lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Double Standard Supporters

2010-01-22
By

All people –whether they be rich, well off, or poor– live and breath double standards. The concept is the base model for teaching and parenting. “Do as I say and not as I do” is what mom and dad used to tell us. Now that we have grown up, matured, or have become that certain age where we are considered legally responsible for our own actions, we practice the same double standards our parents practiced with us. Even while we practice them with our sons and daughters, nieces and nephews, some of us still feel the anger we felt boiling inside of our chests when we were told not to do something that so many, even the people telling us not to did.

While it is acceptable to deny our offspring certain rights and privileges for their own well being, it is also unfortunately widely accepted that adults should gain certain privileges based on a similar principal of double standards; do as I do, without the same effort.

I once believed it was common knowledge to everyone, even feminists, that there were a wide array of obvious double standards within physically demanding professions. Sadly, as I am beginning to realize about a lot of important issues that involve feminists, this is not the case. Most who have joined the ranks of the many anti-feminists advocating for the laws that discriminate against people based on gender to be abolished are already well aware of the fact that feminists will flat out lie to accomplish their goals. Those goals being the dehumanization of men in the eyes of the public and the ousting of men from any position of power be it political or not. Although all feminists, even moderates will lie in some way shape or form when it comes to their continuing quest to silence any voice raised about the importance of male issues, discussing and researching the topic of this article has broadened my knowledge on the different levels of feminists that until recently I myself did not know existed.

The most obvious and well known feminist that all anti-feminists have run into somewhere in their lives is the ignorant and comical forefront of the feminist movement. The zealot or pawn.

You will find the zealot anywhere male issues are spoken of or written about. They will barge in, invited or not, and deny anything anyone says that does not fall in line with feminist doctrine or theory. They will do so in an insulting and disgraceful manner and not stop until all but themselves are silenced. Whether they are educated or not is irrelevant as their tactics will conceal any form of education from all who are forced to listen. Facts mean nothing to them. Instead any facts that are irrefutably proven will become misogynistic or a conspiracy derived from the so called patriarchy. However, anything the zealot claims will be undeniable truth. Evidence is not required for these people. Everything they say is fact, because they say so. No reference and no studies nothing is produced from the zealot except maybe a personal experience they are able to dredge up from years past that always falls in line with any debate they happen to be in and, of course, movies.

G.I. Jane has been the reference of many zealots I spoke with about the issue of double standards in physically demanding professions. Needless to say defeating these tools of the feminist movement is rather simple but some people such as myself enjoy dragging the argument out for a while to let all who know nothing of feminism and those loosely affiliated observe what blindly following an absurd ideology simply because it fits your world view can do to someone. Once the facts are laid out in front of the zealot he or she will attempt to change the topic of the discussion but unlike the moderate not all feminists are like that upper level drones, the zealot is usually too emotionally charged after being proven wrong to care about reserving any form of dignity and will spout off words and concepts he/she does not understand in an attempt to appear calm and intelligent but failure is the only path these tools can follow when up against anyone with even a rain drop of knowledge on these issues.

Zealots are now usually frowned upon by the more intelligent feminists but this was not always so. Being a young man I was not alive during the infamous 70s and all the radicalism that ran rampant in the west during that time but from what I have seen and read, the feminist zealot was once the main weapon of the movement. A few smart radicals could rouse hundreds of angry unintelligent followers to march through the streets damning men and women who did not conform to their view of how the world should be. The radicals would single out articles of clothing, posters, movies, political figures, text books, and school policies claiming they were the source of womens’ oppression and the zealots would charge through the streets destroying what they could and shouting at what they could not. Yes the zealot was a powerful tool back when the streets were the forefronts of battles. Now the zealots have their place but have taken a back seat to the theorists that have flooded the education system.

