Why the double standard in people opposing equality?

Question

I can't quite get my head round the logic for some quotes by men that are niggled by female equality such as:

It's not fair I can hit and man and not a woman and

Women should also be called up to the army.

The whole point of equality for all is about making things better for people, not trying to drag things down. If people have an issue such as men being called up to war (although I don't know what countries would do this) then shouldn't they work towards liberating the people that are having this done to them instead of ryiong to make more people suffer?

The same with the hitting thing, instead of trying to get it socially acceptable to hit a woman, how about working to make it more socially unnaceotable for anyone to be hit?

Answer 1

Often on G&WS you have turds who would rather nitpick every tiny issue as opposed to tackle a seroius problem.  I agree with you: instead of trying to get it socially acceptable to hit a woman, we should be working to make it more socially unnacceptable for anyone to be hit - PERIOD.

Answer 2

Yeah that's fine but the people that do much of the talking about equality (feminists) are well known for operating double standards and dishonesty.

can you ever see feminists demonizing female violence the way they have male. no, they will pretend that female violence does not exist.

i think some people here will present what they feel is a mirror image of feminist logic to highlight something they feel is a double standard, that is satire.

nobody would really be suggesting hitting women (i hope).

Answer 3

You made me think of an old adage: Never marry down, you can't bring them up to your level, they will own drag you down to thiers"

You can;t take a person with an 80 IQ and make them as intellegent as a person with a 130 IQ, so you make tests and standards that a person with an 80 IQ can pass and the person with the 130 IQ will just have to opperate at a lower level then they can because thats "equal" and "fair"

Welcome to the dark side of "equality"

Answer 4

You're missing the point.

Any way you would treat one person differently from another based entirely upon gender is a double standard, however you want to look at it.

Men are saying that if you want it to be acceptable to hit men, then it must be acceptable to hit women as well, or else don't hit either one. Men are saying that if you want to call up men to the army, then you should call up women as well, or else don't call up anyone.

We don't oppose equality, we just oppose selectively supporting equality when it benefits you and condemning equality when it doesn't.

Answer 5

Well said! I've noticed the same thought patterns around the issue of reproductive rights, with the "financial abortion" idea. We should be encouraging women to take responsibility for their choices rather than allowing men to walk away from theirs as well. To me, equality is combined with other human rights, like freedom from violence and a better standard of living. Our other rights shouldn't be compromised because of equality, they should be enhanced. This is partly the reason I'm not a feminist; equality is great if it benefits us, but not if it's simply for the sake of being equal.

Answer 6

Okay as for the hitting I firmly support no hitting unless it is to defend oneself. As for the draft it needs to exist and yes for as long as we can remember it was aimed towards men. However; that is only because when it was created women were not allowed in the military.  Times have changed and they are looking at revising the draft with HR 393 which would draft men and women from age 18-42 which I believe is also an increase in the age that they will draft. Previously the oldest man they would accept was age 30. The draft is needed because most proud Americans refuse to serve and protect their country.  So after all the honorable/willing have died to defend us and no one else joins they begin to force people to earn their keep of their freedoms.

Answer 7

amen sister

Answer 8

One ones becomes a voting citizen of a country he/she also have duties to that country, not only rights.

I understand that current war is an unjust war. And someone must be very moronic to believe otherwise.

But what if the USA is invaded in the future. Shouldn't everyone defend it? If not, then why give the right of voting to someone that only care about the benefits of the country but does not care about the duties of the country.

As of hitting:

If a person makes someone lives miserable by psychological means and economical means. Physical violence is a valid response to this kind of violence.  Specially when the law won't help.

Also, if violence is completely outlawed, that will make the people weaker. Which in turn will make government more powerful, which in turn will make a totalitarian state in which everyone of us are just slaves to who controls government.

Answer 9

I agree with you...

People should be taught not to hit people...and everyone should be taught that it's ok to defend themselves.

The Draft...I have mixed feeling on.

Part of me want to fight the whole draft.  Being prior military I've seen the people who are forced in(common court order for young juveniles 4 years jail or 4 years military) it works sometimes other times not so well...I dislike the idea of having a whole bunch of people who dont want to be there.  It will make life more dangerous and harder for others.

Other side knows we cant really get away with this.

not all women can handle military duty...neither can all men.

they do/ have in the past filtered people out if they couldnt preform.