Behavorial Standards
#1
Posted 04 March 2012 - 12:32 AM
#2
Posted 04 March 2012 - 01:20 AM
I think not higher standards, but different standards. It's comparing apples and oranges. If a man is dressed a bit blandly or has dirt under his nails I would not consider that strange or "low". Yet with a woman it would seem a bit off.
At the same time women typically can have little to not motivation career wise and this can be considered acceptable whereas it would seem a bit unacceptable in a man. I can't think of any better examples right now...
I think for example, if a woman sleeps with another person it is more offensive than if a man did it. Whereas a man being cheap on a date or towards his wife is less acceptable than a woman expecting others to pay for her etc.
#3
Posted 04 March 2012 - 01:23 AM
#4
Posted 04 March 2012 - 02:17 AM
#5
Posted 04 March 2012 - 03:56 PM
#6
Posted 04 March 2012 - 04:27 PM
#7
Posted 04 March 2012 - 06:18 PM
Absolutely not. Why would you ask that?Should women be held to higher standards than men?
#8
Posted 04 March 2012 - 08:20 PM
#9
Posted 05 March 2012 - 09:30 AM
No.Should women be held to higher standards than men?
#10
Posted 05 March 2012 - 09:40 AM
It isn't an ego thing either, quite the opposite. It reflects Adams answer to God after the sin.
#11
Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:26 PM
"I discovered that all the participating members here are 'black sheep' in their own circles. On Hashkafah.com, the mainstream is truly wacked." Silent J
"H.com becomes a proverbial Hotel California for many of us" Nooch
#12
Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:37 PM
#13
Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:45 PM
No it's not because it totally depends on the issue. SOMETIMES Men are held to a "higher" standard and sometimes chicks are, but there is no rule across the board...We can say different does not equal higher, but it's just semantics.
#14
Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:55 PM
For example?No it's not because it totally depends on the issue. SOMETIMES Men are held to a "higher" standard and sometimes chicks are, but there is no rule across the board...
#15
Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:36 PM
That's absurd.We can say different does not equal higher, but it's just semantics.
Different does not mean that one is overall "higher".
________________________________
"Frumkeit without Mentchlichkeit is not Yiddishkeit!" - Razie
"If you don't sin... Jesus died for nothing."
"because teaching is all about obscuration and obfuscation.." - Snag
#16
Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:29 PM
"I discovered that all the participating members here are 'black sheep' in their own circles. On Hashkafah.com, the mainstream is truly wacked." Silent J
"H.com becomes a proverbial Hotel California for many of us" Nooch
#17
Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:54 PM
Which makes your previous statement about semantics incorrect.But sometimes it does. And sometimes it doesn't.
________________________________
"Frumkeit without Mentchlichkeit is not Yiddishkeit!" - Razie
"If you don't sin... Jesus died for nothing."
"because teaching is all about obscuration and obfuscation.." - Snag
#18
Posted 08 March 2012 - 03:05 PM
"I discovered that all the participating members here are 'black sheep' in their own circles. On Hashkafah.com, the mainstream is truly wacked." Silent J
"H.com becomes a proverbial Hotel California for many of us" Nooch
#19
Posted 08 March 2012 - 05:56 PM
Exactly.Sometimes things are just semantics and sometimes they aren't.
________________________________
"Frumkeit without Mentchlichkeit is not Yiddishkeit!" - Razie
"If you don't sin... Jesus died for nothing."
"because teaching is all about obscuration and obfuscation.." - Snag
#20
Posted 09 March 2012 - 04:58 PM
"I discovered that all the participating members here are 'black sheep' in their own circles. On Hashkafah.com, the mainstream is truly wacked." Silent J
"H.com becomes a proverbial Hotel California for many of us" Nooch
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users