When facts are brought up about physical standards being lowered for women in areas such as the police, the military, and fire departments the zealots are the first to give the famous feminist line PROVE IT! However, as we already know, providing evidence is pointless with the pawns so we must move on to the Knights. I, being a veteran, admit that I did not know of the lowered standards women have in the army until someone else showed it to me on a PT (physical fitness test) chart for a quick laugh before the test. At first when I saw the substantially large disparity between the number of push ups men and women had to do (Women: 19 in 2 minutes Men: 43 in 2 minutes) I admittedly chuckled at the thought. Well duh, men are stronger than women- is what I thought. Then I glanced at the run times men and women had to complete and was astonished. The only equal exercise men and women have to complete are sit ups. However, measuring the exercises that women aged 17-21 have to complete with those of men aged 17-21 is disgraceful especially when considering the large number of men and women in combat zones right now.

What hit home for me was when I glanced further down the chart to see what I would have to accomplish if I chose to remain in the military. When my eyes took in the numbers for men aged 57-61 my laughter ceased. To pass a physical fitness test, 17 year old women only have to train to the standards of a 61 year old man. Basically if something is seen as favoring men over women then it is sexist and unfair and must be changed yet when the opposite is presented it is not sexist or unfair, it is just women proving they can do whatever a man can. Do as I do, without the same effort.

Enter the knights of the feminist movement. Not to be mistaken with the white knights or manginas, as MRAs identify them, but the intelligent bigots who realize that repeatedly shouting lies will no longer suffice in effecting change. Instead of rushing into any situation with idiocy, these feminists will take a moment to actually listen to or read what someone challenging their views is saying. What happens next depends on the caliber of the anti-feminist. If one simply damns a double standard that favors women the knight will first deny the existence of the double standard or downplay the relevance of the anger the anti-feminist feels towards the double standard.

If only claims are provided by the anti-feminist as a defense, the knight will of course ask for proof. The knight’s actions will parallel those of the zealot until facts are entered into the equation. At first, as always with any feminist, the knight will try to construe any disdain for these double standards as an attack on women and immediately attempt to shift the debate into a male VS female argument. This tactic, while pathetic, is unfortunately effective when one only focuses on the unfairness the double standards represent toward men.

As with the army PT test there are hundreds of thousands of women allowed into the military on the lowered standards the test presents. This fact is insulting to the women who can and do pass the test on par with the standards of men and dangerous for men and women in combat zones. Indeed the one and only fact that any anti-feminist needs to bring out the knight in a debate with an intelligent feminist is the fact that women can and do achieve the same standards men do to qualify for a profession. This fact makes the lowering of standards in these professions pointless and insulting to the women who take the time to actually work and earn the right to hold jobs within these fields.

From here the knight will deploy the only argument he or she can; men and women are different. For this particular argument, the feminist will abandon one of the prime theories presented by the feminist movement; the only differences between men and women are their reproductive organs, everything else is a result of a patriarchal gender socialization. Now, rather suddenly, the feminist believes that there are natural differences between men and women albeit only for this debate. The feminist will tell you that women have a lower center of gravity or something along those lines and that the test standards are lowered for the purpose of bringing people up to their best physical performance.

Yes, there is always an excuse feminists will have to let double standards that favor women slide but will create double standards where there are none and claim they favor men just so they have something to protest, but I digress. The point the knight will feebly try and make with this argument is that since men and women have different bodies their physical standards should be different. Indeed, the whole a woman can do anything a man can argument is thrown out of the window as well here. However, none of these points are relevant as it is proven that women can at least pass a PT test according to a male scoring chart. Some behemoth sized females can even max their scores on par with men. What’s next, after you brush aside the knight’s points with facts? The boys VS girls sandbox argument ensues, of course. They will tell you it’s obvious men are stronger than women but women are smarter (yes some people still make this foolish claim) or the famous we birth all of you argument and several others. The goal from here on is to get the anti-feminist that is always assumed to be a man by any feminist to shoot back with men this and men that.

