Double Standards

I have often been accused of being sexist and of having double standards.  This is absolutely true.  I believe that the sexes are different and should be held to different standards.  The point that I want to make in this post is that there is no need to have different rules applied to men and women to accomplish a double standard since the double standard exists within men and women.  So I will show how each double standard that I support can be implemented with equal rules for men and women.


Double standard:  Women should not vote.

Reason:

The reason that women shouldn't vote has nothing to do with intelligence.  The reason is that men's instincts are designed for tribe formation and women's instincts aren't.  The natural structure of tribes of both humans and chimpanzees is for the tribe to be run by males.  Men have a sense of fairness that comes with this role.  Women have no such sense of fairness.  Men naturally develop a loyalty to the tribe and will act in the tribe's best interest.  The loyalty of women is always primarily based on family, particularly her children.  When women are given the vote, they will always support these things; a strong central government to support them, the right to sexually provoke men without consequences, and the right to cheat on their husbands.  These are women's primary political concerns.  In a democracy that includes women, immoral men and almost all women will vote for these things and ruin society.

Solution:

For equality, one can have separate governments for men and women.  Under this system, men would elect a men's government to govern men and women would elect a women's government to govern women.  This would prevent women from using the government to oppress men.  What would be the result of such a system?  The answer is that women wouldn't bother voting in such a system.  If you look at all the political actions of women, they are all about controlling men.  Women have no interest in controlling or regulating women.  Women want a strong government to force men to hire women, to protect women from men, and to tax men to support women.  Women want divorce laws to force men to pay alimony and child support to women.  And women want to be free to sexually provoke men while having the government prevent any response from men which women call "sexual harassment".  There isn't one single thing that women want from government that involves restricting women in any way.  So under my suggested EQUAL system, women would have no reason to vote at all, which just show the hypocrisy of those who support women's suffrage in the name of equality.


Double standard:  Women should be virgins at marriage.

Reason:

The fundamental difference between men and women is that men have an unlimited reproductive potential while women's reproductive potential is very limited.  When a man has sex, he is giving away nothing of value.  But when a woman has sex, she is potentially giving away a large aspect of her life if she gets pregnant.  Today we have birth control to eliminate the practical side of this, but this doesn't change the feelings in us that were produced by evolution before birth control.  This is why men still greatly value virginity in women, as can be seen in the cases where women auction off their virginity.  But women place no value in the virginity of a man because there is no evolutionary basis for this feeling.

A woman who has sex before marriage is being selfish at the expense of her future husband.  A normal husband (who places his emotions and common sense over feminist propaganda) would prefer that his wife be a virgin.  Women also seem to be changed by premarital sex and are less able to bond with their husband as explained in Why Sluts Make Bad Wives.

The anthropologist Unwin, in his book "Sex and Culture", studied the isolated tribes of his time to determine what best correlated with level of development.  He found one fact that perfectly correlated with level of development.  This was female premarital chastity.  In all the most developed cultures, women were required to be virgins at marriage.  Then he looked at history and he found that in all rising cultures, women were required to be virgins at marriage.  And in all cultures where this requirement was lost, the culture went into terminal decline.

Solution:

People who value marriage should try to offer their prospective partner whatever they value and avoid things that destabilize marriage.  This is a general statement that allows whatever natural differences there are between the genders to be expressed.  It is well known historically that men value virgin brides.  But never in history have women valued virgin husbands.  Instead, women usually value husbands who have established themselves as providers.  This is natural.  To implement my solution, one could ask single men and women to list those things that they desire in a partner in order and then pressure the opposite gender to comply in order to make themselves desirable for marriage.  There is no question that virginity and chastity would be high on the list men but not on the list of women.


Double standard:  Extramarital sex is worse by women than by men.

Reason:

When a woman has extramarital sex, there is a chance that this will result in her husband raising a child that isn't his.  But if a man has extramarital sex, there is no chance that this will result in his wife raising a child that isn't hers.  This is a basic asymmetry.  You could argue that contraception solves the problem.  But our feelings evolved before contraception and the strength of our feelings are a result of the consequences in primitive times.  This is why a cheating wife causes great emotional harm to her husband.  Similarly, rape causes emotional distress to women because they lose control of choosing the father of their child.  Rape with contraception doesn't reduce the emotional distress because this is a result of evolution, not logic.

What women really want from a husband is commitment.  This is what they need to feel comfortable having children with the husband and raising a family.  She wants commitment to be assured that the husband will always be there to support the family, especially when the wife is pregnant or with infants which put her in a weak position.  So why are women so upset by male extramarital sex?  Because modern women have been brainwashed to believe that male extramarital sex is an indication of lack of commitment.  Historically you cannot find any instance of women complaining about casual extramarital sex by husbands before Paul started complaining about this in the New Testament.  Of course women were jealous of mistresses throughout history, and this make sense since this is a real threat to her husband's commitment to her.  It was Paul who introduced this terrible concept of male sexual fidelity to human culture.  And even today, it is the degree of influence of Paul-based Christian culture on a society that determines the level of women's jealousy about male extramarital sex.  Feminism is an extension of this culture and takes it to new extremes.

