|
|
|
|
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/2/2006 3:46:13 PM | Anglo-Saxon women in cusp of the Conversion England were fairly well respected, empowered, literate to the extent that anyone was, ie. runic writing was commonly understood from the age of the first insciptions onward, and women of noble rank have been shown to have had the equivalnet of Bachelor degrees.
Anglo-Saxon women could divorce, could inherit property, could pass on property to whomever she chose, could speak at the assembly, officially or otherwise, and held great influence in matters of politics and war. They have even been documented as leading warbands of professional warriors and imprinting the stamp of the Anglii on the Continental tribes they went to war with... as was the case with a certain Anglii Princess spoken of in the writings of Procopius (6th century).
This was not a feature exclusive to the Anglo-Saxons. In the writings of Cornelius Tacitus (1st century) we are told that the tribes of Germany thought that there was something sacred about women and never scorned their counsels. Similar early Roman writiers, eg. Caesar, told of how various Teutonic tribes could not go to war without the consent of particular women.
Even in the Viking Age we have such women as Sigdrifa of Sweden, who ruled in her own right and brought about the downfall of such vainglorious, yet powerful Kings as Olaf Tryggvasson of Norway.
Moreover, although I might have said this in my previous post, the domenstic role filled by women was *real* work that included the organization of large households, the cleaning of said household, the preparation of meals from slaughter to plate, the making of clothes and other valueable textiles, etc.
The conversion of many Teutonic Kings to Catholicism was largely facilitated by Catholic princesses acting in their traditional marriage roles as diplomats. Common women also had a diplomatic function in formal unions, and had the power to end feuds and bring rival kindreds together. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/3/2006 5:25:18 AM | I have a problem with die-hard, radical feminists. In fact, at U of T, a lot of feminists had a problem with me bc I had very controversial views about feminism and I did berate them loud and clear during debates and so forth. Believe me, I am not an uberfeminine type of woman....I like to talk about war, business, math, science. I am shrewd, logical, assertive, direct and very much fascinated by concepts that are " traditionally " known as a " man's subject "...but this DOES NOT MEAN that I am a die hard feminist. IN FACT, I can talk about these things and be better at it, than most men, but I also do acknowledge that I am first and foremost, a woman, and I need that strong shoulder and arms to engulf me when I can't fight anymore.....and we must co-exist well with men, NOT stomp them down simply bc we got the right to vote. If you read up on the suffragette movement, it is known fact that it was only facilitated simply bc men in the govt councils ALLOWED for the women to hold such meetings to discuss and fight for the vote. It is due to a number of enlightened men that we managed to accomplish such a thing : so why stomp them down?
So, yes, in fact, I DO BELIEVE that the die hard feminists killed off chivalrous men. Take for example, something I have seen in a given situation. There was a girl I worked with. She was the type of woman who was like, " No man ain't good enough for me...I make my own money, I make my own decisions and we don't even need men ! " She really did pride herself in her " neo-feminism " to the point that she was bordering on hostile towards men. She had no grounds or philosophical justifications for her behaviour...she was simply following a stupid die-hard " feminist trend ".....One day, a man basically rushed up to take her coat for her, pull out her chair during dinner...she gave him a death stare and said, " Wtf? Does it look like I am an invalid? I am a strong woman...I can handle pulling out my own chair ". He looked so taken aback and very much hurt by this comment....and I couldn't help but muse that radical feminists have seriously made a Frankenstein out of this whole movement, to the point that it squashed all sorts of rare chivalrous moments from men.
Ironically, she was the type of woman who complained that men no longer offered their seats to women in the subways during rush hour and would rant off at how disgusting men are and how they are not needed in this world. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/3/2006 7:00:00 AM | This is going to be long, so bare with me. Also, I welcome correction and critisism. This is something I'd like to see discussed indepth but with something more than just opinion, which is all I have to offer at this time.
This subject is kind of covered in the "who pays for dinner" thread, but I'll go ahead and share my take on it.
did women kill chivalry?
The answer: yes, but it was more like manslaughter.
what do we need to do to bring it back?
You can't bring back the dead.
However if you can find a way to make it a wise, profitable and fashionable course of pursuit, then I think you can have something like Chivalry again.
