I keep seeing this on here -

If X did this, s/he'd be slated and condemned, whereas if Y does it, s/he is the toast of the forum. And the other accompanying argument that everything one HM does is received with delighted applause while another HM doing - apparently - 'exactly the same thing' is torn to bits.

And it makes me wonder. It's such a lazy and borderline petulant argument and fails to take into account the overall general and ongoing likeability/unlikeability factor of a HM. Double standards would only apply if two very similiar HM were treated very differently and, for the most part, that's just not the case. We react to existing known quantities - what the HMs have shown of themselves - and our opinions are informed by that, and not in isolation. So eg. a very likeable HM doing something 'outrageous' will very naturally generate a much more positive (and tolerant) response than a eg. not very likeable, petulant, attention-seeking HM doing the same thing - BECAUSE IT'S REALLY NOT THE SAME THING!

So it's not that someone is being given special dispensation by the forum to behave in a way that another HM would be criticised for, it's just that we're using what we already know and can objectively apply to the behaviour of that HM to inform our opinions.

I completely agree. I've laughed at something a housemate has done, but that I wouldn't have liked if another had done it. Like you say, it depends on their personality and what has gone on before.

It's like mitigating circumstances - if I commit my first criminal activity, a judge may take my previous character into consideration where someone else may get a sentence. That's my take anyway😅

^ That really is it in a nutshell.

If they've shown, for the most part, their unlikeable qualities, then they will automatically dictate and influence the level of tolerance shown towards them.

wHen Tiff, Gemma & another woman (might have been Steph, (it was very early on & I can't remember) were on the bed talking about the men's penises, how big they were, how thick & Tiff was describing bulges through towels, I did wonder if there would have been a fuss if it had been three of the men talking about the women's lady parts & how they had seen the outline through their pants & wondering in detail about Gemma's "designer vagina".

Well that at least is a bonfide example of a potential double standards scenario.

Unlike the way the 'double standards' charge is flung about on here by people who use it to rage against the popularity of and affection shown towards a HM they dislike.

This is far too much of a logical and intelligent post for this forum. Are you in the right place? Bravo BTW.

Very well put.

I do agree, the 'double standards' scenario crops up quite a bit for some cases where there's really no comparison.

Men don't discuss 'camel toe'.

Agree on this. Though it would be funny if people had no loyalty to their fave and dropped them at the slightest thing they do wrong. There'd be a different favourite every other day, or even every single day.

It's not the 'forum favourite' that's the problem, because every housemate has their loyal supporters who will defend them and give them the benefit of the doubt, it's just the numbers and how it sucks to be in the minority.

If Megan slaps the camera out of understandable, petulant, rage and if Gemma slaps the camera out of self serving dramatics then of course it's not a double standard to criticize one and not the other.

But do we all agree Megan was petulant? Would we all agree Gemma was self serving?

Nope. so there's hope for that pesky double standard allegation yet, i think it has 9 lives

I don't know how long you've been on forums OP but women get slaughtered on here while men are cheered for the same misdemeanor .

Look at Jeremy a drug taking, lying, womaniser who gets cheers and saved on eviction night . Any woman with the same history would be slated and booed .

If I'd have posted that I'd have got slated...

What does that say about your likeability?

It's not very logical.

It's a misunderstanding of what people mean when they say different HMs are doing the same thing. (Indeed, if you go down the line that post takes, no two actions are ever the same, because there's always some difference between the housemates.)

It assumes that the main other factor is likeability/unlikeability.

It doesn't notice that likeability/unlikeability doesn't really explain anything, because its in need of explanation itself and can itself be subject to double standards.

It assumes that the HMs have "known quantities" based on "what the HMs have shown of themselves" even though what we actually have is opinions -- often widely varying opinions -- about what the HMs' qualities are, based at best on what BB shows us of the HMs and their behaviour in edited and structured shows and clips.

It then claims we apply what we (supposedly) know about HMs objectively.

The OP's argument seems to suggest that if women are judged more harshly, it's because they're less likeable. It doesn't offer any other possible reason. ("What the HMs have shown of themselves" is mentioned but just seems to be seen as feeding into likeability/unlikeability.)

(BTW, people interested in double standards and related issues might want to look up the 'blame index' thread.)

I didn't get that at all, viva didn't address the gender variable in the op. I assumed she meant the arguments that run "if Gemma or Megan were messing about in the same way Tiffany was last night they'd be slated so why does Tiffany get away with it"
The Op was pointing out that charisma plays a large part in how we judge people's actions. Tiffany has charisma, Megan/Gemma don't. Thats why Tiff isn't judged as harshly as the other two. Makes perfect sense to me.

I agree.

why would single consensual adults be judged harshly for being sexual? This includes Tiff, Megan, Gemma, Scotty, and Jeremy. I don't consider Stephanie to be single unless she states she is in an open relationship with her "boyfriend" which she hasn't IIRC.

Yes it is all equal.

For year after year across all forms of BB the first person to be evicted was always a woman. You have to be a complete homophobe, mysogynist and general utter knob like Winston if you were a man to be evicted.

So the OP is trying to convince us that for all these years it has been because the women were genuinely, for real substantial reasons, less likeable than the men, nothing to do with double standards.



Maggie

Just to be clear, having double standards means you judge people differently depending on their characteristics, or personality or gender etc.

So eg. a very likeable HM doing something 'outrageous' will very naturally generate a much more positive (and tolerant) response than a eg. not very likeable, petulant, attention-seeking HM doing the same thing

..is a very good example of double standards.

All you have to do, really, to underscore the blatant m/f double standards on this board is compare Jeremy/Stephanie to Hazel/Daley. It's blinding. I could explain it, but I shouldn't really have to.

I think it is human nature that plays a part. We are more forgiving if we like someone which is double standards but it happens.

All of them use the F word in normal conversation, they must do that at home for it to come so naturally and some of them have their kids watching, all the women have used the C word, they have no sense of dignity when it comes to their bodily functions or sex lives, and think it is funny and clever.

I would be appalled if my kids were like them, I taught them standards.

Maybe we expect better behaviour from women. And the ones who go first are usually big mouths, it might be sexist and unfair but that's how it is in BB.

Imagine if Scotty T had gone into the shower and fondled Tiffs Biff

Thanks, Pixieboots, that's pretty much what I was referring to, nothing whatsoever to do with gender, and everything to do with the 'incident' and the existing known quantities about the people concerned.

Thanks also to others above who understood the point I was making.

And thanks, KT_Dog for the light touch!

..................................

My post was about the (mis)application of 'double standards' to situations that really don't warrant it. Of course I'm not claiming that genuine cases of double standards don't exist, but that's not what I was railing against in my OP.

Hope that clears things up for those who've decided to read all sorts of things into my post that really are just not there.

People do apply double standards, all this does is explain why they apply double standards