Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Pregnant Wedding
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="boondocks" data-source="post: 1408112" data-attributes="member: 20599"><p>I'm not responding to M-5 as I don't launch personal attacks nor respond to them.</p><p>To others, I would point out that the "original" poster (Peter!) referred to "showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel." This is a broad blanket statement as to women's supposed "weakness." A vessel is something that breaks easily (think pottery, china, etc). It is not simply referring to certain aspects of physical strength.</p><p>There are also significant historical differences in how we view women's physical strength (or lack thereof) by class and by race. Only upper class white women were thought to be "weak" and in need of protection. (Think Victorian fainting chaises). Working class white women and black women were expected to, and did, and do, work at hard physical labor, without anyone fussing over their purported delicacy.</p><p>Please understand: I'm not suggesting one shouldn't "honor" anyone. Honor whoever you like! What I AM saying is that we need to understand that calling women "weak" has been used historically in ways that are not at all always "honoring" of them. (One might fairly ask: why do you need to see the other person as weaker than you, in order to treat them well?).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="boondocks, post: 1408112, member: 20599"] I'm not responding to M-5 as I don't launch personal attacks nor respond to them. To others, I would point out that the "original" poster (Peter!) referred to "showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel." This is a broad blanket statement as to women's supposed "weakness." A vessel is something that breaks easily (think pottery, china, etc). It is not simply referring to certain aspects of physical strength. There are also significant historical differences in how we view women's physical strength (or lack thereof) by class and by race. Only upper class white women were thought to be "weak" and in need of protection. (Think Victorian fainting chaises). Working class white women and black women were expected to, and did, and do, work at hard physical labor, without anyone fussing over their purported delicacy. Please understand: I'm not suggesting one shouldn't "honor" anyone. Honor whoever you like! What I AM saying is that we need to understand that calling women "weak" has been used historically in ways that are not at all always "honoring" of them. (One might fairly ask: why do you need to see the other person as weaker than you, in order to treat them well?). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Pregnant Wedding
Top