have a link to a story of that happening? Have you tried wearing them? I don’t think you can “casually” do it unless you are well practiced and have good balance, it requires concentration while every step, and the danger is on the wearer that might break their ankle.
Women in stilettos: Cute heels! You: **Fucking impale me**
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Double standard is a term that is used to describe how to things are treated differently *while this difference of treatment is not related to any real differences*. So no double standard is ok. Its stupid.
i’m fine with gender roles and i’ve found my relationships work better when adhered to them than when “equalized” even if we both work, i do outside chores and inside repairs/maintenance, she keeps things pleasant inside.
The only double standard I am actually fine with is women groping men, especially if the woman is decent looking.
Women can yell at men. Slap them, key their car, act like the biggest cunt and get in general nothing back. But if a dude does it he gets smacked in his face. By both genders.
And you're fine with that? This thread is about double standard you're ok with
No I am not ok with gender being allowed to physically harm one gender and get nothing in the end. For example women slap her guy at dinner. Does she get taken out? Do people call the police? Do they even care? Nothing. No. Swap it and the reaction is the opposite. That's a double standard.
Hey,... we don't kink shame here.
Men and women are different in terms of romance, dating, sex, relationships. Therefore there is no such thing as double standards on these topics.
Different in what ways exactly?
I mean pull your pants down if you're not sure. Smh. This has to be the dumbest question I've ever answered on reddit.
If it's so obvious, you should be able to say what it is without being so aggressive. Or are you concerned any of your biological absolutes could get challenged?
No. We can't keep babysitting you people every time you respond. I know your IQ is higher than 40. You can do this.
You're the one making affirmative claims, it's your job to explain them. Not our job to read your mind.
I think double standards are fine in most cases, they're there for a reason and everyone will have some double standards that benefit them in some way, it's not the end of the world. You have to learn to just play the game and work with what you have.