Well, my personal favorite double standards are the ones that vary, depending on what race or class the woman is!

My all-time favorite: the motherhood double standard. As in: of course, since motherhood is the most important job in the world (as we can all see how our society rewards it so lavishly) and since it's the ultimate in female happiness and fulfillment, educated, middle-class white women should give up (or at least dramatically downscale) any kind of serious career, so they can stay home and make peanut butter sandwiches for the kids (who would of course fall apart without the 24/7 presence of selfless maternal care).

Oh, but . . . if you're not white and middle class? If you're a poor woman of color? Well, sorry dear, all that doesn't apply to *you.* Don't you dare think *you* should have the option of staying home and caring for your kids, you shameless hussy, you! Especially if you need government assistance to care for your family. Oh, no -- you, my dear, are morally obligated to find a job, any job, and park your kids in daycare, so some other woman will have the exciting career opportunity to look after them for minimum wage. Don't forget, dear -- it's your sacred duty to work. Because taking care of kids is not really "work", of course. And you need to show our wise and beloved political leaders how delighted you are to be showing your all-American enthusiasm, drive, and commitment to "personal responsibility." So you go, girl! Just be sure to take a job, any job. And arrange it so that anyone but you yourself is actually taking care of your kids.

Whore/player double standard. Guys asking if she fucks you on the first date, is she a whore. What the fuck guys? You fucked her on the first date too!

My personal peeve is that you can't be strong, confident and in control in the workplace without being a bitch.

Whatever, you can't be strong, confident and in control ANYWHERE without being a bitch.

I'm going to second MissMay12's comment, in part because I find myself defending those strong, confident women in the workplace against those charges of bitchiness.

Something that's always struck me as particularly ridiculous is how women are put on a pedestal -- women are angels, women are good, women are the moral compass of men/men are savage beasts who need women to tame them, which is why we ought to protect our virtue, etc. -- and yet, even though we're apparently so much better than men, still men are the ones who ought to be and get to be in charge.

I mean, imagine if a presidential candidate said "the other candidate is a much better person than I am, but you should still vote for me anyway." Like, how is that a reason to vote for THAT candidate?

I suppose everyone's top-of-the-list double standard is the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" when it comes to sex.

But my favorite (well, not favorite - but non-favorite?) is the double-standard about motherhood and race for women.

It seems society wants women to embrace motherhood and makes it out to be the greatest job in the world ...but because of the intersectionality of race and class, this only applies for white women.

It seems like only white women who are capable and career-driven are being asked to stay home and be mothers, while single, poor, uneducated minority women living on government assistance are being asked to actually leave the home and their children (God forbid!) to pursue a career.

I ...just ...don't ...get it.

When a mother spends time with her kids, it's called parenting. When a father does, it's "babysitting". Grrrr.

I love the double standards that begin in childhood, especially around toys. First off, there are girl toys (tea sets, Barbies) and there are boy toys (guns, dumptrucks). Boy toys are adventurous, girl toys involve involve cooking and being pretty. But secondly, girls can generally play with Tonka trucks or building blocks with no problems, but if a boy wants to play dress-up or with a doll, he is shooed away. Feminine toys are not for boys, because, gasp!, that seems so gay.

A man can hold a door for me, which I graciously accept; but when I try to do the same for some men, they shake their heads, seize the door from my hands, and say "No thanks". Apparently men are allowed to be helpful but women are not, at least not if the help involves strength or their implicit assumption that they are too weak to hold a door.

1. When men are attracted to hot, (often younger) women with a luscious head of hair, it's a biological trait that ensures survival of the species, and they simply can't help it anyway! When women are attracted to hot, (often younger) men with a luscious head of hair, we're "shallow."

2. Women belong in the kitchen, unless it's attached to a restaurant.

I hate that a man is never judged by the cleanliness of his home, but women are always blamed for the lack of cleanliness in theirs, no matter how many other people live there! Just because I'm a woman I'm supposed to like to clean?

I don't know if this is a widespread thing, but... double standard in banking:

Adult woman with secure, full time, employment having to get her father, husband/partner, brother to cosign in order for her to get a loan.

Men with comparable life situations (in my experience) don't seem to need their mothers to cosign for them. [gasp]

This is more than one woman of my acquaintance.

!!!!

Slight variation on Jane Minty's #1:

When men are attracted to hot, younger women, it's "just natural -- can't fight biology, man."

When women are attracted to rich, older, handsome men, it's because they're shameless golddiggers with daddy complexes.