Do not be dragged into this farce, it is a pointless battle and does not help to show the world how irrelevant feminism has always been. Simply stay on topic and in some cases you will reduce the knight to the zealot state, which is a state that any and all feminists will revert back to when proven wrong. Instead of a calm person speaking your mind you will become a troll spouting misogyny in support of the patriarchy. This usually, is when one of the many Queens will move down from the chess board in an attempt to defend what little respect people viewing the zealots and knights may have for feminism.

Queens come in all forms and can easily be mistaken for zealots at a glance. They consider most arguments against feminism to be a waste of their time and will only attack when they are certain a victory can be attained. History is their forte and they frequently use it in an attempt to silence anyone speaking out about male issues quickly and with little dissent. What better weapon could anyone use when debating any major political issue other than history? There are so many different accounts and records of past events that no one can claim anything as fact with absolute certainty without years of study. A quick google search on a topic of interest may drudge up thousands of different results. A library while smaller in scale will yield the same results.

This disadvantage is the queen’s main advantage. Concerning the double standards mentioned in this article the queen will tell you that women weren’t allowed in the military to begin with, which is true but irrelevant. The queen will also almost always find a way to turn the focus of the debate away from the main point, be it about feminism or not, and attempt to blame the problem on men. He or she will say men are the ones who made the standards lower so blame them.

This of course, is not the case. A group of “experts” in sports medicine decided that the APFT was not fair to women. Ignoring the fact that women have been in the military since WWI and have been passing what was once the standard for everyone but is now regarded as the male standard, these experts, seeing that such a low number of women were in the army, decided that the reason for this was not that most women did not train and commit themselves to pass the standards of the military, no it was because the standards were just too high for women to be able to handle. A woman’s body is different than a man’s body. So a physical fitness board was formed and the standards were lowered.

To my understanding this was done during the 70′s when the feminist movement was at its peak influence when it came to pushing unqualified women into many professions with affirmative action. To them, if women were not in a male dominated profession, then sexism was the root cause. The fire departments were not untouched by this phenomenon either. Be careful when mentioning firefighters to feminist queens, however, because they will immediately try and corner you with the fact that the physical tests for firefighters are gender neutral. This is true, but do not lose the main point of the argument.

Just because men and women adhere to the same standards does not mean they were not lowered for women. As it turns out, they were. The Fredrick County fire department in Maryland is one example. When first implemented, the physical tests for this particular fire department faced extreme scrutiny over age discrimination. Several different examinations of how the tests should be comprised and performed to allow new hires to be tested on their ability to complete physically strenuous tasks in relation to their job were conducted. Finally the age issue was somewhat silenced, however, another issue soon arose. While all healthy men do have the potential to be extremely physically fit not all achieve this goal and many failed to accomplish the tasks put forth in the test. However, 81 to 85 percent of men were able to pass while only 22 percent (2 out of the 9 women who attempted) were able to pass.

This of course got groups that represent women’s interests in an uproar. One such group WFS (women in the fire service) would attack and examine any test put forth by the fire department stressing linkage, which refers to linking the entry-level performance standard with the incumbent’s level of performance. Since Frederick County requires, and has required for years, a physical agility test for all new hires, it is imperative that incumbents meet this level of performance, which can be measured by the same type of testing. Otherwise, Frederick County must discontinue administering a physical agility test to all new hires.

Sounds good right? Make a test that everyone can pass. But that didn’t work either.

One concern with Frederick County’s physical agility test is the disproportionate number of female candidates who have failed the test. Whatever the type of test used, where there is disparate impact, the test may be challenged in court, and the fire department using the test bears the responsibility of defending it.

In short, if not enough women pass then sexism is the cause and women’s groups will sue.

However, Davis cautions that “…to lower standards undermine(s) the accomplishments of those women who have achieved success on their own merits.”

It would indeed, but that doesn’t matter to the queen feminists who believe that disparity between men and women because of natural differences is some sort of patriarchal oppression or socialization. The cleverness of the feminist queen is not only displayed in her or his ability to turn a debate around on an anti-feminist but also in their ability to rally the knights and zealots to their defense. As is the role of a queen in chess, the feminist queen will follow this role to a T. They will make the claim that men only lowered the standards to trick the public into thinking that women are too weak to do what men can do. Baseless accusations and shameful tactics such as this is the feminist way and unfortunately a method that garners overwhelming support.

