What is wrong with having standards?

Great Debates
1

So over the last few weeks I’ve either started participated in a number of threads that revolve around the idea of social and behavioral expectations. I see this is a pretty common theme around here, even though it’s usually explored as a component of a more specific problem. So here goes:

What is wrong with having standards?

Earlier today I was participating in the thread regarding transgendered people and bathroom usage. I put forward the Army as an example of an organization where behavioral (and specifically gender) standards were non-negotiable. I was rather humiliated to learn that even the Army is about to concede the question of transgendered members, which really, really pisses me off.

I should explain my specific objection: When I was growing up, the standard for what constituted “manly” behavior was very clear. Men are expected to be strong and athletic, demonstrate integrity and courage, enjoy manly pursuits (most of which revolved around sports and beer) and, above all, display emotional control and stoicism. I was not terribly good at being manly. In fact, I got abused a LOT because I failed to meet these expectations. But the important part, as I see it, is that when I failed to meet the standard I improved myself and changed my behavior. I never expected anyone to lower the standard to suit me.

This is (one of) the biggest problems I have with transgendered people. I see Bruce Jenner dressing like a woman on the cover of magazines and people say he is “Brave.” Since when? When I was growing up, the worst possible sin a man could commit was to be “girly” or behave in a woman-like fashion. The very concept that a man would actually dress like a woman, or pretend to be a woman, was utterly contemptible.

I don’t mean for this thread to be entirely about transgendered rights. Rather, I use this as an example of how social standards have deteriorated over the years. It used to be that what constituted “good manners” and “proper conduct” was universally understood. Now society seems to have embraced the idea that anyone can do anything they want, no matter how vile, stupid, or criminal it might be. There is no universal standard for what consitutes correct behavior or achievement. This has led to mass anomie that is starting to be recognized by researchers as extremely detrimental to young adults: Without any agreed-upon basis for social roles or behavioral role models, we let our children just drift through life and deal with depression and suicide as a result.

To return to the example of the military: When I was growing up I had no interest in sports or athletics. Since physical fitness is an important part of military standards, I got off my ass and started working hard until I met the standard. I didn’t sit around and cry about whether it was fair, or try to sue the government for expecting me to exercise, or any bullshit like that. I worked hard and I overcame my weaknesses and I succeeded.

I also remember going to my warrant officer training just a few years ago. The instructors were very big on crushing anything they regarded as “tacky.” “Tacky,” in their world, meant anything that was not expressly forbidden, but was nonetheless undesirable because it was unprofessional. Now I’m reading articles about people allowing transgendered people in the Army, and I’m like, “WTF?” When I’m a kid I get beat up for not being manly enough, in the Army I get shit on for not being professional enough, but now somebody can just show up dressed like a girl and everyone is supposed to be okay with it? Since when?

I think the emergence of rampant subcultures and counter-cultures is a big byproduct of this phenomenon. Once I learned about Nietzche’s Genealogy of Morals, I started seeing the same phenomenon everywhere: Any subculture that doesn’t/can’t meet the standard stops trying and instead rejects the idea of conventional morality. They instead impose their own ideas of morality that they CAN achieve and thereby subvert those of us who work hard to achieve what we have. So in the end, nothing means anything. There is no good or bad, nothing to strive for, and no amount of achievement that universally agreed upon as being admirable. Lord knows the Army is probably the best example of this at work, because the rest of the world can’t even agree on whether we are “heroes” or “criminals.”

So here’s my big question: What happened to the idea of having standards, and why was having standards a bad thing?

2

Can we move this to the Pit? It’s not up to GD standards, I feel.

3

I think it’s a perfectly legitimate question.

4

I disagree - it’s a reasonable phrased question and I don’t see a need to put this in the Pit at this time. Chihuahua’s viewpoint is a minority one here, but that doesn’t in and of itself make it pitworthy. Of course, the mods may or may not agree with me.

5

You need to disassociate your concept of “standards” from the idea of morality.

6

Funny how it’s almost always the people who don’t have to actually try that hard to conform to those standards who champion them most of the time, isn’t it? Just like conservative Christians seem to fight hardest against those sins that they don’t feel all that tempted to commit.