Ironically, she was the type of woman who complained that men no longer offered their seats to women in the subways during rush hour and would rant off at how disgusting men are and how they are not needed in this world.
The double standard that you are describing is what a lot of men are facing today. Before you can say, "but I'd treat a man decently", you have to understand the damage is already done and the genie is out of the bottle.
The identity crisis
There was a time when men had a laundry list of things that they desired in a woman and vice versa.
Somewhere along the lines a large group of women, large enough to disrupt the status quo of the time, decided that they no longer wanted to adhere to the list of men’s “desires”. Instead they pushed for equality…maybe these woman just wanted men to recognize that they were just as capable as men, but what they ended up pushing was the idea that women could be men too.
In short…these women said, “Since we can be both men and women, we have the expectations of both.”
Women now have two identities…one masculine the other effeminate.
lose-lose
Now what happens is when a man is attempting to address the effeminate identity of a woman, he is accused of being backwards and ignorant, because in that instance she is just as capable as any man. The man has just offended the woman’s masculine identity.
However when a man expects that a woman fulfill her masculine role, she cries in disbelief that a man would be so uncouth to ask such a thing. After all, she is an effeminate woman and expects to be treated as such.
Since women lay claim on both masculine and effeminate the identities, then a man will only continue to offend a woman when he addresses her. This is because any action directed towards one identity (either masculine or effeminate) will offend the other.
As I understand it, Chivalry was pushed by the church to end the abuse of women at the time. If I’m wrong…correct me.
The reasoning behind it
Where Chivalry was once a courtesy, it has now become a liability for men. A woman can now go out, earn an education, work alongside men, and earn money. In that capacity she is an equal in capability, but there is something most women forget when considering this.
If she is just as capable of doing a man’s job just then a woman has now joined the ranks of competition.
While a man may have given up his seat to a woman at one point in time, because she was a woman; now he has to ask himself, would he give up a promotion, pay raise, or share of the bounty to the same woman just because she’s a woman. The answer is an unsurprising “no”. Just like his male co-workers, she is competition.
Who wins?
Imagine you were an Engineering company and Engineers are hard to come by. There is a high demand and a low supply of M-Engineers, so you (the company) have to pay through the nose with respect to the cost of living to get one of these M-Engineers to work for you.
Suddenly in the span of a very short few years the supply of Engineers increases by twenty-five percent due to an influx of W-Engineers. What’s even better is that these new W-Engineers desperately want to get their foot in the door of your company. You tell them that you’ll pay them ¾ the standard pay. Not only do they accept your offer, but they even lie to themselves saying things like “I’m only doing this to earn some extra money”, “I don’t need to work, because my husband has a good job”, and “I’m only doing this till I have some kids and then I’ll stay at home with them”
You the company are making a killing; because now you’re no longer reliant on the low supply high cost of the old M-Engineers. Because Engineers have practically doubled you only need to pay half as much for either type. Even better is that one is only working for ¾ the pay, which means that M-Engineers are going to have to go down in price to compete. Meanwhile, the cost of living going up, but your overhead for Engineers is going down. You (the company) are netting almost twice as much.
Meanwhile with all these Engineers at work (both M and W) no one is at home watching the Kids. Thank goodness there are daycares that charge just enough money to keep both parents working.
Why going backwards is harder
The pattern is already set.
If half the workforce left their jobs what will that accomplish. The cost of living won’t go down by half.
To summarize my lengthy OPINION, because that’s all it is, consider the following:
Chivalry once had its place because men had a role to fulfill and women had a role to fulfill. Now women have two identities, one masculine the other effeminate. A man constantly runs the risk of offending a woman because any action directed towards one identity (either masculine or effeminate) has a high potential of offending the other. To make the matter more complicated a man must be especially cautious because women are also his competition to make a living. Because the competition has almost doubled, it is almost essential that a man who has any desires for a family find a woman who can work and earn just as much as he can. However these expectations are met with ferocity by most women, because these women don’t NEED a man to take care of them, they just EXPECT it.
 | |
|
ousu
|
Joined: 6/2/2005
Msg: 179 | |
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/3/2006 1:33:22 PM |
Suddenly in the span of a very short few years the supply of Engineers increases by twenty-five percent due to an influx of W-Engineers. What’s even better is that these new W-Engineers desperately want to get their foot in the door of your company. You tell them that you’ll pay them ¾ the standard pay. Not only do they accept your offer, but they even lie to themselves saying things like “I’m only doing this to earn some extra money”, “I don’t need to work, because my husband has a good job”, and “I’m only doing this till I have some kids and then I’ll stay at home with them”
Wanted or not, you brought up a good point here, a problem need to be fixed.
