Sagamite:


You missed the core point there.

The point was not who Nobels are given to. The point was which races demonstrate academic prowess.

The black race would not be regarded as one.

I know knighthood and war-leadership are not exclusive to men in history. I am just saying the behaviour attributed to the title is definitively masculine.

No, actually it was you who missed the point here. The question is: can chivalry be used to qualify women? It is not: which gender exhibits chivalry? or which gender is more chivalrous? It is simply: can a woman be described as chivalrous?

Just like: Can a black man be said to have academic aptitude?

It isn't a comparative issue.

When I say "women" or "men", I think you need to figure out that I meant "on average".

I am sure if I said men are taller than women, you would not come back here and say I meant all men are taller than all women.

What does this even mean, and how is it applicable? We are arguing if a word can fittingly describe a woman. Now, it's well known that men are taller than women on the average. But does that mean that a woman cannot fittingly be described as being tall? Is it a word that can only be applicable to men? I think not.

This wasn't a good example to make your point.

No! Wrong.

Cooking and cleaning is not about nurture.

Women are naturally more interested in things that involve people, glamour, design and relationships than men.

Men are naturally more interested in things that involve manufacturing, systems, achievements and social power than women.

That is why men's TV channels/magazines would show you sex, sports, physical challenges, documentaries and politics, while women's TV channels/magazines would show you fashion, family, love and trash like reality TV.

Evolutionary engineering, not social engineering.

Claiming otherwise is the feminist crap I referred to.

I repeat: Nature is not politically correct!

...........I'll pass.

MissWrite:


Source: Feminism and the creation of a female aristocracy (Peter Wright)

So, you can type as short as this?

MissWrite:


Source: Feminism and the creation of a female aristocracy (Peter Wright)

Nice collection.

I must say that the first half would have not passed the mustard because the use was "female chivalry" or "women's chivalry", which suggests that the authors really saw it as an oxymoron.

But the final half do qualify as the use was "chivalrous women".

That said, your most recent example was 100 years ago?

Sagamite:


Nice collection.

I must say that the first half would have not passed the mustard because the use was "female chivalry" or "women's chivalry", which suggests that the authors really saw it as an oxymoron.

But the final half do qualify as the use was "chivalrous women".

That said, your most recent example was 100 years ago?

Lol! You asked for text on the issue; I gave it. If it had said merely "chivalry", according to your thinking, it would not comprise women. Now you have chivalry and women in the same sentence. Be happy, for chrissakes.

MissWrite:

No, actually it was you who missed the point here. The question is: can chivalry be used to qualify women? It is not: which gender exhibits chivalry? or which gender is more chivalrous? It is simply: can a woman be described as chivalrous?

Just like: Can a black man be said to have academic aptitude?

It isn't a comparative issue.

No, you missed the point, darling.

If you go back and read what I posted, I stated: "I would not even accept black people as academic based on two or ten of them winning Nobel Prizes...."

Nowhere did I state a black man cannot be said to lack academic aptitute.

MissWrite:

What does this even mean, and how is it applicable? We are arguing if a word can fittingly describe a woman. Now, it's well known that men are taller than women on the average. But does that mean that a woman cannot fittingly be described as being tall? Is it a word that can only be applicable to men? I think not.

This wasn't a good example to make your point.

Of course I know what we are debating about.

I am just telling you that it was nonsense and a waste of my time for you to intepret my insinuations as true for all case.

E.g. my insinuation that men are love sex more than women to mean I think every single man loves sex than every single woman.

My insinuation that men are more intelligent than women to mean I think every single man is more intelligent than every single woman.

You SHOULD have known it was "on average".

MissWrite:

...........I'll pass.

There is really no argument there, darling.

donstan18:


So, you can type as short as this?

MissWrite:

Vex jare

You and epistle are like 5&6, you can easily confuse your opponent in a written debate if he/she isn't smart enough

New word: Misswrite- Epistle.

E.g, it took Mr Jude a long time to compose that wonderful "misswrite-

MissWrite:

Lol! You asked for text on the issue; I gave it. If it had said merely "chivalry", according to your thinking, it would not comprise women. Now you have chivalry and women in the same sentence. Be happy, for chrissakes.

I agree with you, you did provide it with the "chivalrous women".

What I am saying is that you provide some few usage 100s of years ago. But definitions, as I stated, is about usage.

