|Blogs > Ubermik > Unique place this.....|
Social hypocrisies and double standards
Social hypocrisies and double standards
Not the more obvious ones like women and men being paid differently when there ISNT good reason for it and that sort of quite obvious double standard but more a waffle about the more subtle ones that even though some people see them everyday or even do them arent ever thought about or realised just how much of a double standard they are
One that always makes me chuckle is womens size
I have quite often heard large women criticising men for prefering slim women, yet when a man prefers a large one not a murmur!! Why?
Both are quite equally a size preference and SHOULD be seen with an equal disdain surely?
Or is it simply a case of people whinging about a preference that excludes them?
Also, say something less than nice about a large woman and see the massive social uproar it begets
Wait a while and say the sort of things that many large women say quite frequently about slim women such as
"they are barbie dolls"
"they are self obsessed"
arent a "real woman"
just to mention a few and see the results then from the exact same peer group, it tends to range from agreement to silence majoratively even tho its no different to criticising a large woman, extremely hypocritical when actually done by a large women who dislikes her size criticised
Also, the same women who would criticise a man for not liking them because they are big quite often will have their own preferences like not liking fat men, or short men lol
Another one that also makes me giggle as I hear it a lot due to having mainly female friends is the old "he didnt call me the ignorant bastard" kind of rant, only to be faced with a confused blinkey eyed look when you respond with "and you didnt phone him either ya ignorant cow"
Anyone got any more they notice or are narked by?
4/8/2011 8:15 pm
Yeah the general slagging off of an entire gender is a good one, cant believe I forgot that in the origional text|
When women slag off "men" as a collective group not only is it fairly rare for a woman to contradict them, but also for men when youre on a contact or dating site forum
Infact its far more common for men to chip in and side with the generalistic man bashing which just comes across as a spineless yay sayer hoping to ingratiate themselves or get their leg over by villifying their own gender to score brownie points whilst implying "ALL men are like that,,,,,,,except me" pmsl
But even when a man criticises a subset of women, ie "I dont like women who do xyz" its very common for them to be called a woman hater even though they stated a specific portion of women as a whole and even when in a more relaxed enviroment many of the women criticising his comments would actually agree with what was being said
The underlying impression is that criticism of the opposite gender is a one way street, or more acurately thats how some would like to see it
With men either being too spineless, too eager to get a leg over or just too desperate to be "popular" to be honest or challenge generalisations
Its actually quite similar to the topic of violence where its still seen as quite comical for a woman to hit a man, but a man hitting a woman no matter how inconsequential the impact makes him the spawn of satan.
Infact on that note, on more than one occassion I've seen a crowd of people watching a woman beat the crap out of a man without interfering and with many of them finding it amusing. But the moment the man hit back in every instance and even when his retalliation was a fraction of the force of the initial onslaught people stepped in and in two instances beat the crap out of the poor bloke and comforted the woman
Now more than ever there seems to be a huge power struggle between certain members of the sexes. Where rather than equality there seems to be an increasing number of women who seem to want not only superiority, but along with it the immasculation and legal and social crippling of the male gender. Or at the very least seem to excel at making the most of each and every social inequality that gives them the upper hand
4/10/2011 7:32 pm
I just a had a read though it. Amazing how many posts there are already lol|
Kind of joking, but have you ever wondered if your blog would get as many posts if it was JUST as thought provoking, but had a photo of an ugly 20 stone wrinkly woman at the top of it?
Someone once did a study and claimed that we (people in general) react far more favourably on every level, and in every scenario to "attractive" people than we do to less attractive ones
It might have been a really interesting study, but totally unrelated to the sexual appeal of ugly fat bird who wrote it I read Jennifer Annistons views on why lettuce is so crunchy instead pmsl (purely coincidental you understand)
4/11/2011 2:12 pm
OMG, I havent heard the term "plain jane" for ages |
I didnt mean to imply your readership was purely due to how edibly scrumptious you look in your photos though, so if thats how that read I apologise. I just meant the reason people might have looked at your profile initially
Looks though is another one of those funny topics
For many if someone doesnt find them attractive theyre shallow, but when that person doesnt fancy someone they call it standards lol.
