{Examples} - Double Standards

{Examples} - Double Standards

Here are some examples of the double standards shown by the feminists, the mainstream media, and the society. (The underlined terms can be looked up in the glossary. Updated: 2013/09/14.)

  • Suicide rates for youth under 18 jump in Alberta: 6 high school boys in the Red Deer area commit suicide and the media fails to mention the difference in the suicide rates between boys and girls. Nor is the government much interested.
  • In fact, the male disposability factors in as soon as a boy is born. No attention is paid to the higher rates of unexplained or sudden deaths of the baby boys, while all sorts of inquiries would have been made had the death rate been higher for the baby girls. Similarly, feminists (rightfully) despise the female genital mutilation, but support and encourage the male genital mutilation (infant-/child-circumcision) citing their own hatred of the penis skin as the only valid reason (their other reasons, like hygiene and lack of sexual pleasure, being just made up or blatantly opposite of the reality).
  • Man referred to as DE (36, with learning difficulties) "banned" from having sex as the judge considers making legal history by ordering to sterilize him. No sterilization (or anything else) is being considered in a similar case of the mentally ill woman.
  • Osteoporosis drug subsidised for women not men, who pay more than 50 times the price (e.g., men pay $300 a dose for a treatment for thinning bones that costs women just $5.90).
  • Spending on research for women's health has yielded tremendous benefits for women in breast cancer detection, treatment, and even preemptive treatment ("just in case"). There was furious outrage in the US when a task force recommended against mammograms for women under 50, based on science that determined the risks of testing outweighed the benefits. However, public outrage ensured that the test remained available and fully-funded.
    But how about widespread prostate cancer screening? Apparently it's not needed, in part because men are "much more likely to die of something else". To put it another way: men don't live long enough to die from prostate cancer. Heck, if all men could be persuaded to die by middle-age on the job or in war, we wouldn't need to fund any research on Men's Health. We could simply conclude that men don't die from heart attacks, men don't die from lung cancer, and even that prostate cancer doesn't exist; because it is almost non-existent in men under 60. If they hang themselves, we won't talk about that. Fact is, after 65, there are more deaths due to prostate cancer than from breast cancer.
  • A person can get infected from HPV infection through sex with another person carrying the virus. If a man catches HPV resulting in cancer in his body, and he reveals the source through which he caught the virus, he is demonized because this embarrasses his female partner (and for going against the male-on-female oral sex, which the feminists promote) - a perfect example of solipsism. On the other hand, when a woman gets infected by HPV and she reveals the source, she is lionized and called heroic for naming the man and being honest.
  • Prime Minister David Cameron stepped up government pressure on Muirfield golf club to end its ban on women members. Culture Secretary Maria Miller is boycotting the prestigious Open Championship, and her Labour opponent Harriet Harman called for male-only (but not female-only) clubs to be banned by law. However, no bans are being proposed on the female-only spaces (like Lundin Ladies Golf Club in Scotland), even though there are more women-only clubs in England than men. The Cancer Research UK's "Race for Life" also bans men from participating.
  • Feminists urge women and girls to leave all shreds of decency and respect toward the men and boys (in fact, they advise them to do as much damage to their reputation and self-respect as possible, not sparing even the school boys) and be bitches/sluts to get success/"freedom", but expect and train men to be chivalrous and respectful toward women, ignoring women's bad/sexist behavior and misandry/oppression.
  • Women exposing their sexual bits are considered okay or at the most are treated way less severely, but men doing the same are to be chased and beaten. In fact, even EU presents an example of femispeak by stating that indecent topless exposure is 'freedom of expression' (but apparently only when women do it).
  • Men and women are judged differently on their appearance, looks, and physique. For example, large (obese) women are considered BBW (big beautiful women), but large men are called fat and lazy, etc.
  • Feminists whine about objectification on seeing a female character with bra and underwear in a movie. However, for the male characters being portrayed as objects, their response to any complaint of objectification is: If you don't like it, just ignore it, turn your head, or stop watching. Funny they cannot do the same themselves.
  • It's okay for women to make gender-insulting remarks toward the males. It's not tolerated if the sexes are reversed.
  • Masculinity and male sexuality is demonized (even threatened with violence). The feminists hate the masculinity and the male traits so much that the more masculine males are painted as bad and evil, for example, by the claims like:
    ~ Bodybuilders are sexist.