Women belong in the kitchen, unless it's attached to a restaurant.

I find that one is generally limited to high-end restaurants. It tends to even out the lower you go, although I noticed when I worked in food service that women were more dominant in the prep part of restaurant cooking while the men were slightly ahead in the line cook category.

Mine HAS to be this little gem:
In the UK girls have started to out perform boys year on year in secondary school examinations. Prior to that-when boys did better-no-one raised questions around that, after all boys are naturally brighter or whatever-but as soon as girls started achieving better grades, it was all about the teaching methods being inappropriate for boys and was seen as a huge national intelligence problem. Nice. On that note, men are always argued to be physically stronger (obviously rubbish), but girls cleverer-not a chance!

The attractiveness double-standard, especially in regard to entertainment. Namely, a man starring in a big-budget Hollywood movie can look like Seth Rogen (who I love; don't get me wrong), but for a woman to do the same she should look like Katherine Heigl.

Related: A dude can be considered funny whether or not he's attractive, but for a women to be funny she should preferably be frumpy looking.

Oh, and...

3. Mother's Day advertising: diamonds, flowers. Father's Day ads: tools, electronics. My mom sure preferred plasma to diamonds.

4. If women want to get married, they're clingy. If men want to get married, they're respectable and responsible.

If women DON'T want to get married, they're weird. If men DON'T want to get married, they're normal.

5. While not a male-female double standard, why are cat ladies considered nutters as opposed to dog ladies? Have any of these people seen the ladies on 5th Av and their toy pups??

If a man is angry, it's probably for a good reason. If a woman is angry, she's probably PMS-ing.

My teacher was a woman taking classes at Harvard in the days when it was still unusual for women to be attending actual Harvard, instead of the adjacent women's college, Radcliffe. Walking into a building one morning with her fellow students, she reached the door, just to have it slammed in her face. The man not only shut the door on her, he waited just inside for her. "If you want to take classes with us," he told her, "you can open your own goddamned doors." "That's funny," she replied, "because I would have opened it for you."

Definitely the weight double standard. Jordin Sparks wins American Idol and sparks debates on obesity and health. Sean Kingston, significantly more ample, is everywhere and I haven't heard similar "health concerns" or criticism for being a poor role model. One example of a gazillion.

Incertus: true, though I still read about this now and then...what always amazed me most about that was was more the reverse scenario: men make the best chefs, but it's ok for the "average" guy to be clueless in the kitchen (thankfully, this isn't the case with my dude!).

Melanie: where do you live? that brought a chill to me just now, because I remember my mother bitching about this very thing in the early 80s (we were in Michigan at the time). My father had gone bankrupt 10 years before, and her credit was ruined temporarily because of it. I know it wasn't simply a case of joint assets, but this was during a time in which a woman had to get her husband to cosign for certain things. Even as a kid, this struck me as horribly wrong and highly illogical.

Mine is the double standard of literature; women are expected to write about filghty things suchy as 'chick lit', and men write the classics. Because men, shopping, and diets are all women think about. I submit my work in school, I'm always second-guessed and edited, and the boys write drivel praised as intellectual genius. It's like Shakespeare's Sister, only in modern times.

Yes, it's 1. Sexual double standards, and 2. Assertiveness/work double standards which piss me off the most.

And I'm not sure if this is really a "double standard", but I am continually infuriated by the cultural narrative that women who get abortions are brazen, irresponsible sluts, but at the same time are clueless children who are taken advantage of by opportunistic doctors.

I'm still rather fond of "What's the difference between a slut and a bitch?" "A slut sleeps with everyone, and a bitch sleeps with everyone but you." It's pretty much how a lot of sad little straight misogynists feel, and it's pretty pathetic.

The other one that bugs me is the parenting double standard. If a man is a good father, and tends to his children well, and with great patience, everyone goes "well done for him, got to admire a man who loves his children." Now if a woman does the same, it's either a) completely ignored and taken as for granted in the society, or b) coddling and infantilizing and generally making her children into incompetent weaklings who will never amount to anything because mommy always gave them everything without having to work for it.

If a man calls off work because his kid's in a play that afternoon, he's St. Dad. If a woman does it, she "needs her priorities straightened" and is viewed as disloyal to her job and to her family. It's much the same if a parent brings his/her child in to the office with them one day.