I always use to giggle at profiles on other sites that had something like "looks arent important its personality that counts. No photo no reply"
Its a funny old world
4/11/2011 5:10 pm
I think the inbalance in attention is a social norm extending onto the internet as well as other mediums|
On a dating site a few years back I did a few threads where another member would do almost the same thread a week or two later but with the genders switched
Then we would do a third thread listing everyone who had posted on both threads and their two answers side by side
Barely anybody gave the same response to both genders whether male or female, off the top of my head I would have put the amount who did at no more than 10%
An example of the types of threads is one where we each posed as someone who had been married for 10 years and our partner had just that day found out we had been cheating with various people throughout the marriage and courtship and now found ourselves homeless with nothing but the money in our pocket and crashing at a friends
The woman who posted the female version was VERY attractive, and got people saying her husband obviously hadnt been paying her enough attention otherwise she wouldnt have needed to cheat, that he was scum for just throwing her out and some even telling her she deserved better and it was his loss pmsl
Me on the other hand, the poster of the male variant and decidedly average looking on a good day with flattering light was the absolute spawn of satan for cheating and should have been bobbitted et al
We did several threads along those lines with the genders flipped and some with a hotty and a notty of the same gender posting basically the same quandry and the dissimilar responses from the exact same people were completely amazing
What was more amazing was a few quite genuinely were shocked and surprised to see their own answers and had felt they had viewed each thread the same and had posted in a similar fashion on each
In retrospect would it be too late to rescind the edible part of the scrumptious comment? I'd hate to be suspected of cannibalism on here
4/12/2011 10:19 am
I'd not make a very good cannibal tbh as I'm a bit of a wuss where blood is concerned, so unless someone started making preprocessed people flavoured foods (and ones I could just zap in the microwave as I'm not keen on cooking either lol) its a dietary choice I'll have to remain opted out of|
From things I have read peoples biases towards either the opposite gender or above averagely attractive people is a mixture of nature and nurture that varies from person to person and also a few studies reckoned by purely primal factors
So its not necessarily just "attractive" people in the sense of pretty ones, nor women who are, or feign vulnerability that can cause a disproportionate reaction. But also ones who might not be very "pretty" but have classically sexually alluring shapes even if topped off with a decidedly average pumpkin on their shoulders which would probably equate to the classic curvaceous hips wider than waist and boobs in proportion type of shape for women and the rugged broad shouldered tall appearance for men majoratively
Infact one thing that has always made me laugh about how people change in their surroundings is the meet and greet cycle at parties
Rather than a fixed greeting they use, many people will tend to mirror what is said by each arriving guest. Which is a simplistic example of how people are to some extent a different version of themselves with each person they interact with. Even though to themselves they feel they are "always themselves" and dont realise just how many slight variations of "just me" there actually is
I think there is also a near opposite occurence too, I have known a few people who are extremely giving and generous to people who have a really bad life but who can be quite flat and seemingly detached with anyone who has an "ok" life or better but that seems to be much more of a rareity in my personal experience but would appear to be the same subconcious mechanism at play but applied to a different way of seeing people
I have also noticed a similar type of pattern with "useful" people too, and not from the type of person who is calculating and manipulative
Where people such as mechanics, electricians, plumbers, builders etc will sometimes be, or seem to be treated slightly better than someone who is an office clerk or similar which did make me wonder how much this type of thing is so deep rooted in the subconcious anyway that it would be almost impossible for most people to even see theyre doing it let along try and consciously effect a change in behaviour without risking complete overcompensation
this kind of thing is what caused me to come up with the (IM quite cute saying of
"No matter how many steps back you try to take you will still be far too close to view yourself objectively"
Although I do accept I might be a bit biased in my appraisel of the phrase
4/13/2011 4:33 pm
I will anal-yse why you felt your arse word had to butt in there, but the white collar blue collar thing wasnt a class thing.|
It suspect it was to do with the fact that at some point in the future those people might urgently need a plumber, mechanic or electrician. So either consciously, subconciously or a mixture of the two they seemed to be being noticeably "nice" to them and doing things like ignoring things that severely narked them with less "useful" people to have as a friend
After all I cant think of a single instance where at 2am I have absolutely desperately had to have some filing, double entry book keeping or stapling done.
But it IS quite common for people to need leaky pipes or a dead fuseboard repaired at awkward times
So it wasnt universal or social "value" I was referring to, but a far more localised and personal value to their services and skills
I think the main mistake people make with understanding themselves is to believe that we consciously and cognitively make our own decisions.
Not just meaning social influences here like the media and peer pressure but out own subconscious.
When given a decision with multiple choices we tend to think we cognitively weigh up all the available choices, and in a rational and grounded way choose the one that "feels" right
Far closer to the truth though our subconcious has only allowed us to even comprehend or consider some of the choices in the first place. Then its contaminated those by attaching good, bad or neutral feelings to each
So by the time our conscious mind actually starts to "choose" the choice has been pretty much made for us based on our subconcious fears, wants, driving forces and just for good measure some quite abstract and random associations
The more someone knows, accepts and allows for their own fears, quirks and wants the more we can compensate for those biases. But thats assuming we are even capable of completely knowing our worst and deepest subconcious influences are even there to begin with or that we would even be willing to believe or accept we could "possibly" have them