Monday, July 8, 2013

More on Double Standards

From the comments I've been getting, it seems clear that people usually talk about double standards, in terms of how you treat men and women.  There can also be double standards, in terms of how you treat people of different ethnicities, different hair color, different jobs, etc.

A double standard is when two things should be treated the same, but they are treated differently.  This is wrong.  Most people don't realize that the reverse is true.  It is wrong, when two things should be treated differently, but they are treated the same.  I suppose you could call this "a single standard", as opposed to a double standard.

Here are some examples of when it's wrong to treat different things equally:
  • The government treats me and Bill Gates as the same, in terms of how much money we owe in taxes.
  • I am treated the same way as a criminal, because I am the same gender/race/religion as many criminals
  • I am given just as much right to kiss the President's wife as the President does
As the saying goes, you can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friend's nose.  Your nose and your friend's nose are just too different for that to work.

Anyway, here's the point I'm trying to make: things that are the same should be treated the same, and things that are different should be treated differently.  That's a general principle I work off of.  As you can see, it's slightly different from the principle of "treat everything the same, no matter what".


Anonymous said...

I don't see any new or groundbreaking or even mentally stimulating realizations in this blog post.

Anonymous said...

You want non-gender-based double standards?

A gay couple's marriage doesn't last - it's because it's unholy and an abomination and was never meant to be. A straight couple's marriage doesn't last ... eh, they just fell out of love, they weren't soulmates, these things happen.

A white person assaults a black person based on his race - duh, racism. A black person assaults a white person based on his race - oh wait hahahaha blacks can't be racist against whites, and anyway, the white guy deserved it because of the years of whites oppressing blacks.

Someone with clinical depression is told to 'get over it', their illness isn't real, they should just think positively. A cancer patient gets sympathy and and no one questions it when he or she feels down or doesn't feel like doing something or wants to be alone.

You're right, the difference between you and Bill Gates should result in more significant tax differences. A Muslim or Pakistani or people who wear head coverings should not be treated as criminals, even though some Muslims have done some bad things.

No one will disagree with your statements on "single standards" - I don't disagree either. But the thing is, you and Bill Gates aren't on equal footing, in terms of taxes. He's richer than you. You're not on equal footing with a criminal in terms of societal merit - he's done bad things. Thus, as you say, you should be treated differently.

But we're supposed to be talking about things that ARE, at base, equal, and SHOULD be treated equally, but are NOT treated equally. People SHOULD be treated differently based on wealth and crimes, etc, but NOT based on race, gender identity, or orientation.

Your point seems to be flying all over the place, switching topics with every post.

Suzanne Klare said...

To the comment above:
I agree with the third one, clinical depression can be fatal, as much as cancer. People should take that as serious as cancer, in my opinion. I'm sorry if that isn't what you meant with that.

Anonymous said...

Nice comment there, 9:09 Anon. You're really adding some groundbreaking and mentally stimulating feedback to this thread.

Anonymous said...

Same with you, 10:25 and for the record, both the first Anons are me. I can't prove it, but whatever.

Yes Suzanne, that is what I meant. Even though you can't see depression as much as you can see other illnesses like cancer or ... well, I'm not very knowledgeable with diseases - but both are very real and very detrimental and should be treated with equal validity.

-9:09/9:42 Anon

Ramblin' Nautilus said...

How, pray tell, do you plan on determining whether two things should be treated differently? I mean, white supremacists can link you all sorts of data about how different 'coloreds' are from 'normals'.

You could say that about anything really. Men and women, gay and straight, cis and trans, religion A and religion B, country X and country Y, right-handed or left, brown eyes or blue... Which ones are too different to be treated equally and why?

Your examples lead more towards individuals being judged by their own merits or shortcomings or whichever. Which would be great! That's kind of why we work towards equality! But you don't get there by sitting on your thumb whining that you don't get a pride day or that some mean minority person called you out for being whatever-ist or that some group is just sooo different you can't be bothered to treat them fairly.

Anonymous said...

Difference is, I wasn't commenting about the original post.

William D said...

One example of what you are saying, was during the Civil War. Black men and white men are 100% equal, but the black people were abused and treated as slaves, where as white people were treated like kings. A child could order black people around!
To Ramblin Nautilus: What the heck?! Michael isn't being a whiney jerk. He is talking about the effects of equality and why they aren't affecting us. He didn't even talk about it on this post! You are several posts away.

Brittany said...

William D - Also during pre-Civil War times, the 3/5 compromise was in effect. Slaves (or "non-free persons, as Northerners would say), only counted as 3/5 of a person for representation and taxation purposes. This just made blacks and whites even more unequal. That is, until the end of the Civil War as well as the nullification of the 3/5 compromise (although there were and still are inequality problems even today, obviously - they just aren't as...barbaric?).

LGelevator said...

Nautilus - I think what Michael's trying to do in this post is more general: he's trying to clarify the idea of a double standard.

Breanna(; said...

I understand where Michael's coming from, and he is making a good point, in my opinion(:

Anonymous said...

But his "point" is incredibly general and doesn't even mean really mean anything. It's less of a point and more of a round, blunt edge. As Nautilus above brought up, Michael did not explain the criteria on HOW things should be judged differently, only that things SHOULD be judged differently ... is that really so amazing?