    ~ Physically strong men are right wingers.
    ~ Men with larger testicles are worse dads.
    ~ Watching porn makes men sexist, except when it does not.
    etc. Female cops even arrest the masculine men for no reason.
    Female sexuality (including nakedness), on the other hand, is celebrated, encouraged, promoted, and considered something valuable and divine. Even the law forgives the female sex offenders. Feminists even urge women to deny sex to their male partners in order to make them conform to their dishonest ideological whims.
  • Pseudo-scientific studies/surveys 'prove' that men's natural sexual preferences are sexist and misogynist (or even the cause of menopause in the women!), while women's natural sexual preferences are not labeled as sexist or misandric. For an example of this hatered being institutionalized and used against the males in policy matters, consider the mental health professionals - They ask healthy young boys about their feelings on sex, the boys say they find girls walking on the street attractive and have a sexual thought (which is perfectly normal), and they label the boys as "potential rapists". (This has been going on for years.) Once a boy gets this label, he can't work in any social job, including police, doctor, sports coach, etc. (There's no corresponding label for the girls having sexual thoughts about boys.)
  • Feminists seek ban on pornography unless it's "feminist porn" which they encourage as 'crucial' to equality.
  • Feminists do not like even the made up comedy or jokes about certain topics like rape on which they think they must control the whole discourse, and they go about dictating people what kinds of speech are acceptable and unacceptable. However, they laugh at even the real instances of misandry and male suffering, e.g., when a woman cuts off her husband's penis, in reality. In fact, feminists making insensitive and non-PC jokes have been called the "iconic feminist role model" for their real-world cruelty and insensitiveness toward the men in their lives.
  • Feminists regularly organize poster campaigns shaming men into believing that they're all rapists, with slogans like "Men can stop rape", "Teach men not to rape" (the implication being that without specific instructions like these, the male half of the human race by default has a complete desire toward committing the violent crime of rape), "Instead of teaching your daughters to be careful, teach your sons not to rape", and "Don't be that guy" (these campaigns are even supported and encouraged by the police). However, they (and the police) do not tolerate the equivalent "Don't be that girl" poster campaigns (even some individual's random unorganized effort), over which the hypocrites create a large uproar. Evidently, it's only against the men that implication of this kind of collective guilt and generalization can possibly be tolerated; against no other group of people can such atrocities be tolerated and the person/group implying that kind of sentiment will immediately be labeled a hater.
  • Hofstra University student Danmell Ndonye (18) falsely accused 5 men of rape. Her lies were later caught. The Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice, a feminist ideologue and a bigot, refused to press charges against the false rape accuser, saying, "Her actions and demeanor depict a very troubled young woman in need of much help" (which, apparently, is always the case with female criminals).
    This bigot is the same one who launched a massive shaming campaign called "Operation Flush Out the Johns", which was an undercover operation in which ads for prostitution were placed. 104 'johns' were arrested and had their names and photographs published at a press conference. This was not in response to complaints from the community. Nor a single prostitute was arrested. This was a deliberate campaign of shame. Kathleen Rice said, "Prostitution is not a victimless crime... Yet [the prostitutes] too often remain the prime targets in prostitution investigations while the johns who fuel the exploitation are treated as mere witnesses. Giving secrecy won't deter future johns; it would embolden them. My office and the police department are turning the tables on the illogical and immoral nature of that equation." So solicitation of prostitution(misdemeanor) deserves 1000's of hours of manpower and taxpayers' money because men are the perpetrators, but false rape accusation doesn't because men are the victim.
  • Feminists go great lengths to convince people that the female rape victims should always be immediately believed (and the accused male be charged with the crime of rape) because women never lie about rape, ignoring (and when they can, hiding/omitting) all the evidence and the real cases that prove that the false rape accusations being made by the females are very common (and have become a very serious problem). However, when it comes to the female-on-male rape victims (who rarely lie about being raped), the feminists even block the legislation that would allow men and boys to charge their female perpetrators as rapists, stating that some of the male victims might make false accusations! The feminists actually support the rapists who rape the male children, thereby creating the real 'rape culture'.
