Double standard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A double standard, according to the World Book Dictionary, is a standard applied more leniently to one group than to another. For example, the belief that it is permissible for teenage boys, but not teenage girls, to engage in premarital sex is a double standard. When judicial processes are applied more strictly to some people more than others, such double standards are seen as unjust because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence, that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender or other distinction. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. While double standards are generally condemned in the abstract, they are also very common.
There is a subtle distinction to be made between double standards and hypocrisy, which implies the stated or presumed acceptance of a single standard, but which in practice may be disregarded. If a man believes it is his right to have extra-marital affairs, but that his wife does not have such a right, he holds a double standard. A man who condemns all adultery while maintaining a mistress is a hypocrite.
Contents |
[edit] Defending the status quo
Efforts to defend real or purported double standards usually take the form of denying that a double standard is being applied or attempting to give a good reason for the disparate treatment (in which case it is a double standard but it is a favorable or acceptable double standard). For example, children are generally forbidden from acts such as drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco, while adults are usually permitted to perform such acts with impunity. This differential treatment could be described as a double standard, because people are being held to different standards. However, one defending this differential treatment could argue that there is a good reason for the different treatment — that children are inherently less capable of making mature decisions regarding those activities, so they should be protected from risky and potentially harmful behavior. Supporters of this argument may also point out the fact that use of alcohol and tobacco at a young age can irreparably cause damage to a child's brain development. The counterargument, then, would be that children are not inherently less able to make good decisions, as there are some people who are more mature in their decision-making than other adults, so that age is an arbitrary criterion.
[edit] Gender and ethnic double standards
Accusations of "racism" or "sexism" can be argued to involve double standards in the United States, as it is widely perceived to be "OK" for African Americans to use derogatory terms for Caucasians in public, while Caucasians using derogatory terms for non-whites can cause significant backlash, even being charged with a hate crime.
It has also been argued that women can use offensive terms about men more readily than men can about women. Both of these alleged modern double standards arise from the reversal of preexisting, double standards of the opposite kind. Also, due partially to complaints from white Americans about the double standard regarding hate crimes, minorities attacking whites have been increasingly charged with hate crimes as well.
One of the more common double standards that is seen every day is where females should be treated more leniently than males for the same acts. For example, physical violence; some females believe that they deserve to be given the right to hit a man, however, he should not be able to retaliate against that. Their justification of this is that the majority of women are less physically able to cause harm than a man. A counter-argument of this is that for two parties to be treated equally without discrimination, they should have the same consequences that they would receive if they were a different gender.
A notorious type of double standard is the classic "studs vs. sluts" model, in which a man who has sex with many female partners is considered a "stud" or "player" (which are often considered compliments), while a woman who has sex with many male partners is considered a "slut" or "skank" (which are highly pejorative terms). This is related to the madonna-whore dichotomy (also called the virgin-whore dichotomy). Proponents of this double standard would say that it is justified by natural law (men naturally cannot help it but women can and are thus supposed to function as the "gatekeepers"), while opponents would say that such an assumption is sexist and based on outmoded views of sexuality. Opponents may differ with one another; some feel that nonmonogamy and/or promiscuity is a good thing for both sexes, some feel it is wrong for both sexes, and others simply view it as neutral. Some believe this double standard is gradually breaking down, citing neologisms such as "playette" (a female "player") and "manwhore" (a man who sleeps around). Gender-neutral terms such as "free lover", "free spirit", or "libertine" may also be used as well nowadays. However, skeptics argue that the use of such reversed and gender-neutral terms remains relatively rare.
[edit] Religion and politics
In the context of religion, many argue that accusations of blasphemy are an especially common example of double standards in that the very concept of blasphemy relies on applying or seeking to apply different standards to the theology seeking protection than to other matters.
The ancient Roman aphorism, Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi (Gods may do what cattle may not), captures the idea of the way relatively relaxed norms of behavior are applied by the elite to themselves, while harsher behavior standards are applied to the masses.
Specific political examples are harder to give because almost no one, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, will admit to double standards. For example, many in the United States are quick to point fingers at the "liberal media" or "conservative media" for giving a 'pass' to one side of the political spectrum, while at the same time often slandering those on the other side of a given debate.
Arab governments have claimed that the United States government has double standards when it comes to its treatment of Israel versus the Arabs. Arab countries have been angry over the U.S. position on the Palestinians and on the current Israeli-Lebanese conflict[1] [2] [3][4]. Nuclear non-proliferation activists have also mentioned the double standards of US nuclear non-proliferation policies where the U.S. has clearly supported Israel's and India's efforts to develop advanced nuclear weapons, but has attempted to suffocate Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs [5] [6] [7]. It should be pointed out, however, that both Iran and North Korea are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while India is not. Another frequent defence of such a policy is that Israel and India are democracies, while Iran and North Korea are authoritarian states.
[edit] See also
[edit] External link
- LilithGallery.com - 'Double Standard Sexuality', Suzanne MacNevin