This is the reason why the expenses of maternity/parental leave should be divided by both employers, the one of the mother and the one of the father. No matter which one is going to stay at home during the leave period.
Ups, just remembered... you might have different system there!!! We get small salary for the time of those leaves which are maternity (105 working days), paternity (18 days) and parental (158 days). It does not matter which one, mother or father, takes the parental leave. - Anyway, I am not going to delete this (moderators job) but leave it here to tell about equality.
Now I have seen so many times mentioned here that women expect men to take care of them, or can just decide to stay at home (obviously men are agreeing with this...) - Dang, I think I want to have a foreign husband, American, perhaps; the majority of our men would laugh hysterically if we tried to tell them to take care of us.
Seriously, I think it is just the way it will be all over the world one day. "Freedom" but also "responsabilities" - these responsabilities are a small price for being equal. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/3/2006 1:51:23 PM | Chivalry was originally formulated by the Catholic Church in order to accomodate the warrior traditions of the Teutonic tribes it wished to convert. And for a man to abuse a Teutonic woman was to take his life into his hands. It becaem less so with the coming of the Church and the adoption of Hellenistic values. It's not that the indigenous Teutonic woman was a butch. It was more a matter that she had male kinsmen and never became the property of another as a result of marriage. She always remained her father's daughter and a part of his extended family, and represented a vested interest.
The stufff about the lose-lose, and no matter which way a man acts he is damned, is very true to a degree. But this is all the more reason to develope a proper view of chivalry as a man. It is not about catering to a woman in hopes scoring. It is about how we as men are supposed to conduct ourselves in polite society. Courteous treatment of women is a by-product of the code, not a guiding force. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/4/2006 10:39:20 PM | | I had a guy do little things like opening doors for me recently, at first I was surprised & kind of weirded out by it because no one had ever bothered to do it for me before - it just felt awkward & strange - but by the end of the day I was loving it. I think women just aren't used to being treated that way anymore so we don't really know how to react, & probably can't hide our surprise, & that makes men think that we don't appreciate it, so they don't bother. But to all you guys who are wondering - I can't imagine any women who wouldn't appreciate being treated with that kind of courtesy, it may just take a little adjustment! | |
|
| |
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 2:09:36 AM | Hi, antonette...
SWIftONE
that sounded real self centered you want a woman for a door knod. Women are here as and extention of men to help them and push them along. WOMEN are here to keep you on the right track and encorage MEN. In other words MAKE YOUR MESS UP LIFES EASIER. even if that means critisizing went you go wrong.
PLEASE Forum users BEFORE YOU POST IT WOULD BE GOOOOOOOOD TO CONSIDER THE OTHER PARTIES FEELINGS OK.
I'm not sure which post you are referring to, antonette. I had to go all the way back to the first page to find anything I'd post on this thread.
I'd be happy to have a discussion with you. I'm interested to know exactly what it was that I said that you object to.
Cheers.
 | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 2:15:48 AM | Senadin,
So here we finally come to the crux of the matter : you advocated me just giving of myself for no reward ever.
That's what you said.
See the thing is you want something that is reciprocal of chivalry for women when there isnt. Simple fact is that Chivalry or whatever you call it doesnt need a reciprocal opposite. it's just is, Why must you need something that is the opposite? Cant you be chivalrous and just be it without needing that reciprocity?
Although you've confused your terms, I get the basic idea. You think that I'm supposed to do nothing but give and give and give. For my efforts I get....nothing. Not even respect...which is precisely what I'm asking for.
A true feminist for example (and by that I mean to say "pretty much no woman or man alive today who considers themselves a part of the modern version of feminism") would never say "You give. I get. Now get lost."