I'm also irked by the constant stream of "it's only disproportionately male when it's convient" sexist appologists. You know them, the ones that argue that men are special because they're more likely to be soldiers, firefighters, cops, etc., but, when a devil's advocate points out that they're also disproportionately child molestors, rapists and serial killers, then, suddenly, the whole thing changes into a discussion of how you can't lump everyone in a particular group together. Then they rant about stereotyping, and suddenly, you're called a Nazi.

Which is the other thing, BTW. "Feminazis." What. The. Hell. I was under the impression grown ups knew that comparing a person, movement or idea akin to Nazism requires, at bare minimum, a connection to genocide. Comparing Rwanda to the Nazis? Fair enough. Comparing main stream non-mass murdering movements to the Nazis? Not so much. Why is it that, for some reason, when a person argues for women's rights, suddenly, that standard of adult conversation errodes?

The court pre-supposing that in a divorce, the children belong with their mother. The burden of proof is on the father to prove that they should live with him. Men seeking custody are "dodging support payments" or "trying to hurt her".

woo hoo you are going to write another book! so pumped.

my #1 is a woman has sex and she is a slut, a man has sex, he is cool

#2- men don't have to choose between a career and raising children...if he works, he is not seen as a "bad" father. if a woman works and chooses not to stay at home with her children she is a "bad" mother. also if a father does choose to be a stay at home dad, he is a saint! no such recognition for stay at home moms...it's just expected...and she is basically evil if she does not stay at home to raise her children.

#3 men who are not very attractive calling out women who are not attractive (according to societal norms) rush limbaugh said during the clinton administration that chelsea was not attractive (in meaner words obviously)...who is he to talk? rush limbaugh is no brad pitt. all women have to be beautiful all the time and if not they are worthless and ugly, while white men run around ruling our country and no one says a damn thing

true, Werechick. I support maternity and paternity leaves, but it still seems as though men who take paternity leave are regarded as heroes while for the women it's expected (other than physical necessity).

Jer, I agree completely.

anybody else really fired up after reading all of these? jesus..

anyway, my favorite has to do with gender and clothing.
look around when you go out, and what it means to look nice for different people. in college or out at bars countless men are wearing shorts or jeans and t-shirts, while most women took 1-2 hours to get ready. If i woman were to go out wearing the same thing a man does, she would look sloppy, wheras he looks good. I, not conforming to gender demands, am constantly frustrated over the idea that if my brother wears shorts and a polo shirt he looks hot, and if i wear the same i look lazy.

I work in health care technology. Like all tech fields, it's highly male dominated.

Some of my (least) favorites...
If I am assertive in my opinions, I am a know-it-all bitch
If I am aloof to vulgar conversations and jokes, I don't have a senso of humor or I'm a prude. But if I pay attention and am inevitably offended, I can't take a joke and I'm trying to cause waves.
If a male tech makes a mistake during a repair or troubleshooting, well, stuff happens. If I make a mistake, my thought process, education, and intelligence are called into question.
On a side note, I've taken to wearing a sports bra to work, to minimize my breasts. I find I am taken more seriously when I do this. Apparently techincal skill is inversely proportional to breast size.

I second the class/race emphasis on women's options. That's crucial to talk about. Here's one that might not effect that many women, but it points to the underlying double standards associated with women/work/attractiveness. I just graduated from Divinity school and I was the Feminist group co-chair. We used to hold a variety of panel discussions and brown-bag lunches on topics regarding women and ministry. One panel was on "Sex and the Single Seminarian" or Minister. Our guest, an early 30-something, liberal, Presbyterian minister got us talking about how difficult it can be to date (heterosexually especially, though still in some denominations, same-sex dating is furtherly complicated by ordination considerations--the UU's, UCC's, and Episcopalians are pretty cool with same-sex relationships, but I digress)...anyway, back to heterodating, the young, male minister is considered a catch (and the young male rabbi, some female rabbis have this problem too). However, the young, female clergywoman is NOT considered generally a catch, especially if she's trying to do something not involving child-care or youth groups. If she's trying to actually be the preacher, to represent the church, etc. dating is extremely hard (of course, dating anyone in your congregation is a no-no, but some male ministers still do it despite official discouragement as a result of sexual abuses and unequal power issues that are more talked about today). Anyway, dating just in one's town (or even through the internet) becomes really difficult for young women in the clergy because of a number of issues, like 1. perception that she is not a sexual being, or 2. taking a position of traditional male-dominated power means she's a ball-buster or similar or 3. ministry is a demanding job that really requires a wife (literally, many churches look for male pastors with a wife who will work for the church for free, organizing the childcare, etc. They want two for one, but with women, you get a husband who presumably has his own career or she's single).