  • The MSM and the society rightly treats the male-on-female violence as being bad and would be sympathetic to the female victim. However, the female-on-male violence is usually taken as a symbol of empowerment of the women ("You go girl..."), or as a laughing matter, or as something deserved by the male victim, no matter how seriously the victim gets hurt (or even if he dies), showing that women (and manginas) lack empathy toward the male victims of violence (or in general of any crime); and again, it's the female perpetrator who would get the sympathy. The feminist stance on the matter is then predictable, actually just expected to be exactly this: Feminists consider the female-on-male violence to be okay and perfectly acceptable. However, the reverse is not tolerated even in games and advertisements. This difference in perception that the media sources create has been reported in "A Crime by Any Other Name: Effects of Media Reporting on Perceptions of Sex Offenses": Female sex offenders are less likely to be arrested in that the probability of arrest for females accused of forced fondling is 48% lower than those of their male counterparts. Both reports by victims as well as action taken by child protection workers and law enforcement varies depending on the gender of the alleged offender. Concerning guilt, there's vast discrepancies in reporting of sex offenses for men and women. Female sex offenders are more often reported in the media as having had a "relationship" with the victim, especially in cases involving teacher-to-student offenses. Indeed, it has been shown that female sex offenders are less likely to be reported and when reported more likely to receive lighter sentencing and/or parole, perhaps because the crime is not considered to be as "serious" as when the offender is male. Many female sex offenders are covered in the media using relationship terminology whereas it is more typical for male offenses to be described in offense terminology.
  • DV laws are wholly and totally based on double standards (the Duluth Model). For example, if the man hits the woman, he is (rightly) arrested; however, if the woman hits the man (or even drives him to commit suicide), again, the man is evicted from the house and either arrested or reprimanded or told to go away from his own house and not return back. The courts and the police act helpless and incapable when it's a woman harassing a man.
  • The Australian government has DV helplines for the women only. To the male victims of DV seeking help, the helpline tells them that they're violent abusers.
  • Reproductive coercion is a form of DV, under which one forcing or manipulates one's partner into getting oneself pregnant with or making one's partner pregnant, when the said partner is not willing to have a child. When men perpetrate it, it's (rightly) considered horrible. However, UK TV presenter Claudia Winkleman admits that she coerced her husband into fatherhood, on a panel show. And guess what? That was hilarious!
  • A number of Vagina Syndromes have been invented in order to absolve a woman of her crime or misbehavior. However, for a male criminal, even if he actually suffers from a psychological problem, the fact (and any research into that area) is suppressed in favor of punishing him.
  • Rape and sexual assault laws and policies are wholly and totally based on double standards. For example, if a man and woman have sex when the woman was drunk, the man is considered a rapist; however, if it was the man who was drunk (or both were drunk), again, the man is considered the rapist.
  • In 2002 an Arapahoe County jury found Charles Farrar guilty of multiple counts of sexual assault on a child after hearing the horrific story told by his oldest stepdaughter, Sacha, who testified that Farrar, often assisted by her own mother Debbie, had subjected her to more than 100 instances of molestation, rape, and sexual abuse from the age of 11 until she was 15. Farrar was sentenced to 145 years to life - The kind of time usually reserved for serial killers and terrorists. Shortly after Farrar's trial, prosecutors dropped similar charges against Sacha's mother, because Sacha refused to testify against her. A few months later, after Sacha turned 18, she went back to court and said that she'd lied, that she'd fabricated the allegations against Debbie and Charles so she could live with her grandparents in Oklahoma (in an effort to get away from her mother and avoid telling her mother about her pregnancy - She later discovered she was not pregnant). However, Farrar still remains in prison for a crime he and the apparent victim claims never happened. The courts refuse to acknowledge Sasha's recantation even though the courts believe she is prone to lying. Sacha's allegations were far from tame. She had claimed that her mother would suck Farrar's semen out of her vagina, that Farrar prostituted her to his friends, and that he made "kink video" of the abuse. Yet police found no evidence supporting the claims, nor did the police interview any of Farrar's friends, any of Sacha's boyfriends, or the other children and adults in the home. Instead, the other children were placed in foster care where, in one of the most brutal twists of irony, one of Sacha's brothers was raped by a teen with a prior history of sex crimes. However, all anyone did was move the offending boy to another home - No charges were filed. All this happened based on Sacha's accusations that apparently no one tried to verify.
  • This Frenchman has been ordered to pay his ex-wife £8500 in damages for failing to have enough sex with her during their marriage (reverse the sexes and the court would have shouted marital rape).