Of course, sometimes it’s people who have a REALLY hard time keeping to those standards who champion them the most, because they don’t trust their own ability to do so if other people are “allowed” to do so.

So which category are you in, Chihuahua?

7

Also, when those standards are the reason for large amounts of suicides and attempted suicides…perhaps they’re not GOOD standards?

8

Nothing wrong with having standards.

Some standards, though, are unreasonable, unjust, and even outright wrong. Therefore they need modifying, replacing, abandoning or being made optional.

That does not mean of course that we must abandon ALL standards. There is such a thing as justifiedly discriminating. I want my pilots to have good eyesight and steady nerves. I want my firefighters to be able to carry casualties. I want my medical and legal professionals to be highly competent and ethical. But the standards have to be relevant to the mission.

9

If your standards are ignorant, hateful, bigoted, and/or prejudiced…then you have your answer right there.

You don’t understand the difference between sex and gender, you handwave away a century of research on the physiology and psychology of transgender, you don’t seem concerned at all about the best course of treatment, and you ignore the fact that Caitlyn Jenner in a dress has no freaking impact on you or your life. But you deliberately misgendered and dead-named her, and called contemptible.

Your “standards” are hating transgender people, calling them deviant, deliberately and maliciously misgendering them, and wanting to restrict their rights and most effective treatment options, is destructive to them as a group and individually. And this is why your “standards” suck.

10

Chihuahua, I want to see if we can find some common ground. Can you answer some questions?

  1. Are all standards equal?
  2. Is it conceivable that some traditional standards are bullshit standards that are bad?
  3. If someone wants a standard changed, are they inevitably asking to “lower” the standard?

Here are my answers, so it doesn’t seem like I’m trying for a gotcha:

  1. There’s nothing wrong with having standards–but IMO not all standards are equal. A standard that requires people to treat others with respect and to let people live their lives they way they see fit is a great standard. A standard that tells boys they shouldn’t cry is not a great standard.
  2. Many traditional standards are bullshit standards. Specifically, MOST traditional gender standards are bullshit standards. Telling women they should be submissive to their husbands, telling men they shouldn’t show emotion, telling girls they should prioritize appearance over intelligence–these are all traditional gender standards, but they do nothing to make life better.
  3. Much of the time, asking for standards to change comprises an improvement, not a request for lowering standards. However, often the focus of the standards-request changes. For example, Bob, a traditionalist, tells his brilliant daughter Mary to give up her dream of being a biologist, because no man will want to marry a girl smarter than him. He tells her to focus on making herself attractive to boys. This is the sort of bullshit standard that should be changed. If you focus on Mary, it may look like standards are being lowered: I’m gonna tell Mary not to worry about being attractive to boys until that’s something she personally decides to care about, and that sounds like a lowered standard. However, I’m also going to tell Bob that he’s being a despicable parent with shitty standards for his own behavior, and he seriously needs to up his parenting game. For Bob, the standard is getting raised dramatically.

In that transgender thread, nobody was attacking you for having standards. I, and others, clearly hold people to very high standards of behavior. The reason you were getting so much pushback is because I, and others, think the standards you’re defending are terrible bullshit standards, and the standards you’re ignoring (Live and Let Live, for example) are excellent standards.

You cannot reasonably defend yourself by suggesting you’re the only one with standards. You need to show why your standard of Men Should Dress Like Men is a superior standard to Live and Let Live.

11

What was the purpose of applying these standards? In what context were they applicable? Whom did the standards serve? Who benefited? Was anyone harmed? Was society served? How? Was society harmed? Why should any particular person be subject to these particular standards?

Also, are you under the impression that these standards were ever universal or timeless? Because you would be wrong about that.

Taking Jenner as an example, why is this vile, stupid, or criminal? Who is harmed? Who benefits?

12

Those standards are societal ones. They are not automatically “high” standards, they are merely specific standards. And they are standards to which you chose to conform.

I do not choose to conform to those standards. (Well, not all of them; I want everyone to aspire to integrity and courage.) I find many of them–sports and beer–to be silly, and others–emotional stoicism–outright harmful. They are not objectively better standards just because you grew up thinking they are.

13

Nothing.

However, by entering into this forum you have encountered a place that has different standards than you do.

A couple of generations ago it was non-negotiable that women did not belong in the army. That changed early in the 20th Century. Even military standards can change with time. Currently, they are undergoing yet another change.