Yet that's what you think I and all men should do.
I am not the one that is selfish here and is asking for reciprocity. I am happy with the way things are.
You are ? Really ? You think asking for an expression of gratitude is asking too much ? This is selfish in your opinion ? I guess if you want to view it that way , go ahead. I won't say "more power to you" because you're contributing to a social scheme whereby one half of the population is allowed to take for granted the generosity of the other half. That's called abuse of privilege. No way am I going to advocate that.
I'm not sure how you can claim to advocate for courtesy in social interactions and at the same time deny my valid request for respect and reciprocal behaviour where chivalry is concerned. I mean, to believe in courtesy should require one to also believe in the value of reciprocity. That means you understand the principle of it. How can somebody claim to not want appreciation ? The difference between us I suppose is that I expect a certain amount of gratitude for some things whereas you don't. That puts you in the exact same camp as those who killed chivalry in the first place. You realize this right ?
Golden rule and all that. If a snake bites you, you don't try to give it a hug. You learn...or at least, you should learn to reconsider why you're trying to give it a hug. Well, as radical feminism has bitten men, they've learned that there's no sense in doing any favours for the same people feminism claims to represent. After the equality goals were reached, feminists told men to get lost...well, we did. And look ! Isn't it a much better world these days ? Sure, they don't speak for all women or even a majority but they think they do and they have a really loud microphone (metaphorically speaking) and it drowns out the voices of more reasonable women. It's not my fault that I did exactly what they asked all men to do for the benefit of all women. I'm supposed to pull out chairs for the same women that go around preaching I'm a potential rapist ? "Well, not all women say that !" you reply. True. And I don't know which ones believe it and which ones don't. Once bitten, twice shy there my friend.
So I'll tell you what. You tell all the women to do exactly what you told me to do.
Tell them to give of themselves and expect nothing, including even a simple thank you, in return. See how well that goes over with them. Funny how much more alike men and women think than is popular to believe these days. You think that's selfish so I expect you're going to find that the world is populated almost exclusively with selfish people of both sexes. Which pretty much leaves only one truly righteous person. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 4:02:40 AM | ^^^Pulse, the best thing about this is, you said it without hate and your words don't need that fuel. I have to say, that nailed something for me and I couldn't have said it better myself, probably because I've been programmed to not know how. We are talking about an extreme fringe group though, like you said, with a very loud microphone. What I don't get is why women just sit back and let them do all the talking. Just pass go/collect 200 dollars. If you don't speak up, you are supporting it. If women want men to be chivalrous and to act like good giving men, why do they empower this group of nazi's to speak for them? I do my best to be accepting and courteous but I can only remember the many times I've been burned, sneered at or felt like there was a discussion about me when I wasn't in the room, because I'm male competing in a world with women. But I'm not allowed to show any disrespect back or its against the traditional rules of how men are supposed to treat women. Bullshit. What a double standard. It hasn't bothered me...much, not in relationships anyway. I still love women...but I love REAL women who actually stand up for what they say they want their man to be. Just as I would stand up for them if I heard some jackass disrespecting them. That's the reciprocity I expect. Society is influenced by these fringe groups and this one in particular, these men haters, has an impact on the way women think and act toward men. It may be subtle. The message may be no more than, "you're better than a man. you're a woman." But its there. And some women go for the throat nowadays. In a professional situation with a man, I say. "Hey, this is bugging me. How are we going to fix it?" He might get pissed off and we'll have it out but in the end it's done and we both enjoy our goodnights rest, so we can be productive the next day. I'm not saying most women are bad but there are some that should be seeing a shrink regularly if they want to work. Its not fair to have the advantage of "you have to treat me different" and then on the other side of the face say "you aren't allowed to treat me different". I think another post above summed this up very well.
It can be hard to get past all this and accept individualities in people and forgive them for being of the same chromosome as the nutso's out there. For once, men can say with ringing truth that we didn't start this war. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 11:14:58 AM | Pulse, I agree full-heartedly with that statement.
A simple thank you goes a long way towards make the gents who are chivalrous opt to continuing their ways. Too many selfish people in the world.
