I mentioned double standards in yesterday's blog post. I first developed my thoughts on double standards, when reading a book from the 1940's (when the term had a different meaning).
The modern definition of "double standard" is a situation where two groups (or things or people) are treated differently, even though they should be treated the same. Double standards are objectively wrong. I won't go into the ethics of why they're wrong, since that would take us a bit off-topic and nobody seems to be arguing the contrary.
By definition, a double standard involves two groups. Logic tells us that this means both groups are negatively impacted. Usually, the negative impact is larger on one group than it is on the other.
I want to emphasize the point that a double standard is bad for both parties involved, not just the victimized party. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master." It is wrong when there are slaves or masters, even if many people would prefer being a master to being a slave.
For an example, I'll use Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. That videogame is blatantly sexist; it features women in extremely skimpy costumes, in an attempt to appeal to men. This is wrong for women, because it promotes the idea that women are sex objects that exist only for male pleasure. It is also wrong for men, because it promotes the idea that men are sex-crazed maniacs who can't (or shouldn't) control themselves around women. In other words, this is a lose-lose situation where both genders suffer, even if one gender suffers more than the other.
Hopefully this an adequate response to some of the comments I got on yesterday's post. There are some double standards where I get bad treatment for being in a minority, and that is wrong. There are some double standards where I get special treatment for being in a majority, and that is also wrong. More on this tomorrow.