Is there any reason why you can't provide widespread modern/current usage? 100 years is fcking pretty long?

I note that in your source itself ('Feminism and the creation of a female aristocracy' by Peter Wright), it clearly states:

"Chivalry today continues to be undertood as STRICTLY male obligations towards female beneficiaries".

In your source, not mine.

So can you see why I noted the 100 years?

He even alluded to my argument that the behaviour of niceness/kindness by women to men is not called "chivalry".

Sagamite:


No, you missed the point, darling.

If you go back and read what I posted, I stated: "I would not even accept black people as academic based on two or ten of them winning Nobel Prizes...."

Nowhere did I state a black man cannot be said to lack academic aptitute.

Okay, I'm sorry. Then my response to you should have been that you analogy does not apply and you clearly missed my point. My point is: the existence of female knights through history proves that knighthood was not restricted to men.

Of course I know what we are debating about.

I am just telling you that it was nonsense and a waste of my time for you to intepret my insinuations as true for all case.

E.g. my insinuation that men are love sex more than women to mean I think every single man loves sex than every single woman.

My insinuation that men are more intelligent than women to mean I think every single man is more intelligent than every single woman.

You SHOULD have known it was "on average".

Again, it's NOT about averages. It's about whether the word (chivalry) can be used to qualify women. Just like "tall" and "affinity for sex", even when men are tall(er) on the average.

There is really no argument there, darling.

Clearly not with you.

MissWrite:

Okay, I'm sorry. Then my response to you should have been that you analogy does not apply and you clearly missed my point. My point is: the existence of female knights through history proves that knighthood was not restricted to men.

I knew that already, you did not need to tell me.

MissWrite:

Again, it's NOT about averages. It's about whether the word (chivalry) can be used to qualify women. Just like "tall" and "affinity for sex", even when men are tall(er) on the average.

You were the one that deviated the argument with a misinterpretation. I just adddressed and corrected it.

MissWrite:

Clearly not with you.

Don't even try it. That would be feminist crap.

Sagamite:


I agree with you, you did provide it with the "chivalrous women".

What I am saying is that you provide some few usage 100s of years ago. But definitions, as I stated, is about usage.

Is there any reason why you can't provide modern/current usage? 100 years is fcking pretty long?

I note that in your source itself ('Feminism and the creation of a female aristocracy' by Peter Wright), it clearly states:

"Chivalry today continues to be undertood as STRICTLY male obligations towards female beneficiaries".

In your source, not mine.

So can you see why I noted the 100 years?

He even alluded to my argument that the behaviour of niceness/kindness by women to men is not called "chivalry".

This is your category, he acknowledged you: people who continue to understand chivalry as strictly male obligations towards female beneficiaries. Even when there are historical examples of a wider application. Books are written to enlighten people because ignorance
continues to live amongst us.

The older examples were of greater value to me because I wanted to see how far back this sort of usage went. And it dates back far enough to a time when chivalry was alive and well. And I counted 80 years between 1938 and 2018.

MissWrite:


This is your category, he acknowledged you: people who continue to understand chivalry as strictly male obligations towards female beneficiaries. Even when there are historical examples of a wider application. Books are written to enlighten people because ignorance
continues to live amongst us.

The older examples were of greater value to me because I wanted to see how far back this sort of usage went. And it dates back far enough to a time when chivalry was alive and well. And I counted 80 years between 1938 and 2018.

If you had been concentrating you would have counted approximately 112 years, as the 1938 one was "female/woman's chivalry" which I said I discounted.

Secondly, my argument was not that it had NEVER been used for women (as I knew even women could be nights), the argument was that is was very rare to the point of negligible.

It could even fcking be used for wild animals.

The point is that most people's attribution and understanding is that it is a masculine thing, hence why the use of it for women is negligible.

If one put a search for "Chivalrous Women" in google, several questions that would pop-up would be related to the applicability to women.

Even one of google's related searches suggestion when you put that in a search would be "chivalry female equivalent", which tells you many English-speaking people don't think it is applicable to women and are searching for the alternative word that is equavalently applicable to women.

Sagamite:


If you had been concentrating you would have counted approximately 112 years, as the 1938 one was "female/woman's chivalry" which I said I discounted.

Secondly, my argument was not that it had NEVER been used for women (as I knew even women could be nights), the argument was that is was very rare to the point of negligible.

It could even fcking be used for wild animals.