To beat it is again simple. One only need provide facts. After their defeat, the zealot, the knight, and the queen will end with whatever arrogant insult they can muster and find somewhere else to spread their bigotry and support of double standards. Their arguments and beliefs will reset back to their most basic functions; men are oppressing women, there are no biological differences between men and women except reproductive differences, and of course the patriarchy is all around us.

The double standards within physically demanding professions are insulting to women who have and still do dedicate themselves to passing standards that were once set forth for all but are now trivialized to appease the unfounded claims of sexism and discrimination made by feminists. I find it sad that those who say they are for equality for all and the rights of women are often in support of the exact opposite. They would rather do as I do, without the same effort.

914 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com Jared White

    @TDOM

    Hey you’re welcome. I know that there have been many who have made these observations before me but the only things I have seen the many different feminists out there called is feminists, femininazis or other more insulting words that had little to do with the tactics the bigots were using. I being a former military man and current action/fantasy/sci fi/adventure nerd I had to place a name to what I observed so I could point it out to others.

    Concerning your debate I can only shake my head. Not at you because I have been in the same boat when I first took my stand against feminists and still sometimes find myself there when I go back to the “trenches” so to speak. However, while I encourage those in the position you were in to walk away as the point has already been made and the feminist defeated, I myself would stay. I would stay to challenge those who would rally around the feminist for no other reason than the fact that they didn’t like their world view being shaken. I can assure you that most of the time when feminists crowd around one another in defense it is rarely because they are trying to defend someones’ honor. No it is because if one of them is proven wrong then the others, their world view shaken, will attempt to damage your character in hopes that whoever hears of or reads the debate will focus on the claims of you being a jerk instead of you being right and feminists being bigots. I would stay and make sure that every dishonest word spoken about what I said and how I said it was corrected and that anyone unbiased to the issues would see the raving lunatics feminists can be when they are trying to get the last word.

    But inevitably those who truly keep the feminist movement strong would eventually appear.

    Enter the white knights….but that is another story.

  • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

    Interesting. You just described a recent discussion I had with a feminist, one to whom I’m related. She fits almost perfectly your description of the knight who reverts back to the behavior of a pawn when confronted with facts. She presented what she considered a factual argument. I presented facts to refute it. She then began to use double standards to refute my facts. I called her on it and she immediately shifted her attack to a matter that was only tangental to our original discussion, but one where she could claim to be the “injured party.”

    I had offended her by the manner in which I responded to her by shifting our discussion from Facebook to another venue that I thought to be more appropriate for lengthy debate. Though she over-reacted, I understood and apologized, both in public on Facebook and in a private message. She hasn’t responded and probably won’t. But this tactic allowed her to deflect the debate which she must have realized she couldn’t win on merit, to one she could win by portraying me as an insensitive monster and herself as my victim. So far it’s worked. She gained the support of a couple of friends who criticized my behavior, but not my position in the debate. She turned a civil discussion into an attack on character.

    My reaction has been one of amusement, but finding your article has helped put it into perspective. Thanks.

  • Joe P.

    You want double standards?

    Contrary to Mr. Rudov’s assertion that women have the same libidos that men do, the young men in the U.S. military sacrifice much, much more than these days because of sexual deprivation. There are six men in uniform for every woman. Many places where U.S. troops are stationed overseas now do not allow contact between them and the local women. For me, the whores in Viet Nam made the war almost fun. Today, in the name of “human trafficking,” there is a presidential executive order forbidding GIs from engaging the services of a prostitute anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, their female counterparts can get laid any time they want, can use pregnancy to get removed from hazardous duty or aboard ship, and have the “sexual harassment” or “rape” cards to play if they don’t get their way.

