Some of the posts on here have been absolutely shocking. Please, tell us more about how men are so hard done by in this world of double standards .

And then to go on and compare Tiffany to Winston! Absolutely delusional. Maybe if they hit a certain quota of similar posts they get a free "meninist" t-shirt.

^ It's a perfect illustration of what my OP is protesting against - 'double standards' being ludicrously and illogically applied to two incidents that bear no resemblance to each other and yet are being perceived and described as exactly the same 'offence'.

The argument in the OP was very general with nothing to suggest it was supposed to apply in some cases but not others or that it wasn't meant to cover opinions of male HMs vs female ones. All it says that accusations of double standards fail to take into account is "the overall general and ongoing likeability/unlikeability factor of a HM". So in a male vs female case, that is the only explanation it offers.


The OP said nothing whatsoever about charisma, and it's good that they didn't, because that argument would have been an even worse one.

Also, the post was not about psychological reasons why people have a double standard; it was claiming that there wasn't a double standard "BECAUSE IT'S REALLY NOT THE SAME THING!"

It wasn't saying it's understandable that people have a double standard because factors such as charisma play a large part in how we judge actions; it was claiming that such factors meant it was not a double standard.

There's no need for an argument like yours for that, when two incidents "bear no resemblance to each other." Your post seemed to be about cases where HMs appear to be doing the same thing, where "same thing" is viewed narrowly (both are "bitching", for example), and your argument was that when likeability was taken into account, and one HM was likeable and the other not, "IT'S REALLY NOT THE SAME THING!".

(So, continuing with "bitching" as my example, and setting off action descriptions with "<...>", rather than the actions of both HMs being <bitching> one's action would be <a likeable person bitching> and the other's action would be <an unlikeable person bitching> which are not the same. That seemed to be what it amounted to.)

Your argument assumes all "acts" that are judged are neutral in themselves and therefore judging them differently implies a double standard. There is a massive difference in for example, Daniella's apology to Steph and Gemma's apology and how they were judged. Its not as if all these acts exist outside of the people that do them- they don't. Disregarding the influence of the actor's charisma and character from how it is received is impossible imo, unless you are a God. That is not a double standard, that is taking motivation and intention into account when judging a given act, which is what most of us do every day.

Double standards exist because men and women aren't the same. Two sets of sexual organs, two sets of sexual hormones, two sets of sexual politics and roles. Only an idiot would apply the same set of rules to two different things.

is it fair that men are viewed as lonely sex pests for visiting strippers while girls are empowered women having cheeky fun for doing the same? No.

Is it fair that women have more sexual opportunities with less work needed to be put in than men? No.

Is it fair that women can make money by selling their bodies for sex in the form of cam modelling, porn, stage shows, photo shoots and practically no man can? No.

It's life. The sooner people accept the fact double standards exist for a reason instead of looking for 100% exact and equal standards the happier we all will be.

What I assumed, if anything, was that "bitching" (for example) would be understood as negative, not neutral. I can't see how you could get the "neutral" idea out of what I said.

Accusations of double standards are about cases where two HMs do "the same thing" but are judged differently. There's nothing in there that says, assumes, or implies that the "thing" is neutral. And judging the same thing differently, depending on who does it, is pretty much the definition of "double standard". So judging them differently is using a double standard. The OP doesn't question that; the OP's attack is on whether the actions are really "the same".

The OP's argument is in effect that when "the overall general and ongoing likeability/unlikeability factor of a HM" is taken into account, "IT'S REALLY NOT THE SAME THING!" So two HMs who are both bitching, for example, aren't really doing the same thing if one of them is likeable and the other isn't.

The rhetoric in post #1 loads it up rather more in an example, so that it's "very likeable" vs "not very likeable, petulant, attention-seeking", but the idea is still that when such factors are taken into account, what the two HMs have done is "REALLY NOT THE SAME THING!"

(BTW, although people do often say "the same thing" or even "exactly the same thing", what they really mean is that the two actions are very similar in their aspects that are relevant and significant. They don't literally mean the actions are identical in every possible way.)


