Talk:Double standard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject icon This article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 13 May 2013 for a period of one week. WikiProject icon
 


This Article Is Pointless[edit]

This article is pointless and beyond offering a dictionary definition of the term and an explanation of the logic of double standards, simply becomes an opportunity for political arguments in one direction or the other. Most introductory sociology textbooks will give a definition of the double standard as it applies to women's and men's sexual freedom, but that will be the extent of it. A quick review of "racial double standard" on the web suggests that all arguments saying it exists come from conservative perspectives. However, one could endlessly list examples of double standards that exist in any given society, from both ends of the political spectrum, for gender, race/ethnicity, for age, for social class. That suggests to me that there is really no point to most of this article beyond defining the term. I recommend leaving the definition and limiting to one or two standard examples. --Deborah G (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. The article should only describe the general concept of what a double standard is, and not engage in any discussion of any contentious subjects. The examples should be extremely limited and should just help readers understand the concept of a double standard itself. Torc2 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, though I think the article could become of some use if it could point readers to discussion of the principals behind the concept of double standards. E.g. one needs a broader understanding of the principals involved than is given by the article, to see why it is not considered an application of a double standard to have rules for children which are not applied to adults; as it stands, the article implies that preventing children from driving cars, say, involves a reprehensible double standard. To put it another way, as Anatole France said, 'In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.' The philosophical problem of double standards is nothing like as simple as the article suggests. Dayvey (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Useful Additions[edit]

There are ways to contribute to this article to enhance its usefulness without engaging in contentious battles. For example, you could discuss the history of the term. The earliest known usage, according to Google Books is 1950. https://books.google.com/books?id=451GAQAAIAAJ&q=%22you+were+applying+double+standards+to+the+people+who+worked+for+you%22&dq=%22you+were+applying+double+standards+to+the+people+who+worked+for+you%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcw7jrma_SAhUDLSYKHZXsAJcQ6AEIHDAA

You could also give textbook examples as to what the term is used for. Without taking sides on the issue, you might point out that one of the earliest examples was the idea that women should be chaste and loyal to her significant other, while men were generally considered as "needing" regular sex; therefore, they had the right to seek sex elsewhere if their partners weren't providing it. This double-standard still exists today. Men who sleep around are lauded and considered "studs," while women who sleep around are stigmatized as sluts. 65.33.138.115 (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)