We are Forerunners. Guardians of all that exists. The roots of the Galaxy have grown deep under our careful tending. Where there is life, the wisdom of our countless generations has saturated the soil. Our strength is a luminous sun, towards which all intelligence blossoms... And the impervious shelter beneath which it has prospered.
A while back, a College-Educated Feminist and I were listening to a random selection of tracks (playing from a set of CDs she selected). A track by John Mayer came on. I think I made an offhand comment about Taylor Swift at some point during that song- something do to with how every time she bangs a guy and then breaks up with him, she writes a song about him. This provoked some sort of reaction along the lines of, "well John Mayer can write a song about every girl he's ever been with and everyone's cool with that, but when Taylor Swift does it, everyone hates on her. It's such a double standard!".
My response was, of course, a censored and appropriately humble version of "woman, you gotta be sh*ttin' me."
This did not go down well.
In fact I'm pretty sure I was only saved from being tossed head first out of that particular moving vehicle by the fact that someone else butted in with another topic du jour.
Having had some time to think about this, all I can say is that feminists who complain about double standards have no clue what they are talking about. (I realise that this is to be expected of feminists, but let us give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment; they are, after all, women, even if in name only.)
The problem with this notion of double standards comes from the serious error in logic that feminists keep making- they keep assuming that men and women are the same, and therefore have the same standards. Of course, this is quite obviously untrue, as I just mentioned in my previous post. To understand the problem fully, it is necessary to realise two very important axiomatic facts:
Women are the gatekeepers of sex
Men are the gatekeepers of commitment
Think upon this for a moment and you will surely see why it is true. No man is able to have sex with a woman, short of forcing himself upon her through rape, without her direct consent. And no woman is ever able to force a man to commit to her without resorting to violent and illegal measures. In fact, it is precisely because such violence directly challenges the right of each sex to its own "property", if you will, that civilised societies have throughout history punished both rape and marriage under false pretenses.
Once you understand this, it only takes a small amount of simple economic analysis, and a little bit of understanding of evolutionary genetics, to understand precisely why it is that loose women, and foolish men, are held in contempt by the rest of us. This thought exercise should also serve as a useful reminder as to why feminists are so thoroughly inept at both logical and rhetorical argument, and thus are always forced to resort, by default, to emotional arguments.
Let us start with the economic argument. Think for a moment upon the nature of "luxury goods". Luxury goods are valuable to people because they have a perceived higher value- but mostly because they are rare. A Ferrari, or an Aston Martin, is not necessarily a better product in terms of value than a Toyota or a Lexus- but is far more rare and as a result has higher perceived value to you and me. The same is true of an expensive cologne versus a cheap aftershave, or a costly handbag versus a department store imitation.
The same holds true of a woman who is chaste. Because she has preserved her sexual value, she is automatically given a far higher value by men (and women, though they hate to admit it) than a streetwalker. And the exact same argument applies to a man who carefully commits only to a single chosen mate; it is with very good reason that men who go through two or more divorces are held in contempt by the rest of us. They continuously devalue their own perceived market status and value by selling themselves out cheaply. Once you realise that men and women have different starting standards, and are valued for different things, you quickly realise that the entire argument about double standards simply falls apart. There is no double standard whatsoever, since the initial standards are so completely different.
One last point should be enough to convince all but the most loony feminists of the futility of this odious double-standard nonsense. I'm currently reading a rather good book called The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. In the opening pages of this book, he points out that men evolved to take risks because that is what gave them genetic and therefore sexual advantages over their competitors and over nature; by contrast, women who took risks put themselves, and therefore the propagation of their genetic line, in danger, and were rapidly weeded out. There could not be a clearer demonstration of the consequences of the axioms above than this. Women who indulge in risky behaviour through sex with many men are, in evolutionary terms, less fit to adapt and survive than women who secure their genetic code for future generations by preserving their value and engaging in sex only with carefully selected mates of high quality.
None of this, of course, will make the slightest sense to the College Educated Feminists of this world. I have found (often through painful firsthand experience) that logic and reason are largely beyond their grasp. I do not (yet) have Vox Day's impeccable and brutal skill in making short work of such stupidity when I hear it; I'm the sort that likes to mull things over and take my time, and conversation is a remarkably bad medium for that sort of interaction. But if this set of arguments helps you take on Righteously Indignant College Educated Feminists of your social circle and makes them look stupid in the process, then by all means, please do proceed.
And just to show what an amazingly Open-Minded Tolerant Person I am, here's a mashup of Taylor Swift and DISTURBED, which is a dramatic improvement on both original songs: