solipsistic drivelings.

Grammar is everything to me. My Dad used to tell me, "If you can't speak English properly especially in social functions, then you might as well have your tongue cut off." I swear my Dad had Nazi blood in him.

While other people judge others by the looks, I judge them by how well they speak English, and, of course, whether they can pull off a smart English conversation with me for a prolonged period of time. (That's why I'll never ever date a guy with a lousy English. He he.) I won't claim that my English is perfect. Mine can get quite rusty and sloppy. But I always make sure to do something about that. Either my English rubs hides the right way, or I will have my tongue cut off before some grammarian  manages to evoke visceral responses-- abominable, hideous, disgusting-- at my faulty English.

Yes I can be very O.C. when it comes to the whole English stuff, so imagine my surprise when I came to stumble upon this BBC news magazine web page.

On Americanisms: 50 of your most noted examples, it was insinuated that Americans had allegedly morphed and disfigured the traditional language of English. The usage of American English, or "Americanism" has managed to infiltrate the language of the local Brits themselves, and changed the way they speak, which in turn infuriated the ones who remained "pure". My use of the phrases 'I'm good', 'Where you at', and 'Gimme five minutes' may sound innocent enough but these are the kinds of phrases that drive the British mental. And who else must take full blame but the Americans who took over the language, and forged it according to their needs, whose bad English habits and slangy ways we Filipinos adopted.

Allegedly the version of the King's English that we are using is sloppy. The Brits can not understand why we keep on removing the "u's" on "colours" and "flavours". And it sure will drive them to the edge that we don't use the lavatory as often as we use our comfort rooms.

Here's the list of the 50 Americanisms that drive the Brits to the edge, with some of  their actual comments:

1. “Can I get a...” (“It infuriates me. It’s not New York. It’s not the ‘90s. You’re not in Central Perk with the rest of the Friends. Really.”)

2. “Least worst option.” (“Their most best option is learning grammar.”)

3. “Two-time” and “three-time.” (“Have the words ‘double,’ ‘triple,’ etc. been totally lost?”)

4. “24/7” (rather than “24 hours, 7 days a week”)

5. “Deplane” (instead of “disembark”)

6. “Wait on” (instead of “wait for”)

7. “It is what it is.” (“Pity us!”)

8. “Fanny pack.” (ME: would someone enlighten me? Maybe in the UK, they call it “Booty pack”?)

9. “Touch base.” (“It makes me cringe no end.”)

10. “Physicality” (“Is it a real word?”)

11. “Transportation.” (“What’s wrong with ‘transport’?”)

12. “Leverage.” (“It seems to pop up in all aspects of work. And its meaning seems to have changed to ‘value added.”)

13. “Turn” (“Does nobody ‘celebrate’ a birthday anymore, must we all ‘turn’ 12 or 21 or 40?”)

14. “Shopping cart.” (“I caught myself saying this instead of shopping trolley today and was thoroughly disgusted with myself.”)

15. “Gotten.” (“What kind of word is that? It makes me shudder.”)

16. “I’m good” (for “I’m well”)

17. “Bangs” (for a fringe of the hair)

18. “Take-out” (rather than takeaway)

19. “Ridiculosity.” (“Perhaps it’s used in a tongue in cheek manner?”)

 20. “A half hour” (instead of “half an hour”)

21. “Heads up.” (“For example, as in a business meeting. I have never been sure of the meaning!”)

22. “Train station.” (“My teeth are on edge every time I hear it. Who started it? Have they been punished?”) (Me: Presumably they say “railway station” in more civilized climes.)

23. “Alphabetize it.” (“To put a list on an alphabetical order. Horrid!”)

24. “My bad.” (“People say it after making a mistake. I don’t know how anything could be as annoying or lazy as that.”)

25. “Normalcy”  (instead of “normality”)

26. “Burglarize” (Me: As opposed to “burgle”?)

27. “Oftentimes” (“Just makes me shiver with annoyance.”)

28. “Eaterie.” (“To use a prevalent phrase, ‘Oh my gaad!’”)

29. “Bi-weekly.” (“Fortnightly would suffice just fine.”)

30. “Alternate” (instead of “alternative.”)

31. “Price hike.” (“Does that mean people who do that are hikers? No, hikers are ramblers!”)

32. “Going forward.” (“If I do I shall collide with my keyboard.”)

33. “Deliverable.” (“Used by management consultants for something they will ‘deliver’ instead of a report. Ugh!”)

34. “A million and a half.” (“Clearly, it’s ‘one and a half million‘!” )

35. “Reach out to” (instead of “ask”) (“As in ‘I will reach out to Kevin and let you know if that timing is convenient.’ Is Kevin stuck in quicksand? Is he teetering on the edge of a cliff? Can’t we just ask him?”)

36. “You do the math.” (“Math? It’s maths! Maths!”)

37. “Regular” (in coffee shops) (“What ever happened to a medium-sized coffee?”)

38. “Expiration date.” (“Whatever happened to ‘expiry’?”)

39. “Scotch-Irish.” (“Americans claim their ancestors as such. Even if it were possible, it would be ‘Scots’ not ‘Scotch,’ which is a drink.”)

40. “That’ll learn you.” (“The English — and more correct — version was always ‘that’ll teach you.’ What a ridiculous phrase!”) (Me: Yayy. I've never used this!)
 
41. “Where’s it at?” (“It just sounds grotesque and is immensely irritating.”)

42. “Period” (instead of “full stop”)

43. “Winningest” (“As in ‘Michael Schumacher is the winningest driver of all time.’ I can feel the rage rising even using it here.”)

44. “Season” (instead of TV series) (“Hideous.”) (Me: Well, I've often wondered about this one too.)

45. “Issue” (instead of “problem”)

46. “The letter zee” (instead of the proper British “zed”) (“Not happy about it!”) (Me: And I’m not happy about people using the phrase “Not happy about it!”)

47. “Medal” (as a verb instead of ‘win a medal’) (“Sets my teeth on edge with a vengeance.”)

48. “I got it for free.” (“A pet hate. You got it ‘free,’ not ‘for free.’ You don’t get something cheap and say you got it ‘for cheap,’ do you?”)

49. “Turn that off already.” (“Oh, dear.”)

50. “I could care less” (instead of “I couldn’t care less”) (“Has to be the worst. Opposite meaning of what they’re trying to say.”)

I agree that some of the Americanisms are ludicrous, and that the concerned Brits' reactions are justifiable, but I really don't get why it's driving them to a near-hysteria, and even inspired UK grammarians to  write grammar guides that few of us who speak English can't even get through. Maybe it is their patriotisme' and intense desire to preserve the King's language as it is, but I feel I don't want to take part. I mean, I'm not even British. (Although I really am glad to have read the interesting article.)

Most of you couldn't care less, but before I end this, allow me to share another BBC viewer's eloquent standpoint re the impermanence of the English language.

"Languages are, by their very nature, shifting, malleable things that morph according to the needs and desires of those who speak them. 

"English itself is a rather complicated, interesting blend of Germanic, French and Latin (among other things). It has arrived at this point through the long and torturous process of assimilation and modification. The story of the English language is the story of an unstoppable train of consecutive changes - and for someone to put their hand up and say "wait - the train stops here and should go no further" is not only futile, but ludicrously arbitrary. "

and this,

"I understand the argument about loss of cultural identity, but if so many people are so willing to give up traditional forms and phrases maybe we should consider that they didn't have as much value as we previously imagined."

Couldn't agree more to that major, major statement! Ooopps. My bad. (;

Posted via Blogaway

I couldn't help but smirk when I read this at the Lifestyle section of the Philippine STAR. That's right. I still religiously read the daily paper-- a habit I acquired from GOD [Great O'l Dad.. No sarcasm intended.(;] As I was saying, I got the title of this post from the Ask Nanay column of the PhilSTAR. It sure did catch my attention. The title, I mean. I didn't bother reading the whole article, though. Mind you, I don't read advice columns especially when the advice comes from a person who is about three generations older than me. He he. Really, I don't see how someone that old, my gramps or gran, or my parents even, someone who was born at least six decades before the new millennium could offer up advice with an inkling of relevance to life on Earth as we know it now.

Enough of the jabber. Dear readers, I am hoping that you didn't assume that the title of this post has something to do with my life. God forbid, I'd rather be banished to a lifetime of singlehood. Really. I mean, what girl in her right mind would want to be with a lazy, penniless guy? That girl in love with a lazy, penniless boyfie, I am sure, is in her wrong mind! (x Please bear with me and my humor.(; Guys, if you are reading this, if there is something that you must know, it's the fact that when a woman looks you below the waist, I can assure you she's more interested of what she'd find inside your pocket than of what's inside your pants.

Oh my bad. Did I hit a nerve there? My apologies first to the ladies. I know not all women are like that. Not at all. But most are anyway. And most of those "most" would deny. That's alright. As Kübler-Ross would put it, denial is the first step to acceptance. And to the gents. I know just how vain you all are when it comes to your size. I assure you, size really matters to most, okay, to some women. As for the looks, I've been observing couples lately and I couldn't help but notice that though the girls are endowed with good looks, their guys are, well, let's just say that they look way below average.

I have a friend whose guy is filthy rich. His family is, anyway. But he's not much to look at. And as if that ain't enough, he is a well-known womanizer. My friend doesn't seem to mind so long as she still receives expensive gifts from boyfriend and that they are still checking in at five-star hotels and dining at posh restaurants.

I do not approve of that guy and his kind. My friend would always say, "I'm just being practical. Why would I put up with a guy who looks like a celebrity but can't satisfy my every whim? I'd rather go for someone who can afford me." Right. Like she's some gadget or a ride he could purchase with his credit card.

There's a thin line between practicality and propriety. It's not worth it having people talk about you behind your back. It's not worth it being labeled a slut whose only after a rich guy's money. Oh, I'd probably go for the guy, for practical reasons, but if and only if, he doesn't screw other girls. But, really, I can still feed myself! LOL. I don't wanna judge my friend too harshly but how she had easily thrown away her reputation..

Another case: I know someone who recently got married to this fellow, who is penniless, unemployed and has no post-secondary education. I was like, what the hell??  Just two months before they got married, she caught the guy with another girl. Still she pushed through with the marriage without reassessing their suddenly complicated situation. I was like, what, had she gone mad whack??!! The guy is someone I'll describe as tall, dark and handsome, maybe, just maybe, those are the reasons why the incident with the other girl was set aside. Up to now, the guy is cheating on her. The nerve of him.. And the stupidity of her.. Sighh.. I am going bonkers for her! How she had easily thrown away her self-worth!

That is way worse than the first guy, right?? Choosing between the first guy and the second, that's a no-brainer!

If you've been watching Glee, you'll remember the episode when Santana ditches Puck with the parting words, "What i need as a woman is financial security." Damn. I love her character. Who says nothing can be learned out of watching stupid TV shows, huh? LOL. Anyways, Santana's right. What she said to poor Puck was blunt but she's just telling the truth.

Going back to the stories of the slutty, womanizing rich guy and poor guy, well, to tell you the truth, if you would ask me, I'd go for neither. It's like choosing between the devil and the deep, blue sea. Now where did that come from? I know I just quoted someone though I couldn't remember who.(; Really, both options are suicide. You get it. ladies? Suicide.

Let's delete the womanizing factor. If i were given the choice between an ugly, rich guy and a good-looking but poor and lazy guy, really, I have no use for the latter.

But if it's a choice between Baby Warbucks and a resourceful, hardworking and goal-oriented dude, perhaps, I might go for the former at first, but in the long run, I'd settle for the latter. I need not explain this..

According to a study made by the American economist Steven D. Levitt about dating, it came out that, "If for men, a woman's looks are of paramount importance, for women, a man's income is terribly important." So that explains why in most couplings, the girls are pretty and the guys have thick wallets.

Because numbers don't lie, I will assume that Levitt's finding is true. Oh dear. What an easy life for me! I can afford to be penniless and just use my looks!

LOL. Ya know I'm just teasin ya'!

Everyone who wants to be ambassador to the whole wide universe should be able to speak English-- the international language. I think.

I used to never know how Kim Kardashian came to be known. In fact, I used to never know who she is. I thought she was just one of those ambitious starlets slash waitresses slash bimbos who bedded them Hollywood big shots to earn their way up the fame ladder. Believe me, it happens all the time, not only in Hollywood, but also in the local show business.

Men would love to have this gym equipment..
So anyways, I googgled Kim. A few hits and what I have  gathered made my scornful mouth smile: Kim Kardashian is this big-bootied socialite catapulted to fame through a sex tape. Hah! Isn't that something? I'm pretty sure not everyone knows that. You should thank me for that piece of meat. *wink* Needless to say, the info revolted me to pieces. WTF was she doin' on a sex tape? I mean,  being the rich socialite that she is, she could've easily bought her way to fame. Pretty dumb, she is. But I guess her claim to fame couldn't be helped. We are after all on the 'instant' age, where instant information, instant gratification, sensory overload,and, on Kim's case, instant fame, are easily at hand. The internet, and all those gadgets seemed to have inculcated to our human minds that speed is most essential, depersonalizing, and intensifying the complex thing that is our world.

Woah. I had to squeeze the brain juices outta my brain to come up with that. I didn't even understand a word of it, believe me.(x

So anyways I still think she's pretty dumbbb. Kim Kardashian, I mean.

She keeps on doing bad-rep wa-eva's.
On second thought, though, maybe it wont hurt to be dumb every once in a while. And it's OK to have the spotlight shone on you, just as it is wonderfully fine to have all the money in the world. Two things we greatly clamor for-- wealth and fame. Kim Kardashian seems to be enjoying the best of both sides, don't you think? Paris Hilton, too-- that bitch who mistakenly thought she could get away with anything, but her DUI still earned her 3 days in the joint. My, oh my. These people. they're so high they hardly notice the scales are being tipped sidewards. One wrong step on the fine wire and they're dead. For good.

If I could only be in their shoes even for  just a day.. That would be a blast!

So which is better, to be rich, or famous?

Hmm.. If I am famous, I will be the topic of conversation. And controversy. I'd love that!I and my works will be recognized by everyone in the world! My face and body will launch a thousand covers! And I f I am famous, I'd get to feel how it's like to be chased by the papparazi! I just hope it won't lead to something tragic, like what happened to Princess Diana..); But then, if I become famous, the public will own me. They will expect too much from me, even stuff I am not capable of. And the gravest thing is I will lose my privacy. But I can use my fame to be rich and earn lots!. Moreover, I can make a difference in this world, say by supporting a cause that saves lives and inspire more people to do the same.

But what if I don't wanna be adored by lots of people? If I become rich, really filthy rich,  I can buy all the floral and polka dot dresses and the shoes in the world! I dont even have to worry about budget or paying the bills any longer. My money will buy anything-- tangible or otherwise-- including fame! I'll be on Forbes magazine. If I am rich, I can do all sorts of things famous people do, but with lesser restriction and out of everyone's eyes. I can also donate funds to all the charitable institutions all over the world. But when, I'm rich, how, how, how would I know whether the people around me love me for who I am, or for what I have? );

When we are young, and still have a lot more spankings to receive from life, we all have this incredible itch to either become rich or popular or both. Jim Carrey may have said that to become rich and famous is not the answer. Of course. The thing is, we just simply want to be. We can see how glamorous those people's lives are and we want ours to be like theirs, too. I think that's pretty normal. After all, isn't it supposed to be everyone's birthright, to have everything and be well known, even for just once in this lifetime? Nobody wants to be constantly poor and constantly outshined.

I am young and I know no better. I wanna be a famous billionaire so freakin' bad. I wont wash my hands just yet.

Allow me still to share this quote, it kinda inspired me to write this post:

 "If wealth is the secret to happiness, then the rich should be dancing on the street. But only poor kids do that.

If power ensures security, then officials should have walked unguarded.

If beauty and fame bring ideal relationships, then celebrities should should have the best marriages ever.

Live simply.

Walk humbly.

Love genuinely.

It might be hard at times, but REWARDING."

Posted via Blogaway

If you have read my previous blog post, which was a book review of the international bestseller Freakonomics, then you'd recognize this picture

source

It's on the front cover of the book. It shows a green apple but it's inside is of the citrus fruit variety. He he. Wala lang. I haven't noticed it before. Really freakish..

I'm not going to talk about the book, 'kay, what I'm going to talk about is the freakonomist's study about online dating. That's right, it's one of the studies that have been discussed in the book. The focus is not online dating itself, but the extent to which a person divulges info about him/herself to the public and whether a specific info improves his/her prospects of finding a partner. So on online dating, the usual gist is this: you put up a personal ad of yourself, your vital statistics, your photo, your income range, level of education, likes and dislikes and so on. If the ad catches someone's attention, that someone will email you and perhaps arrange a date.

What came out of the study are quite interesting. Yeah, the author said that people who put up ads of themselves are NOT always telling the truth. Actually most of the time, they're making up stuff about themselves. Like, for instance, most of the men say that their looks are above average, taller than average, earn way above the average income, and most of the women have above average looks and their weight lower than the normal weight. Maybe it was just a coincidence that most of them are almost perfect. Maybe, just maybe, right?

But whether they are lying about themselves or not, is neither here nor there. The thing is, without realizing it, they have just put up their preferences, without being too obvious, simply by putting up their personal ads online.

You may not agree to some of the results but surveys have been conducted and you know, as well as I do, that numbers don't lie, or at least, less baldly than people do. Below are the most interesting results and you can find my reaction after each item.. ((: 


1. Men who say they want a long term relationship do much better than men looking for an occasional lover. --> Because most women are for real. They prefer permanence. And men? They're just looking for the ride! 


2. Women looking for an occasional lover do great. --> Primarily, it's the sex that men are after. Because men are so hamsap. Ha ha. Also, they value quantity. The more, the better. 

3. For men, a woman's looks are of paramount importance. --> Therefore, beautiful women, can afford to be penniless. If you aren't endowed with good looks, there's plastic surgery. And Vicky Belo. 

4. For women, a man's income is terribly important. -->  Lazy, penniless boyfriends are a no-no. If you are a poor guy, and a lazy one, at that, you're likely to die a poor, lazy, lonely, old man. Ha ha. (x

5. A woman's income appeal is a bell-shaped curve. Men do not want to date low earning women, but once a woman starts earning too much, they seem to be scared off. --> Because men wrongfully think that they should be earning more. Because successful women make them feel insecure and it does make them feel less of a man. 

6. For men, being short is a big disadvantage, but weight doesn't much matter. --> That's why my boyfriend is 5" 8'. And my ex'es are at least 5"7'. (; 

7. For women, being overweight is deadly. --> That's why I am anorexic! (x

P.S. Hey I hope this post dint illicit violent reactions from ya. Those were my honest reactions, k, I wasn't thinking and I dint bother reviewing it. You know, too lazy..(x

Since I don't feel like writing a book review just yet, and I have nothing sensible to post, and since I see a lot of Koreans currently studying in the Philippines (especially in Baguio City) to take advantage of our cheaper tuition fees and learn English at the same time, I'd like to share this essay I've stumbled upon on the web written by a Korean named Jaeyoun Kim.

I am not sure if you have already read it but if you haven't yet, I really want you to, guys. It's been published on the 14th of September, 2003 on Jaeyoun Kim's Internet Blog, but reading it, and seeing the present situation in the country, nothing much has changed. The Philippines last 2003 is still the same, or possibly, worse, Philippines eight years after.

You can pass it to all Filipinos you know. Never mind the grammar; it's the CONTENT that counts. Maybe it is timely to think about this in the midst of all the confusion at present.


Filipinos always complain about the corruption in
the Philippines . Do you really think the corruption
is the problem of the Philippines ? I do not
think so. I strongly believe that the problem is
the lack of love for the Philippines.

Let me first talk about my country, Korea.
It might help you understand my point.
After the Korean War, South Korea was one
of the poorest countries in the world. Koreans
had to start from scratch because entire country was
destroyed after the Korean War, and we had no
natural resources.

Koreans used to talk about the Philippines , for
Filipinos were very rich in Asia. We envy Filipinos.
Koreans really wanted to be well off like
Filipinos. Many Koreans died of famine.
My father & brother also died because of famine.
Korean government was very corrupt and is still very
corrupt beyond your imagination, but Korea was
able to develop dramatically because Koreans really
did their best for the common good with their heart
burning with patriotism.

Koreans did not work just for themselves but also
for their neighborhood and country. Education inspired
young men with the spirit of patriotism.

40 years ago, President Park took over the
government to reform Korea. He tried to borrow money
from other countries, but it was not possible to get a
loan and attract a foreign investment because the
economic situation of South Korea was so bad. Korea had
only three factories. So, President Park sent many mine
workers and nurses to Germany so that
they could send money to Korea to build a factory.
They had to go through horrible experience.