The point is that most people's attribution and understanding is that it is a masculine thing, hence why the use of it for women is negligible.

If one put a search for "Chivalrous Women" in google, several questions that would pop-up would be related to the applicability to women.

Even one of google's related searches suggestion when you put that in a search would be "chivalry female equivalent", which tells you many English-speaking people don't think it is applicable to women and are searching for the alternative word that is equavalently applicable to women.

Alright this is getting tedious. I'm picking out the bolded words and considering them your concession.

MissWrite:



Alright this is getting tedious. I'm picking out the bolded words and considering them your concession.

Fuuk Lord!

Did you understand this statement when YOU quoted it from me?

https://www.nairaland.com/4347281/male-chivalry-feminism-mutually-exclusive/1#65164858

"So, sorry, Chivalry is gender-specific. A woman cannot be "chivalrous". They can have or demonstrate the behaviours but the tag is not attributable to them in general."

Did you get what "in general" meant?

donstan18:


Vex jare

You and epistle are like 5&6, you can easily confuse your opponent in a written debate if he/she isn't smart enough

New word: Misswrite- Epistle.

E.g, it took Mr Jude a long time to compose that wonderful "misswrite-

Lol! . Yeah, I accept. The clue is in the moniker. But more often than not I keep it brief by not typing anything at all.

MissWrite:



Lol! . Yeah, I accept. The clue is in the moniker. But more often than not I keep it brief by not typing anything at all.

Lo

Well, that's pretty nice of you, just kidding

It's just that I'm off and far from "Art" field of study

Tohzara:
The emboldened is further verification of my claim that you're a brainless idiot. I'm very sure the most stupid person knows that opening a thread and asking for people's opinions doesn't mean I do not already have my answers or position on the matter.

I think you need to go back and take your pills to free yourself from the menstrual cramps bothering you. You're being a retãrd and a nuisance at the same time.

GTFO of this "useless" thread, moronic fucktãrd.

More Childish comebacks. Tehehe!
None of you have the wherewithal to discuss this subject. Kill yaself if it's too hard to swallow!
See im dirty mouth like 'chivalry'. Lmao Gerrarrahere!

Sagamite:




It would definitely weed me off. This is how I respond to girls like you that tell me they are feminist while I am trying to impregnate them.

Very good! Let everybody know where they stand. The moment I meet a Nigerian man, I shout it well well - FEMINIST ni mi. I have chuku chuku down there. No man goes there and comes out alive.

Stillfire:


[s]More Childish comebacks. Tehehe!
None of you have the wherewithal to discuss this subject. Kill yaself if it's too hard to swallow!
See im dirty mouth like 'chivalry'. Lmao Gerrarrahere![/s]

See the retãrd making stupid noise. Get out of where?

Get lost, bitch. GTFO of my thread. Stupid thing.

[quote author=Futureberry post=65133805][/quote]

Dude or dudette, I'm too confident in myself to be worried about the 'other'.

Tollzara:
See the retãrd making stupid noise. Get out of where?

Get lost, bitch. GTFO of my thread. Stupid thing.

Your mama.

Stillfire:

Your mama.

Your lame papa and crippled mama.

Tollzara:
Your lame papa and crippled mama.

Oh you're tired of writing childish insults...
Let's go

Your unborn children and their mother who sucked your father's pe.nis.

Stillfire:


[s]Oh you're tired of writing childish insults...
Let's go

Your unborn children and their mother who sucked your father's pe.nis.[/s]

Your mother's disease-ravaged pussy certainly contributed to the fate of your punctured brain-----and then your destiny was sealed by the countless times you were stabbed in the head by random dicks during the sexcapades of the then pregnant whöre.

Stillfire:


Very good! Let everybody know where they stand. The moment I meet a Nigerian man, I shout it well well - FEMINIST ni mi. I have chuku chuku down there. No man goes there and comes out alive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnsyQh0FfoM

Stillfire:


Very good! Let everybody know where they stand. The moment I meet a Nigerian man, I shout it well well - FEMINIST ni mi. I have chuku chuku down there. No man goes there and comes out alive.

heh - wrong pic





that is chuku chuku

if that bee stings its stinger falls out and it dies. just sayin

Sagamite:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnsyQh0FfoM

heh no atheists in foxholes dentatas

Sagamite:
As far as I am concerned, it is not acceptable to be a "feminist" today, it just does not fly anymore period.