  • Australian kangaroo court has ordered a husband to pay his ex-wife $6000 a week to maintain her lavish lifestyle including a $500 hair and clothes budget and $1000 for entertainment. Justice Christine Dawe ruled the allowance be granted until the couple, who are in their 50's, can agree on a settlement of their estimated $80 million estate. The wife had originally asked for $9000 per week, as well as $2 million for their son's expenses including $440000 on holidays. She outlined her lavish expense budget including $1200 for food, $1100 for clothes, $770 for hairdressing, and $1200 for household supplies. The husband opposed the payments as the wife had been given $19 million in partial settlements since they separated. Justice Dawe dismissed the husband's claims that the payments were "excessive" and said some of the amounts were "necessary and reasonable". The husband's own expenses were submitted to the court as $33000 a week, including looking after his son. Compare this to the kangaroo court decision when it's the husband who seeks alimony.
  • The MSM thinks a woman (61) marrying a boy (8) is hilarious, while if it were an old man marrying a girl for the very same reason, there would be outrage. Also see the attitude and role of the government and the police (besides the public) in the forced marriage of this man. Ever seen police forcing a woman to marry?
  • When it comes to men making sexual advancing toward women, feminists shout slogans like "No Means No". However, when the sexes are reversed, women making the same kind of advances consider it alright, and they refuse to accept the same response ("No") from the men while also claiming that men are ignoring women's sexual needs in favor of porn etc.
  • When it comes to female-on-male rape, the consent is automatically assumed (i.e., "Men are asking for it"), and that the male rape victim "must have wanted it because his penis became erect or because he ejaculated". This is a triple hypocrisy. For one, in case of the female victims, assuming how they are dressed (slutty, and deliberately so) is consent to sex is considered victim blaming, whereas a natural (not deliberate, nor controllable by the victim) body reaction (e.g., the penile erection) in case of the male victims is considered a sign of consent. As Dr Lane Layton testified in a court case, it was her medical opinion that a man who is intoxicated to the point of losing consciousness is physically capable of having an erection and ejaculation. She stated that "the occurrence of an erection and ejaculation are not conscious, voluntary activities" and that during the night, without knowing it, a male may have an erection and ejaculate.
    Secondly, in case of the female victim, the consent is not automatically assumed based on the natural reactions of her body parts (how hard her nipples were, how lubricated her vagina became, how engorged her clitoris got, whether she had an orgasm, etc). Even a suggestion of a woman's consent to rape being determined from these bodily reactions is rightly perceived as appalling, but this is exactly the gender reversal of the perception of a male rape victim.
    Thirdly, whereas a female rape victim (rightly) gets sympathy from all around, in case of male rape victims, feminists say that men "always consent" (and are always "predatory" and looking for it).
  • When a man commits a rape, it is (justly) considered a bad rape (yes, not all rapes are bad as you'll see ahead); when a woman commits a rape, it's considered a "good rape". Same goes for other sexual acts of women, which if done by a man would bring hell over him in terms of public shaming and legal charges, but women get away with them.
  • Fathers abduct their children - Big crime, let the manhunt begin. Mothers abduct their children - No big deal, support and reward her.
  • When there are fewer females than males in a field (or when the males are at advantage due to their masculinity in a certain field), it's assumed to be due to discrimination; and anti-male laws, rules, and policies like Title IX are enacted to systematically suppress the admission, progress, and strength of the males and to artificially lift the females to the same level. When there are fewer males than females in a field (or when the females are at advantage due to their being female), it's assumed to be due to the females being inherently better than the males or the decision of the "mother nature" which the men should put up with; and nothing is done to address the isssue (or worse, the system is advocated to be further feminized).
  • The so-called Detention Centre for illegal immigrants is actually only for the male illegal immigrants. The Mayor and the government are perfectly happy to let the illegal women wander about and bum off the population.
  • Double standards in laws and policies, prison sentences, etc.
  • Lego denies entrance to Legoland to men not accompanied by a child, but allows women not accompanied by a child.

End of the document.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment moderation is ON. Only the following types of comments will be published (and possibly replied to): Dissenting with something, proving something wrong, asking for proof of something objective, and enhancing/correcting something. Comments of praise and encouragement are read and appreciated, but won't be published; don't feel bad about that.