  • Mr.K

    Philip at 4;28 AM
    For a moment I thought I was reading my own story. Your analysis of feminist metamorphosis is accurate and media comment right to the point. Also, feminism has now metastisized to both genders and its male supporters truly have a double-standard.

  • http://www.battlinbog.blog-city.com/ Jerry

    Jared, great article and comments.

    I don’t object to “feminism” if it means equality of the sexes. What I object to is the “feminists” who, like the big liberal media, are actually sexists parading as feminists and who have given feminism a bad name, just as Islamic terrorists have given their religion a bad name.

    As for the gender physical differences, I think it was Gene Marine who more than 30 years ago said, in his book with a chart depicting the gender size difference, that the biggest men are bigger than the biggest women, and the smallest women are smaller than the smallest men. But in between these groups are millions of men and women who are the same size!

    I say the same thing about the “gender strength difference” in “Should ‘Men Are Stronger’ Bar Women From Military Combat Roles?”
    http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/move_qualified_female_soldiers_into_ground_combat.htm

  • Phillip

    In reference to the “infamous 70′s”, I was a working stiff with two children and can attest to the fact that the more radical the feminist, the more newsworthy and reported her antics were and treated as if it were actually righteous indignation instead of what it really was: misandry.
    Today’s feminists are those like Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, the Clintons and Biden: political figures that create laws out of double standards and even make obvious anti-male sexism into laws like VAWA.
    Double standards have become the standard by which all others are judged.

  • DcFather

    Most women can handle it, but putting a toilet seat down before peeing is just too difficult for lots of women, so we need such double standards to help the lazy, stupid, and bitchy women feel better about themselves.

  • http://jmnzz.wordpress.com Jared White

    @criolle johnny

    Yeah I can see how some would perceive it that way. I try to get my exact point across with everything I write but there is always something I miss. In regards to the hundreds of thousands I was speaking in terms of how many have been let in since the lowered standards were enforced.

    The last thing I want to do is look, sound, or be anything remotely close to a feminist…*shudders*

    But even with my clarified meaning, the number is still just an educated guess from me.

    Thanks for the good comments though.

  • criolle johnny

    Loved the article. I’d like a clarification on a small point …

    “his tactic, while pathetic, is unfortunately effective when one only focuses on the unfairness the double standards represent toward men.

    As with the army PT test there are hundreds of thousands of women allowed into the military on the lowered standards the test presents.”

    The current force is less than 600,000 troops. About 14% are female. Your hyperbole on THAT point is almost feminist.

    As I said, loved the article, that point could have been better phrased.

    Keep plugging pal!

  • The Man On The Street

    at 6-2 plus and 300 pounds.. I’d rather have a good sized fireman that can pass a REAL test save my ass than some widdow patootie with a gender axe to grind who got in cause she can do situps and nothing more.

    TMOTS

  • steven deluca

    I studied exercise physiology. Sit ups are like the rules for not resting your arms on the table when you eat. Short, fat ass women with narrow weaks shoulders can do sit ups all day long. Not much upper body weight and not much leverage.

    But the truth is – many young men don’t do well either. My friend Gregg is a 61 year old black man with AIDS, had AIDS for years. My friend Ron is a 63 year-old boozer. Tom is a 65 five year old that smoked 40 years and drinks too much scotch each night and I am 63 with a screw in my hip, two screws in my right shoulder, have anemia, had cancer two or three years ago, and we could go into any high school or college PC class and take a phyisal fitness test and beat most of the boys.

    Sounds like a lie doesn’t it. Gregg can ride his bike from San Fran to Santa Cruz CA. Tom runs the running group. Ron has a weight room, chin-up bar and works out an hour a day. I can do 40 push-ups, ten chin-ups which is much less than before cancer. Meanwhile the boys in our society are on their butts playing video games … ya, the top 2% the warrior class, and they top five percent, the jocks would make us look like old men but we would make the average guy look like a sissy. I do know women who kick ass and they would be great soldiers and fireman. But making tests to fit weak people is wrong. PC wrong.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search