Funny Hypocrisies in Society
There are many rules and norms that exist for perfectly good reasons. There are others that really just don’t make any sense, and in many cases, are actually pretty hypocritical. Throughout this article I will try to describe some of weird, ridiculous, and funny hypocrisies in society and hopefully this will start a trend of reason over tradition. I have ordered these based on how long they take to describe hoping that you’ll read the first short one, become interested, and continue to read the progessively longer content.
For some very odd reason, it is acceptable to wear a bathing suit that just barely covers the nipples, but not wearing a top at all is deemed inappropriate or is frowned upon (in North America). It is as if by showing that extra inch or so of skin somehow makes it gross. Or in a movie when there is “side boob”, it is not considered nudity but if there is a glimpse of a female nipple it is. This just doesn’t make any sense. I would love to know why the female nipple is a private part but the rest of the boob is not. Anybody?
Adding to the previous point, why is girl nipple bad but guy nipple is ok? A guy can walk around with his shirt off no problem, but if a girl exposes her nipples it is taboo. If anything, the non nipple part of the female breast should be the taboo part since it is the part that is unique to females (you know what I mean). What really makes the girl’s chest different from the guy’s is the fat, that is the greater amount of breast tissue, in the female’s chest. Thus, showing female nipple should be no different than male nipple. Yet, there seems to be a huge difference. Riddle me that.
Killing dogs is cruel. Killing an ant is fun. It appears that certain animals receive greater rights than others. Have you ever heard of somebody going to jail for fighting dogs? Of course. Have you ever heard of somebody going to jail for putting two ants in a jar and letting them kill each other? Of course not. What is the difference? I just cannot think of any reason why certain animals are more protected by society than others. Sure, there are far more ants than there are dogs, but they are both animals (yes, insects are a type of animal). Even excluding insects, a cat murderer will be more heavily punished than a mouse murderer even though cats and mice both carry diseases. I have never killed a dog, but I have killed many ants. Everytime I kill an ant, I wonder why I am allowed to do such a thing and yet I have no sense of worry. Strange.
In an age where gender equality is so important that we must change common titles such as policeman to police officer or weatherman to weather person, equality is still not being met. I entirely agree that gender equality is necessary, but that includes giving up benefits of one gender to make the lives of the other gender more equal. One example where this is not occuring is with regards to engagement rings. It is typical practice that the woman receive an engagement ring from the male, followed by the man and the woman both receiving weddings bands upon marriage. What baffles me is why must the man be pressured by societal norms to give an engagement ring when he himself does not receive one in return. How is that equal? I’m not talking about just some little tradition like letting a lady go first, but rather a very expensive tradition that can serve as a severe burden for the male. What do I mean by all this? It is simple, equality is a two way street and you can’t ask for stuff without giving up stuff in return. This is a prime example where reason is complerely outweighed by tradition. Maybe once women get paid the same on average this tradition will end. If not, then I’ll be really confused.
I am going to be careful with this one. I am not going to go into the complex reasons or details of homophobia, but just one common reason for homophobia and how it is hypocritical. If you are homophobic and don’t think this way, I am not calling you hypocritical. Basically, my point is with regardings to homophobes who believe homosexuality is “gross” or “disgusting” due to the anal sex that may take place. This is only hypocritical when they themselves have had anal sex with a female. There really is no difference between just anal sex with a man and a woman and just anal sex with two males when you really think about it. Furthermore, and more importantly, just because something is gross doesn’t necessarily mean you should be afraid of it. In the event a person does find all anal sex gross and disgusting, that doesn’t justify a fear of it. For instance, hot dog making is gross, but that doesn’t mean you have a fear of hot dogs, or the people that make the hot dogs. Similarly, do you find dog poop gross? Possibly. Do you want to see dog poop? Probably not in that case. Do you have a fear of a dog pooping somewhere in the world? Why would you care as long as it doesn’t happen to poop on you. Still doesn’t mean you have a fear of it.
Prostitution is the scum of society, right? Why? According to the Oxford Dictionary, prostitution is the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment. So if a woman has sex, then gets paid, that is prostitution. If a woman gets paid upfront, then has sex, it is still prostitution. If a woman gets paid with gold then has sex, it is prostitution, agree? If a woman gets drinks bought for her and then has sex with him, that is not prostitution, why? The oxford dictionary also defines prostitution as the unworthy or corrupt use of one’s talents for personal or financial gain. By both definitions, a girl flirting with a guy at a bar to get drinks bought for her and then going home with him with no intention other than sex is prostitution, and yet that seems to happen all the time. However, in Canada, it is legal for a prostitute to go home with somebody as long as it is no publically solicited, but the customer cannot go to their place (mixed up, I know). Therefore, if a woman gets drinks bought for her and then takes the guy home to just have sex, she is committing a criminal act!
Another riddle for you: if a prostitute brings a guy to his/her place and then video tapes it, is it prostitution or pornography? Pornography is defined by Oxford as printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement. The pornographic actor therefore has sexual activity for money, and yet since it is video taped it is not considered prostitution. How interesting.
Why on earth is somebody who conforms to a religion allowed to do things somebody not of that religion or religious at all can’t. Personally, I am not religous at all and really don’t think organized religion belongs in society, however, I do believe that religious traditions should be protected and allowed providing they don’t impede on other peoples’ freedoms and override personal beliefs.
For instance, I believe a muslim lady should be able to wear a hijab in her driver’s licence photo. That said, if she is allowed to do that, I should be allowed to wear a baseball cap (even though I don’t wear baseball caps). It could be possible that I believe a baseball cap will protect me from demons, or something. I could genuinely believe that, and therefore I should be able to wear that baseball cap. Notwithstanding, if that were true, since I did not belong to an ‘organized religion’ and was possibly just lying to wear my baseball cap, I would likely not be allowed despite the fact that wearing that baseball cap has no negative effects on anybody (even though somebody could easily lie and say they belong to a religion). Here’s another example. I am once again going to use an Islamic example not because I have a dislike of Islam (au contraire), but rather because Islamic traditions differ greatly from conventional North American “norms”. A muslim should not be able to get shortened hours during Ramadan (in North America) unless everybody gets one month where they can request shortened hours. Although I agree that Ramadan is tough, it is their decision to carry through with it and others should not be subjected to comparatively longer work hours simply because they may not have any seemingly legitimate reason to request such hours.
Thus, why does religion and religious beliefs outweigh personal beliefs? If a Catholic tells me that I am silly for believing that nothing happens when we die, it is acceptable because they are defending their religious beliefs. If I tell a Catholic that Noah more than likely did not live to be 950 years old (more like 50) and that the Virgin Mary probably cheated on Joseph so she claimed that god banged her, I will be accused of insulting their religion even though they had just insulted and debated my personal beliefs.
Conversely, there is a growing movement that Muslim women should not be allowed to cover up as it is considered a sign of oppression, yet nuns are undoubtedly allowed to do such a thing. This is despite the fact nuns cover up to show modesty, humility and that they are devoted to god just like Muslim women wear abayas and hijabs. It is as if Catholics forget that women were once required to cover up to go to Church. The hypocricy is stunning. If religious freedoms are extended to people, those freedoms should be available to everybody providing that these freedoms do not cause harm.