Be a gentleman, not a doormat. That's what I have to say. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 11:31:14 AM | I like to open doors and pull out chairs for ladies. The ladies are the ones who repay me with a smile.
Ladies are hard to find these days.
PS, probably the times chivalry really counts are when women are in trouble--and good luck then. If you stop to help a woman with a flat tire, you are likely to get maced.
I was walking along OSU campus about a year ago, and came upon a coed jogger who was sitting on the ground, bleeding slightly from an abrasion on her knee. I asked her if she needed help. "No!" she said, "my brother's coming." I wonder if he really was. Or if she even had a brother.
A few years before, during an icy winter, I passed a coed in the hallway who had slipped and fallen. I asked her if she needed assistance. "No!" she snapped, and maybe she was grouchy because of the pain, but I walked away feeling like my concern was unappreciated. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 11:51:24 AM | | Another time, still while I was an OSU student, I saw a young girl with car trouble near campus. Now, that is a bad neighborhood. I pulled over and asked if she needed help. Knowing that she didn't know me from Adam, I told her I was a student, and offered to show her my student ID. No, she said she had called the police on her cell phone. Had she really called the police? Who knows. I went away. | |
|
| |
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 12:12:37 PM | | And speaking of good samaritans, when my hip disease first manifested itself last february, I limped in agony through *A HOSPITAL* without anyone asking me what was wrong or if I needed help. Not a single doctor, not a single nurse. (not that I knew what was wrong at that point). | |
|
| |
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 1:47:28 PM | I think natural selection has chosen for men who: 1. don't show pain (if they did, sabre tooth tigers would have eaten them);
and 2, it has chosen for men who protect women (it doesn't do much good to impregnate a woman, if she is promptly eaten by a tiger, now does it?).
Still, I am disappointed in Dr.'s and nurses for not helping me; that is supposed to be their job.
Ps, I have been trained as a doctor of veterinary medicine, although I don't have the degree.
In addition I am close to completing a BS in zoology. So, believe me when I say that prey species (of which Man has been one for most of history) do not show signs of disease or illness easily. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 2:23:01 PM | With the rate of physical assaults and rape, now 1 in 4 chance in your lifetime as a woman, you can't afford to accept help from a man *under certain conditions*.
If someone has fallen, to help them up seems like no big deal. The responses you received to your offers of help were probably fueled by embarrassment, the women smarting from temporary pain, and not wishing to draw attention to themselves.
In the case of the woman in the car in a bad neighborhood, you might have waited in your car for help to come, just in case. We women are told, do not respond to verbal offers, do not open the door nor roll down your window. If she reported she had a cell phone and called for help; she did as authorities recommend.
I'm a do-gooder: beyond being polite, I help others when I see its needed.
This is acting under social conscious, to help others. I have already stated that this IS the modern equivalent of chivalry. Unfortunately, I may as well have not answered, as my answer was deemed...insufficient or coy.
Chivalry was a ethic-driven code of social behavior. Its modern counterpart is the art of politeness. So spake Ms Manners.
In my experience, about 1 out of every 5 attempts to provide help as a do-gooder results in my being rebuffed or my help is politely declined. It is small stuff, being rebuffed or told 'no thanks'.
That's the point of following a code of polite social behavior, regardless of gender: you do it because its the right thing to do, not because you expect a certain result, and a pat on the back.
It's not that the church-derived code of chivalry is dead: its that it evolved into a common code of gentle behavior, based on respect for others. Numerous examples of chivalrous behavior cited within this thread are all points of social etiquette, polite behavior in public.
What I see is an affected deafness practiced here. You don't want to hear that chivalry has a modern counterpart for both genders, and that it is indeed in practice by those schooled in art of polite and courteous behavior. You don't want to hear that males can be very rude to females in public. Every bit as ignorant of the gentle art of polite social response as women can be in their mistake old-fashioned manners practiced by men as denigration of physical competency. And you mistake the hesitation of women to speak to men unknown to them on the street, the consequence of a modern legacy of crime, women and children being the primary victims of physical assault perpetrated by adult men.
