Imagine a man checking his girlfriend’s or wife’s phone, questioning every male friend she has, demanding to know where she is at all times, and getting angry whenever she goes somewhere without him. What would we call him? Controlling. Insecure. A walking red flag with a gym membership.

Now imagine a woman doing the exact same thing to her boyfriend or husband.

Suddenly, someone will explain that she has trust issues because of her past, she’s afraid of losing him, or she’s simply more emotionally invested in the relationship; she is only watching her back or defending her territory; she is protecting her investment or meal ticket.

Imagine that she takes it further and bugs his phone, clones his phone, links his phone’s WhatsApp to her laptop, and eavesdrops on his conversations with the aim of catching him saying inappropriate things to a so-called friend; when she listened and found nothing, she still insisted that he talks too much and whatever he was discussing with whomever he was discussing with was too personal or too private for him to share despite the fact that the issue was not her business.

Apparently, controlling behaviour comes in two varieties: toxic masculinity and a woman who just needs reassurance.

Of course, insecurity can explain why someone behaves a certain way.

It doesn’t automatically excuse the behaviour. A difficult childhood doesn’t grant you ownership of another adult’s privacy, and being hurt in a previous relationship doesn’t entitle you to punish your current partner for somebody else’s mistakes.

Yet some people seem remarkably committed to applying accountability selectively.

When a man behaves badly, people ask what’s wrong with him. When a woman behaves badly, people sometimes ask what “happened” to her.

That difference matters because understanding someone’s pain and excusing their behaviour are two entirely different things.

Consider emotional manipulation.

A man who threatens to leave every time he doesn’t get his way might be described as emotionally abusive. A woman who repeatedly threatens to leave, packs her bags during arguments, or uses the possibility of a breakup to force compliance may be described as passionate, emotional, or afraid of abandonment.

Neither behaviour becomes healthy because the person doing it has a particular gender.

Then there’s the infamous double standard surrounding anger.

A man loses his temper, and people may immediately question whether he’s safe to be around. A woman screams, throws insults, humiliates her partner, or launches into a verbal demolition project, and someone may dismiss it as her having a bad day.

Imagine having a bad day so frequently that your partner needs a weather forecast before asking you a simple question.

Being upset is normal. Being frustrated is normal. Nobody expects human beings to walk around permanently radiating the serenity of a Buddhist monk who has never encountered customer service. But adults are still responsible for how they treat other people when they’re angry.

If a man is expected to learn emotional regulation, women should be expected to learn it, too.

And let’s discuss body shaming.

A man who mocks a woman’s weight, age, appearance, or sexual history can rightly face criticism for being cruel and disrespectful. Yet jokes about a man’s height, baldness, penis size, income, or attractiveness are sometimes treated as harmless entertainment.

People can reduce a short man to a punchline before he even opens his mouth. A man who earns less than his partner can be portrayed as inadequate. A man who loses his hair may be told he should compensate by becoming richer, funnier, or more successful.

Apparently, his entire personality is an emergency renovation project.

Imagine the reaction if a man publicly announced that a woman’s body made her unsuitable for love and then insisted everyone should laugh because he was just being honest. He would deserve criticism.

So why should humiliation become acceptable when the target is male?

You don’t have to find someone attractive. You don’t owe anyone a relationship. But rejecting someone and degrading them are not the same thing.

Another double standard appears when people discuss money and relationships.

Men are often expected to demonstrate financial stability, ambition, and the ability to provide. A woman’s financial situation may receive more understanding, while a man’s lack of money can be treated as evidence that he isn’t a real man.

There’s nothing wrong with preferring a financially responsible partner.

Financial compatibility matters, and nobody should be expected to carry another adult indefinitely without agreement. But if financial stability is a reasonable expectation for a man, why is financial responsibility somehow less important for a woman?

A relationship is supposed to be a partnership, not a casting call for a private investor.

Women can contribute financially, emotionally, domestically, and in countless other ways. Men can do the same. Couples can agree on traditional roles if that’s what both genuinely want. The problem is expecting one person to fulfil traditional obligations while insisting the other person should be exempt from traditional expectations whenever they’re inconvenient.

You cannot demand a provider while treating your own contribution as an optional bonus.

And perhaps the most frustrating example is accountability itself.

Some women expect men to acknowledge their mistakes, apologise sincerely, communicate better, and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Those are reasonable expectations. But when a woman makes a mistake, some people rush to explain her intentions, defend her character, or remind everyone that nobody is perfect.

Nobody is perfect. That’s precisely why accountability matters.

A sincere apology doesn’t require you to be a terrible person. It requires you to recognise that you did something wrong. You don’t have to surrender your dignity to admit you were unfair, manipulative, selfish, or cruel.

The same applies to men. A man who refuses to acknowledge his behaviour because he’s convinced he’s always right deserves criticism, too.

The point isn’t that women have it easy in every aspect of life, or that men never receive unfair treatment.

Women face genuine problems, including harassment, discrimination, and unequal expectations.

Men face their own pressures, including expectations to suppress vulnerability, provide financially, and tolerate mistreatment without appearing weak. Recognising one set of problems doesn’t erase the other.

But we cannot claim to want equality while maintaining a secret list of behaviours that become acceptable depending on who’s doing them.

If a behaviour is controlling, it’s controlling. If it’s manipulative, it’s manipulative. If it’s cruel, it’s cruel. Gender shouldn’t function as a coupon that takes accountability off the bill.

A healthy woman doesn’t need society to excuse her bad behaviour because she’s a woman. She can recognise her mistakes, apologise, and improve without treating every criticism as an attack on her identity.

And a healthy man shouldn’t have to pretend he’s unaffected by disrespect simply because admitting it makes him look vulnerable.

Ultimately, the real test of your values isn’t whether you condemn bad behaviour when someone you dislike commits it. It’s whether you can recognise it when someone you love, admire, or identify with does the exact same thing.

Anyone can demand fairness when they’re the one being mistreated.

The harder part is demanding fairness when you’re the one benefiting from the double standard.

Because equality isn’t supposed to mean that everyone gets the same rights while certain people retain exclusive permission to behave badly.

If you want men to be accountable, be accountable yourself. If you want respect, give respect. And if you want equality, stop treating it like a wonderful principle that applies primarily to the other person.