And why do you find it “humiliating” that the army has changed its mind about something?

What if a man isn’t strong, or athletic, though? Maybe he’s still an intelligent person, and a reliable worker and breadwinner, good father, and caring spouse… would you still consider him a failure if he wasn’t physically strong or athletic? Are men in your world defined solely by their physical prowess and nothing else? They can have no other worth than that? Or is honesty, intelligence, and integrity just as important (maybe even more so in some contexts?)

One of the standards here that that abusing people, for whatever reason, is wrong.

Why do you assume a different standard is a lower standard?

OK, so we know where your viewpoint comes from.

Now, what is your response to “contemptible” people who, in your view, crossdress? Do you disagree but let them alone as long as no societal laws are broken? Do you advocate beating them senseless? There’s quite a distance between those two responses.

Adolescent/young adult depression and abuse are nothing new. We, as a society, do talk about it more than 100 years ago when people who killed themselves were denied normal burial and never spoken of, as if they had never existed.

I fail to see where meeting military fitness standards requires an interest in athletics. It sounds like you forced yourself to watch football or something. Did you? Or did you go out an exercise not because you enjoyed it but because you needed to get into shape to meet a personal goal of being successful in the military? My understanding is that the military doesn’t give a damn if you like sports or not, the only thing the military cares about is that you can meet the fitness standards. They don’t care how you meet them (well, OK, no illegal drugs, but other than that…), just that you do so.

OK, let’s get something straight here.

Being recognized as having gender dysphoria (a technical term for being transsexual), is NOT simply a man throwing on a dress and saying “I’m a girl!”. There is a diagnostic process a person has to go through, before discussions of hormone treatment or surgery become a possibility, and the entire process takes years. In order to make changes on legal documents a judge has to be convinced this is legit. That’s a LOT more than a simple whim.

There are reasons for all this, like hormone therapy and surgery causing permanent changes, and gender reassignment is not appropriate for all people with, shall we say, gender issues. Doctors don’t want to perform life-changing surgery unless they’re certain the patient isn’t going to regret it down the line. It’s a lot more complicated than you seem to think it is.

If man shows up in a dress no, you personally don’t have to be OK with it but if that person is under the care of actual professionals in an actual treatment program perhaps you should consider that this is NOT a whim.

On the other hand, some of us actually like “rampant subcultures and counter-cultures” provided everyone involved is a consenting adult and no one is getting hurt.

I think maybe you have a problem with changing standards. Change is not inherently bad, although it can be.

14

There’s a real interesting juxtaposition here. Today, actually, society has strongly rejected the idea that it’s okay to abuse someone for not meeting standards of manliness. In the past, this was something people could do if they wanted, no matter how vile, stupid, or criminal it was.

Please consider which society is better: one with no standard prohibiting the abuse of those who aren’t “manly” enough, or one with such a standard?

I know which society I think has higher, better standards.

15

Nothing wrong wth standards. Just so long as you recognize, (with the exception of the law of course), your standards are only for you.

For instance there are Christians who feel the standard ought be that it’s not their place to judge those who sin differently from them, because that’s what their book teaches. But, as I’m sure you’re aware, there are also many Christians who feel it’s perfectly okay for them to judge the sins of others quite openly. Both sides feel pretty righteous.

The thing to remember is that in a free country you get to live to what you believe, but you don’t get to dictate your standards as universal. The result is a country stuffed with both kinds of Christians.

You are free to hold to whatever standard you feel fits with your creed. But thinking the rest of us ought to join in your standards, is crazy talk.

In point of fact, your standard is rapidly going the way of the dinosaurs, and the rest of us are cool with it.

Your real objection would seem to be with democracy. A majority of people now believe that your standards are better left behind. The majority want a more inclusive society. You disagree. You are in the minority. And it sucks when stuff doesn’t go your way. But if you support your democracy, I’m afraid you’ll have to change with the times.

You want your minority position respected because ‘it’s always been that way!’

Dinosaur thinking. You’re entitled to cling to the old ways refusing to face the changes that WILL come. But trying to say, they have no standards isn’t accurate at all. Society now has a different standard from you, is all.

16

These aren’t standards, they are stereotypes.