Part of why I'm going into non-profit and social justice work is that I don't want to be a parish minister in my 20's, single because of the baggage...also, I really want to have an impact on the broader community and help bring about economic, environmental, racial, GBLTQ and gender-justice and I think I can do that better working in community organizing, fundraising, and writing instead of preaching to the choir (I'm a UU (Unitarian Universalist) and the vast majority of our congregants hold progressive social views). But, I will not pretend that someday I might not go into parish ministry, I might, but as a woman (even in a church that has a majority female ministry), being single and wanting to partner/have kids is harder to do in that profession as a woman than as a man because its all on you. (oh, plus most denominations make individuals negotiate for maternity leave before signing the contracts, so if a woman asks for that, then they church board knows she wants kids and they're less likely to offer her the job because they don't have to offer maternity leave by law...some sympathetic male clergy members have become aware of this and are now asking for paternity leave even if they are past having their children because they don't want women discriminated against, but that's only a small number of men and when you have a 60-something asking for paternity leave in solidarity, that's kind, but logically they're going to see the 20/30-something asking and anticipating that she'll use it and he won't...we need mandatory maternity leave in this country damnit)...

Anyway, another perspective.

Peace

The worst is the sexual double standard, but the appearance double standard is a close second.

I'm very tired of unattractive older men with big bellies who say they'll only date much younger, slender women. Those same men then complain that women are only dating them for their money; wtf, the men are only dating the women for their looks!

Just to continue Heroine's point--when a woman writes about relationships she has written chick lit at best, but for addressing the same themes Jeffrey Eugenides is a literary hero, and the sub-Harlequin romance "The Bridges of Madison County," which a dude condescended to give us (in the early 90s), becomes a big-budget studio film with Streep and Eastwood.

Great subject - we all have examples. I remember traveling in Nicaragua, briefly in the company of a male English speaker. I would ask a local a question, for directions, and the local would answer to my friend, who didn't understand Spanish. I would even say, "he doesn't understand Spanish," but the local guy would always blithely continue. Even with language skills, I didn't quite count as person enough to have a conversation with - the male was the one to talk to. My friend thought it was a hoot. He'd watch the hand signals, say thank you, and laugh and laugh.

How about engagement rings? Two people decide to get married, but only one of them is marked as "taken"?

I think my favorite is:

Women are a moral compass/responsible for original sin.

Women are pure/can't be trusted with their own sexuality.

You know, the same old same old.

This has already been touched on, but my (least) favorite is the work/family thing. When a man has children it means he's more stable, ready for more responsibility, more mature and thus ready to advance further at work. When a woman has children it means her priorities have shifted, she's less dedicated to the company, she needs to be given less responsibility . . .

p.s. Jessica, if you would like an interview for your book with a couple single-female ministers (feminists), I could arrange that for you...or a couple female rabbis...I think that the idea of THE JOB WITH AUTHORITY as made literal in ordination really does uncover how gendered professions/power-structures are.

p.p.s. I could also arrange meetings with Neo-pagan priestesses who could talk about literal gendered incarnations of spiritual leadership...oh, and ditto for Buddhist practioners (I even know one trans-woman Buddhist nun). I've got connections across the country, so feel free to inquire if I could be of use...I believe my email addy is contained in the login info.

Oh, how could I forget my other favorite? Two girls kissing vs. two men kissing, sexual orientation of anyone notwithstanding.

I've seen this enough:

Men are counted as people. Attractive and/or young women are counted as people -- second class, but still, they're people.

Middle aged women who do not maintain the facade of youth fade away and aren't noticed by society at large. They are not counted as people -- until they do something drastic to "update" their appearance or otherwise try to recapture youth and beauty.

It's so friggin' sad.

I don’t know if this counts or not, but I think the portrayal of women in Christianity is interesting. For instance, you have all these women that are portrayed as wicked, sinful, untrustworthy, etc. However, even with that pattern, it doesn’t change the fact that the whole religion is based on a woman's word - that Mary wasn’t lying about her virginity and was really impregnated by god.

Similar to what's been said before about weight, but maybe a different look and one I worry about a lot. I have a four year old daughter and I have to fight myself from feeling pleased that she's sort of skinny. I have a five year old nephew and have to fight myself from being worried that he's sort of skinny. The weight double standard is really insidious.

Okay maybe this is petty b