What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander...Have you heard this one?

@miamilady (4924)
United States
July 19, 2007 6:32am CST
This is one of my favorite expressions or cliche's. To me it is a statement about double standards, which I don't like. What's good enough for him is good enough for her and vice versa. Have you heard this? What comes to your mind when you hear it or see it?
6 people like this
12 responses
@terri0824 (4991)
• United States
19 Jul 07
What comes to my mind when I read this statement or hear it, is treat others the way that you want or expect to be treated. Don't treat others a certain way, if you don't want or expect others to treat you the same way.
3 people like this
@Lakota12 (42684)
• United States
19 Jul 07
What do you think I take it that if he does It I can too. If it is done to me I sure can do it back no since of him haveing fun if I cant!
3 people like this
@derek_a (10902)
20 Jul 07
To me this cliché means that a person is going to retaliate against some sort of perceived wrong-doing. They may say something like, "if you are going to mess around, then so am I" - I don't think there are any winners though :-)
1 person likes this
@miamilady (4924)
• United States
21 Jul 07
I never interpreted it that way, but I can see how you did. It thing it was meant more about equality than about vengence, but I really don't know the history of the expressions origin.
1 person likes this
@derek_a (10902)
21 Jul 07
That's interesting :-) I would think it may have something to do with the mood of the person at the time the statement is uttered perhaps? :-)
@urbandekay (18312)
20 Jul 07
Yes. It is amazing how many double standards remain. Recently, here in UK a woman's group conducted a survey amongst women on domestic violence and their results were quite surprising and perhaps counter-intuitive. They found that women reported that they initiated violence against their partners more frequently than their partners initiated violence against them. This of course does not tally with the rate of incidents reported to police so it is likely that men do not report such. If we truly believed that what is sauce for the Goose, is sauce for the Gander we would be equally outraged by the violence committed by women against men, particularly as it seems it is more widespread. Yet, it does not seem so shocking somehow. The question remains, is this difference in attitude to the two a result of something innate or a cultural value? all the best urban
1 person likes this
@miamilady (4924)
• United States
21 Jul 07
I posted a response to a discussion with a similar topic... It is certainly wrong either way, to initiate physical violence. Women have no business being physically violent either, but men do need to take their size into consideration. A larger man can do a lot more dammage than a smaller woman. I do think that "mutual" physical violence and violence initiated by the woman is more common that most people realize. I'm against double standards AND reverse double standards. Thanks for your response.
@urbandekay (18312)
21 Jul 07
Yes, the size and strength differance is important, though now when most men do not work physically and some women are physically trained the difference may be less than it used to be but still it is perhaps true that a man is more likely to cause more damage to a woman than visa versa. But physical harm is not the only injury caused by physical attack and the psychological harm may be as great or greater. All the best urban
@tsgirl01 (900)
• United States
20 Jul 07
I love this expression! It is so true. What is good for you is good for me too. I mostly use the expression "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander" to mean what is good for a man is just as good for a woman. I believe in equality for both sexes! I am liberated! Nice discussion miamilady, take care...
@miamilady (4924)
• United States
21 Jul 07
Thanks for your response.
@maddysmommy (16235)
• United States
19 Jul 07
The way I understand it to mean for me is "if he can do it, I can to".
1 person likes this
@miamilady (4924)
• United States
19 Jul 07
Yep. That's pretty much my interpretation too.
• United States
19 Jul 07
I have both heard it and used it many times. It can be considered a very sexist remark by some, but I think of it more as a statement of equality. An elimination of things that have been stereotyped as gender specific.
@miamilady (4924)
• United States
19 Jul 07
I think of it more as a statement of equality also. It never occurred to me as a sexist comment. hmmm
@mummymo (23707)
20 Jul 07
I love this expression and use it quite often! I could describe what I think it means but you would just think I had copy/pated your definition! lol xxx
@Calais (10900)
• Australia
19 Jul 07
Yes, I have heard this plenty of times....And I would have to agree with this saying...Nothing in particular comes to mind, just that I agree with it..
1 person likes this
@Rozie37 (15503)
• Turkmenistan
19 Jul 07
I think this one works both ways depending on the situation at hand. If someone is doing something that I feel that I should be able to do too, this saying is appropriate also.
1 person likes this
@jillmalitz (5132)
• United States
19 Jul 07
I have heard that for years. I agree with it. I think it may be another way of saying the Bible phrase about he without sin may cast the first stone. There is also the saying about "the pot calling the kettle black".
1 person likes this
@gradyslady (4055)
• United States
18 Sep 07
Surprisingly enough, I've only heard it maybe a few times. When I hear it, I think the same thing, what's good for him is what's good for her. I always thought of it as from back in the day when the women were forced to stay home and listen to everything their husbands said, meaning whatever he says pretty much goes for her too.