There are two different issues there. One is whether we can disregard the influence of the actor's charisma and character (or what the OP was about, likeability). The other is about taking motivation and intention into account.

Of course motivation and intention are relevant when judging actions, and they can affect whether two actions are the same. For example, two HMs might say the same words when one of them would be lying and the other not. So one of the is lying while the other is telling the truth, or is saying something they believe to be true even though it isn't. The liar has an intention to deceive; the other HM doesn't. Judging those two differently is not using a double standard. I don't think anyone is questioning that.

But the influence of the actor's charisma is a very different case. Suppose we can't disregard the influence. That wouldn't mean we weren't guilty of double standards. Instead it would be what I called "psychological reasons why people have a double standard". Similarly, some people have a double standard because they can't completely disregard the influence of a HM's gender (or age, ethnicity, looks, accent, etc) or the influence of whether they like the HM or not.

A HM's character can be in either category. To the extent that we know a HMs character, based on past behaviour, and consciously apply that knowledge, that can legitimately help us decide about their most likely intentions and motivations. But beliefs about a HM's character can also be psychological reasons for why someone has a double standard -- and that's what seems to be the case if we're talking of character having an influence of a sort that only a god could ignore.

Is their gender somehow not one of their 'known qualities'?

In any case, you said you were talking about times when people said:

If X did this, s/he'd be slated and condemned, whereas if Y does it, s/he is the toast of the forum.

You didn't seem to mean only cases where both instances of "s/he" were replaced by the same thing (so that both were "she" or both were "he"). So it's natural to conclude that you were talking about male vs female cases, as well as ones where the two HMs were both male or both female.

You seemed to think that most accusations of double standards are wrong. At one point you said "for the most part" the HMs aren't similar enough; but you didn't seem to think it was close. Nothing about the post made it seem you thought many of the accusations were right, or that it might be nearly (say) 50%. And nothing indicated that you thought cases where a woman was judged more harshly than a man were an exception.

What you said the accusation of double standards "fails to take into account" is "the overall general and ongoing likeability/unlikeability factor of a HM." That is the reason you gave. So the HM who is judged more harshly is less likeable; and that is supposedly why it's not double standards to judge them more harshly. There too you gave no indication that it wasn't meant to apply in cases where a woman was judged more harshly than a man.

That is NOT to say your argument was that there's never a double standard when a woman is judged more harshly. But you seemed to think that most of the time the accusation was false, and the reason you gave for accusations of double standards being false was in effect that one of the HMs was more likeable than the other, so that (supposedly) what they did is "REALLY NOT THE SAME THING".

Isn't judging housemates actions based on their likeability exactly what leads to double standards? The OP's statement seems to be more of an explanation as to why double standards exist more than anything else.

Evaluating an action based on who did it rather than the action itself is the complete opposite of objectivity and will almost certainly lead to double standards.

Or Preston and Chantelle. I don't remember Preston getting the same hate when he fell for Chantellecdespute having a long term girlfriend.

No it's not. By 'likeability' I'm referring to what the HMs show us of themselves - not pre-conceived ideas, not bias based on past actions - on the show itself: the way they behave/interact with each other, their willingness to pull their weight, their kindness towards each other, their sense of humour, how seriously they take themselves, their aggression levels, their bad habits etc etc - all the things that make us warm to or be put off a person.

Are you suggesting that we should ignore/put aside anything we learn about a housemate and react to each 'situation' that arises as if we've never set eyes on them before, in order to fulfill this objectivity notion? That would be ridiculous.

Of course all of us will judge HM's actions in light of their perceived character to us (this in itself is subjective as we all have different interpretations of HM's character) it's unavoidable.

It seems that you're not recognising that judgment as being subjective when it clearly is. It seems ridiculous to argue that this is true objectivity and double standards won't arise as a result, it almost certainly will.

It's naturally difficult to be truly objective as the more emotionally invested you are in a HM, the more difficult it will be to admit they are doing something wrong. Also it's human nature to be 'right', so if we've sung the praises of a HM, it would be difficult for us to admit we were wrong and maybe they aren't all that great as we previously said they were. So much so that you will lose objectivity and lead to double standards in your judgements.