I hear that word/tag and I immediately get irritated....

But whatever each individual's ability, they should have the freedom to elect how they use it without any legal control and limitations because of their gender. Nor should they have any legal leg up or advantage because of their gender. That is my stance!

Thanks for the mention. I totally agree with your post. The world will be a much better place if we saw more of such logical soundness.

Modern feminism, and all its neo-marxist siblings that depend on the sanctimonious subjugation of reality to ideology is something to be ashamed of, not identified with. Any selfish anti-nature/anti-science movement that depends on political correctness to subsist will either be exposed for its fraud in the long term, or bring about societal ruin.

Equality of outcome is nothing more than a feel good myth. All men are not equal in natural ability and intelligence, therefore all men will never achieve equal outcomes even when presented with equal opportunities. We see that in society all the time. Two brothers who grew up in the same home with similar opportunities achieve entirely different outcomes. Yet some arrogant social engineers have this deluded expectation that men and women as a group should achieve equal outcomes, and begin to promote reverse discriminatory policies to force their desired make-believe equality.

Feminism has obviously not benefitted women nearly as much as they thought it would. Instead, modern times correlate with declining female happiness in the developed world. The widespread use of anti-depressants among young women in the developed world lends credence to this conclusion. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1098023. Chivalry on the other hand, promotes the treatment of women with kindness and decency. It is incompatibe with modern feminism.

I fear that if the spread of nonsense like modern feminism continues unabated, women would have it worse in the coming generations than they do today.
The relatively free and fair western societies whose foundations were built around the writings of Europe's classical liberal enlightenment thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries are being threatened by authoritarian neo-marxist movements who use political correctness/speech policing to stifle reason and honest discussions. One relatively recent example of loss of civil liberties can be seen in the Iranian revolution of 1979. The Ayatollah's authoritarian government that gained prominence at the end of the revolution seriously limited civil liberties, which disproportionately affected women's freedoms. This should be a lesson that freedoms can be realistically taken away. Lovers of liberty must ever be wary of authoritarian movements.

GiantParrot:


Thanks for the mention. I totally agree with your post. The world will be a much better place if we saw more of such logical soundness.

Modern feminism, and all its neo-marxist siblings that depend on the sanctimonious subjugation of reality to ideology is something to be ashamed of, not identified with. Any selfish anti-nature/anti-science movement that depends on political correctness to subsist will either be exposed for its fraud in the long term, or bring about societal ruin.

Equality of outcome is nothing more than a feel good myth. All men are not equal in natural ability and intelligence, therefore all men will never achieve equal outcomes even when presented with equal opportunities. We see that in society all the time. Two brothers who grew up in the same home with similar opportunities achieve entirely different outcomes. Yet some arrogant social engineers have this deluded expectation that men and women as a group should achieve equal outcomes, and begin to promote reverse discriminatory policies to force their desired make-believe equality.

Feminism has obviously not benefitted women nearly as much as they thought it would. Instead, modern times correlate with declining female happiness in the developed world. The widespread use of anti-depressants among young women in the developed world lends credence to this conclusion. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1098023. Chivalry on the other hand, promotes the treatment of women with kindness and decency. It is incompatibe with modern feminism.

I fear that if the spread of nonsense like modern feminism continues unabated, women would have it worse in the coming generations than they do today.
The relatively free and fair western societies whose foundations were built around the writings of Europe's classical liberal enlightenment thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries are being threatened by authoritarian neo-marxist movements who use political correctness/speech policing to stifle reason and honest discussions. One relatively recent example of loss of civil liberties can be seen in the Iranian revolution of 1979. The Ayatollah's authoritarian government that gained prominence at the end of the revolution seriously limited civil liberties, which disproportionately affected women's freedoms. This should be a lesson that freedoms can be realistically taken away. Lovers of liberty must ever be wary of authoritarian movements.

This nigga, easy now.

Why are you letting flies into my eyes?

https://im-01./OiJg.gif

What a well written, structured, logical and objective write up.

Deserves a standing ovation.

Stillfire, Misswrite, cococandy and co, don't front. Get up and join the standing ovation.

Summarise it brilliantly.

The World has caught on to this junk movement I have been highlighting for years.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/6768445_20140323thetheftofmoralauthority3_jpeg5f04a5afe509aeace6fecab68fde7fc6