Solution:

The equal rule is: no one may cause orgasm in anyone other than their spouse.  This rule actually addresses all the underlying issues.  If a husband has a mistress, her orgasm is likely and this is a problem.  But if a husband goes to a prostitute, then orgasm is very unlikely and there is no issue.  In almost all conditions, if a wife has sex with another man, she will cause him to orgasm.  A contrived way out would be for her to hire a gay gigolo to satisfy her with oral sex.  Actually, I don't think most men would find this nearly as bad as the wife having regular sex with another guy.  And I don't think most women would find this satisfying either.  Why?  Because sex is a fundamentally asymmetric act of a woman giving herself to a man.  If a woman doesn't give herself to the man, then it doesn't seem like complete sex.  And this explains on an emotional level why female extramarital sex is so much worse than male extramarital sex.  Because the wife is giving herself to another guy, but the husband isn't giving anything to the other woman.  This emotion reflects the evolutionary argument I gave above.



Double standard:  The CoAlpha Brotherhood doesn't allow women members.

Reason:

I already cover part of the reason in explaining why women shouldn't vote.  But we could still have women as nonvoting members.  The reason we don't is because women fundamentally change the nature of conversation.  It is men's instinct to try to appeal to women, and it is women's instinct to try to get attention from men.  In a mixed discussion, even on a forum, these instinct become the dominant factors in the conversation.  I think all sane men will recognize how different an all male conversation is different from a mixed conversation.  In an all male conversation, men are more straight forward and less concerned about ego and image.  The level of trust is also higher when there are just men.  I cannot expect women to understand my argument here because women obviously have no experience with all male conversations.  I highly recommend that women read Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man to get some insight into men.

Solution:

The solution is the same as with voting.  Women could form a CoAlpha Sisterhood that excluded men, and I would fully support that.  But as with voting, it is doubtful that women would ever bother.  Women like to get together to socialize or to pursue some common goal, but women have no real desire to organize themselves based on shared morality.  The CoAlpha concept is a tribal concept, and tribes are the natural creation of men, not women.

Forgive me for dragging up this old thread. It wasn't answered and is clearly very poor indeed!

In the first instance, the suggestion of a separate government for men and women is very poor, because such separate governments would immediately nullify all of the other solutions that follow.

So consider if we really did have a Woman's government and a Man's government. What rules would they come up with and attempt to impose?

In the second example: 'Women should be virgins at marriage'...
The Man's government makes this declaration, but the Woman's government declares that a woman should only marry a man who is good in bed, and must try out a range of men before picking which one to marry. So now we have a situation where the rules created by the Man's government are now different to those created by the Woman's government. They get together and discuss this and the conclusion is that the Woman's government are entitled to govern women and so the rule created by the Man's government doesn't apply because they are not entitled to create rules to govern women. Because the rule is still being given the men feel that it still applies - but no woman is now a virgin and so the man must marry a younger and younger female (who is still a virgin) and so the Woman's government ban this practice. Either the Woman's government wins or the human race dies out (or this culture with separate male and female governments dies out to be replaced by some other culture).

Third example: 'Extramarital sex is worse by women than by men.'...
Sadly the Woman's government disagree and as the Man's government cannot impose rules on the Women the argument is won by the Woman's government. Likewise the Man's government may legalise rape only to have the Woman's government impose the death sentence in instances of rape along with a special all female assassination squad to hunt down and execute the perpetrator. While the Man's government declare such assassination squads to be illegal only to be over-ruled as they are not allowed to govern women? And so on, and so forth.

As soon as you have separate governments to govern males and females separately you cannot then have any successful laws to govern their interaction with one another and the result is a war between the sexes and extinction in the long term. So all of the solutions suggested presuppose that the first suggestion was not implemented.

The original answer has been forgotten here. It was an all male government that governed men. The government did not govern women - men did. The government relied upon the men that it governed to directly govern women themselves. So to clarify: The government told the men what to do, the men (mostly married I guess) would then tell their women what to do. So you have a ranking system:

Government >> Men >> Women

That's the way it was. That's what worked. But you can see that if women vote then the man has become the 'Piggy in the middle'. Further more the system relied on the Government also being composed of Men. So a high ranking male group would be telling a lower male group what to do thus GoverMENt. So the issue is getting into GoverWOMENt (goverwoment).

Women should vote - but women should not be allowed in goverment. This is really a compromise. We gave them the vote and in return they agree not to be voted for, and not to be in the government itself.

Clearly women disagree but the males physical superiority makes it so. What we have at the moment is an attempt to resolve this inequality by faking it in some way. Either the men must become weaker or the women must become stronger. Feminism implies that the women are attempting to become stronger, but if they use rules and the law to do this then they are infiltrating government - perhaps the only way they can win. They would then progress to this:

Governwoment >> Women >> Men

The males would then become the pack animals to do all the physical labour. But given their strength there would be a revolution leading back to the original structure.

I also think that ShaunS's proposed system of government (Government > Men > Women) would work better, as a male government would need to impose laws on females and a female government could impose contradictory laws on males in a truly equal system. Also, I have concerns about the "no one may cause orgasm in anyone other than their spouse" rule, simply because it would be hard to prove if someone had an orgasm or not. A more straightforward rule would be that no one may pursue sexual relations outside of marriage unless they pay for it. Since almost no women would want to see a male prostitute (and almost no women see a male prostitute even today), it would have the same effect as Franklin's proposed rule.