You are confusing the image of a romantic role of bygone days with the practical art of respectful social interaction between the genders and as common courtesy to the infirm, the young, the elderly. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 2:33:41 PM | No, actually I understand what you are saying. From february until august, I was on crutches. since then, I have been on a cane. About 50% of the time, a young person on the bus offers me their seat when the bus is full.
Actually, standing is not that much of a hardship for me.
But if it is a young woman, I thank her and make polite conversation.
If it is a young man, I let him know that 50% of the time, no one does what he did.
It realy doesn't hurt me to stand--but nobody around me knows that. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 2:36:21 PM | Perfect example of the lies that modern feminism spreads and how deeply rooted they are in our culture.
With the rate of physical assaults and rape, now 1 in 4 chance in your lifetime as a woman, you can't afford to accept help from a man *under certain conditions*.
^That is pure, unadulterated bullshit. It comes from a study that has been debunked so many times it makes people who know the truth wince whenever they hear a reference to said "statistics". Made up. Fabricated.
Firstly, the study never said one in four. It actually said closer to one in eight. Even the bull it claimed got inflated. And who would want to inflate an already "shocking" figure to make it seem like things were worse than they were ? Well, people who make money "solving" the issues the study purports to deal with. Welcome to the forgotten seeds of victim culture.
It's now more commonly known as the Ms.Information study thanks to the commissioners of the study (Ms. Magazine)
And yet, here, twenty years after it was exposed even, the same bullshit figure is being repeated like the gospel truth. People WANT to believe that things are as bad as the figure claims. And the people who initially spread what essentially amounts to a paranoid rumour are more than happy to hear you repeat it. Course, THEY know it's bull and stopped making reference to it a long time ago. They just don't want to tell women that it's bunk. You can thank the sisters in the National Organization for Women for buying you some paranoia.
On the other hand, as long as women believe it, men are the enemy, women are victims, and chivalry is a pretty impractical idea for all the reasons you mentioned Sombient. But hey, if you want to believe this stuff, that's fine. Just don't expect things to get better as far as relations between the sexes go.
And by the way Sombient, if your answer was insufficient or coy it's because it made no allusion to the context of chivalry. I mean, everybody thinks that chivalry is a romantic gesture. Courtesy isn't particularly romantic. That's what people are lamenting...a lack of 'romance' in common culture. If we all want to focus on courtesy as chivalry's complete replacement then let's stop talking about chivalry and never hear another word of complaint about it's supposed absence. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 2:53:24 PM | >>Every bit as ignorant of the gentle art of polite social response as women can be in their mistake old-fashioned manners practiced by men as denigration of physical competency.
I'm sorry, but that isn't a sentence. What are you trying to convey?
Your subject seems to be "manners practiced by men", I'm not sure what the verb is--is "as" supposed to be "are"? And the object seems to be missing entirely....? | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 3:14:06 PM | Some men are..every bit as ignorant of the gentle art of polite social response as women can be in their mistake of old-fashioned manners practiced by men, when they confuse it with denigration of physical competency.
Sorry. Awkward wording, subject was implied by the previous sentence. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 3:20:24 PM | Oh, I understand! "Mistake" is the verb, and should probably be "mistaking". And I'd switch "when" for "which".
Which would give: "Some men are..every bit as ignorant of the gentle art of polite social response as women can be in their mistaking of old-fashioned manners practiced by men, which they confuse with a denigration of their physical competency."
Is that right? It makes sense to me. | |
|
| did women kill chivalry? what do we need to do to bring it back?
Posted: 11/5/2006 3:28:09 PM | Yes sir, that is what was intended, but not properly conveyed.
GotAPulse:
One a dozens of citations: http://www.mecasa.org/statistics.html
Circa 1990. 'One in four women and one in six men will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime.'
Finkelhor, David, et al. Sexual Abuse in a National Survey of Adult Men and Women: Prevalence, Characteristics and Risk Factors. Child Abuse and Neglect: The International Journal v 14 n1 p 19-28, 1990.
Physical assault, circa 2001: 1 in 3
"One in three — the number of women who are raped, assaulted by a partner, or otherwise victims of sexual or domestic violence. This represents a wife, a girlfriend, a mother, a friend."
http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/emstrauma/vaw/data_stats.htm
You want to call the State of Washington a liar? Go ahead. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 8 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