17

Standards without any purpose are, frankly, stupid. Standards with no purpose that cause a considerable number of people harm are stupid and dangerous.

Nope. I wasn’t around in this idyllic yesteryear, but I know this is wrong. It used to be that black man who didn’t step off a sidewalk when approaching a white woman was a rude, perverted uppity nigger in the eyes of the people who had been brainwashed into thinking that black people were subhuman. But everyone else could see that this was a stupid, harmful custom.

In a few years, views like yours will be perceived to be just as backwards.

18

Do you believe in a God who creates each person?

How do you explain people who just MUST “play dress-up”?

Did your God goof when He created Ms. Jenner but put her in a male body*?

    • This is the thing you are missing - these people are NOT playing. They really ARE people in bodies with the wrong chromosome structure.
      They do not have the option to “Man Up” - (which, by the way, is an extremely hateful concept)

p.s. - how do you feel about butt-fucking a teen male? There was a time/place where that was the mark of a “Real Man” - you fucked women only to make sons OK, a daughter once in a while is OK.
Look out for cultural “Standards” - they’ll get you in the end.

19

Nothing is wrong with having standards for yourself and dictating what they should be, nor is it unreasonable to expect performance and fitness standards for a job. When you unilaterally impose arbitrary standards of behavior or appearance on everyone else, however, you become an asshole. Someone doesn’t meet your standard of “manliness” or dress the way you would like? How does that impact you personally other than getting way to wound up over someone else’s appearance? Do you feel that you should make someone cry because you in turn were made to feel small or inadequate? Guess what? You’ve just perpetuated the cycle of bullying.

How about this as a standard: be a better person by letting other people life as they like as long as it doesn’t harm you or others. If the military elects to give concessions to homosexuals or transgendered people, maybe it is because those people perform their work as well as “straight” people and otherwise obey codes of conduct, and therefore don’t deserve to feel ashamed or humiliated.

Stranger

20

Okay, so it appears that I’ve diagnosed three points that I’m struggling with.

(1) I have a big problem with biological determinism or assigning biological components to behavioral problems. This is something that emerged very clearly in my other thread about root causes of criminal behavior. I cling to the idea that person behaves the way they do because they CHOOSE their behavior. As is pretty clear with the other thread on transgendered issues, I almost completely disregard the biological component of transgendered thought process or cognitive makeup.

I also don’t particularly understand the depth of the impulse. If I see a transgendered person say they “want” to be a different gender, I equate this with how I “want” to drive a Ferrari. My personal wishes are irrelevant when contrasted with the reality of the situation (eg I am poor). Clearly this analogy does not reflect the same depth of emotion that a transgendered person has to deal with.

(2) I am very clearly wedded to the idea that a failure to meet expectations deserves punishment. This manifests in some of my posts where, for example, I display a borderline-psychotic desire to injure criminals. I suspect that between my upbringing and my military service, I have been very much indoctrinated with the idea that a person who does not comply with social, behavioral or performance standards is, at best, a nonentity (and, at worst, someone to be figuratively or literally attacked). I’m still struggling with this very much.

WRT the specific example of transgendered issues, I don’t see a difference between being transgendered and being deceitful. You claim to be X, but you are in fact Y. This is basically the definiton of deception. Clearly, the transgendered people do not consider themselves to be deceptive at all, because in their mind their appearance is consistent with their mental state. I don’t pretend to understand it, but I am willing to accept that this is what they believe.

(3) I think I suffer frequent bouts of cognitive dissonance with regard to changing circumstances and social expectations. I believe I have a very deontological ethical system… In that sense that if a person says “X is right,” that means they believe X is right in all times and in all places. For a person to say X is right in some cases but Y is right in others implies they are either deceitful or inept, because there should be a universal solution. Some of the other posts here have pointed out the multitude of competing value systems that exist even within the US, and that just frustrates the shit out of me.

I don’t really get why we can’t have a world that agrees on a single value system. I mean, obviously we DON’T, and I acknowledge that. But it irritates me to no end. When I see someone propose an alternative value system, my first impulse is to believe they are either being willfully malicious or they are just incapable of complying with the existing value system and want to replace it with a system in which they can claim superiority (eg Nietzche’s slave morality).

Clearly these are all things I will have to work on.