I laughed for quite a while at this one.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Uhm well that isn't equality... Paying your share of the dinner bill or taking turns, whoever gets to the door first holds it open, if her jacket fits him he should be able to borrow it if he's cold, and the 'women and children' first is illegal where I live anyway (it was only introduced because men were trampling the women and children to get to life boats) and now people have to leave based on their seating not gender. So yes it is equality what I want/ already live by.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

ikr this post is like saying afrimative action is equality.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You maybe. Others don't think the same way. That's the reason for the post

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The post is directed at women who oppose double standards...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's why he is pointing out the contradiction. There are women who would claim to "oppose double standards" but would still fall under the subject if the post

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you claim you are something but your actions prove something else then what you say should be ignored. The post didn't say anything about women who act contradictory to saying they oppose double standards it only talked about the women who do oppose double standards. Regardless the post isn't promoting equality it is just trying to flip the double standards.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think OP meant the opportunity for these to happen. Not for them happening to be the norm. If it was the norm then that's just a switched role, not equality. I rarely have a woman pay for dinner for me, have never had one offer me clothing when it's cold (even if it was a jacket that looked fine for a guy, ceterus peribus), the women and children first is odd though...But I see what OP means.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Combating double standards by making more double standards...makes sense.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm sure every female who read this post is thinking, "Oh no!!!! I'd have to open my own doors??!! I change my mind!!" The whole equality argument isn't about that. It's about equal rights for everyone, both men and women. Of course if a man wants to show his love for a woman by paying for her meal then great, but he shouldn't feel obligated to just as much as a woman shouldn't feel obligated to let him pay because of some expired rule of society. The times have changed. It's not that chivalry is dead, it's that it goes both ways now. I mean, I never understood why a woman wouldn't want free meals but if giving them up means you're not seen as a lesser human being it makes sense.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah... Most guys feel emasculated to admit they're cold, and wouldnt want their GF to suffer the cold in their place. Also, the paying for dinner thing came about because women didn't have incomes. Now that they do, men still feel emasculated when the woman should pay because she earns more, and pay anyway. People get emergency exits and lifeboats by seat position, not gender. And besides, even if all that was true, we should give women more stuff because they are less privileged. We can go for that level of equality after overall equality.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I hate this argument, it's almost as ridiculous as the "if women want equal rights, men should be allowed to hit them" argument. If you ever want to get laid, I suggest you be a gentleman and start paying tabs and holding doors open. I also understand this was probably meant to be funny, but its way too overused.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

that whole women and children thing getting to go first in an emergency is FALSE. There was a study done on it (in relation to ships). The only reason people think its true is because of one rare exception that was rather famous: ie the titanic.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Where did you see this? Not because I don't believe you but because I find it interesting.

by Anonymous 11 years ago