In 1964, President Park visited Germany to borrow
money. Hundred of Koreans in Germany came to the
airport to welcome him and cried there as they saw
the President Park. They asked to him, "President,
when can we be well off?" That was the only question
everyone asked to him. President Park cried with
them and promised them that Korea would be well
off if everyone works hard for Korea, and the President
of Germany got the strong impression on them
and lent money to Korea. So, President Park was
able to build many factories in Korea. He always
asked Koreans to love their country from their heart.

Many Korean scientists and engineers in the USA
came back to Korea to help developing country
because they wanted their country to be well off.
Though they received very small salary, they did their
best for Korea. They always hoped that their children
would live in well off country.

My parents always brought me to the places where
poor and physically handicapped people live. They
wanted me to understand their life and help them.
I also worked for Catholic Church when I was in the army.
The only thing I learned from Catholic Church was that we
have to love our neighborhood. And, I have loved my
neighborhood. Have you cried for the
Philippines? I have cried for my country several
times. I also cried for the Philippines because of so many
poor people. I have been to the New Bilibid
prison. What made me sad in the prison were the
prisoners who do not have any love for their country.
They go to mass and work for Church. They pray
everyday.

However, they do not love the Philippines. I
talked to two prisoners at the maximum-security compound,
and both of them said that they would leave the
Philippines right after they are released from the
prison. They said that they would start a new life in other
countries and never come back to the Philippines.

Many Koreans have a great love for Korea so that
we were able to share our wealth with our neighborhood.
The owners of factory and company were distributed their
profit to their employees fairly so that employees could
buy what they needed and saved money for the
future and their children.

When I was in Korea, I had a very strong faith and
wanted to be a priest. However, when I came to the Philippines,
I completely lost my faith.
I was very confused when I saw many unbelievable
situations in the Philippines . Street kids always make me sad,
and I see them everyday. The Philippines is the only Catholic
country in Asia, but there are too many poor people here.
People go to church every Sunday to pray, but nothing has
been changed.

My parents came to the Philippines last week and
saw this situation. They told me that Korea was much poorer
than the present Philippines when they
were young. They are so sorry that there are so
many beggars and street kids. When we went to Pagsanjan,
I forced my parents to take a boat because
it would fun. However, they were not happy after
taking a boat. They said that they would not take the boat
again because they were sympathized the
boatmen, for the boatmen were very poor and had a
small frame. Most of people just took a boat and enjoyed it.
But, my parents did not enjoy it because of love
for them.

My mother who has been working for Catholic Church
since I was very young told me that if we just go to
mass without changing ourselves, we are not
Catholic indeed. Faith should come with action.
She added that I have to love Filipinos and do good things
for them because all of us are same and have received a great
love from God. I want Filipinos to love their
neighborhood and country as much as they love God
so that the Philippines will be well off.

I am sure that love is the keyword, which Filipinos
should remember. We cannot change the sinful structure at once.
It should start from person. Love must start in everybody,
in a small scale and have to grow. A lot of
things happen if we open up to love. Let's put away
our prejudices and look at our worries with our new eyes.

I discover that every person is worthy to be
loved. Trust in love, because it makes changes possible.
Love changes you and me. It changes people, contexts and
relationships. It changes the world. Please love your
neighborhood and country.

Jesus Christ said that whatever we do to others we
do to Him. In the Philippines, there is God for people who
are abused and abandoned. There is God who is crying for love.
If you have a child, teach them how to love the Philippines.
Teach them why they have to love their neighborhood and country.
You already know that God also will be very happy if you love others.

That's all I really want to ask you Filipinos.

(FOR THE LOVE OF OUR COUNTRY PLEASE PASS THIS MESSAGE)

(Author's Note: the contents of this page previously appeared as her reaction on Leah's Treasures: Guest Post: Chivalry. Because it's quite long, she thinks it's as good as a blog post. ((: )

I think chivalry should not be expected solely from men.. When I ride the bus and I see an old lady or old guy or a pregnant lady or a crippled guy or a child standing, either i share or offer my seat to them. The point is if you are more physically able than the person next to you, then you are expected to assist him/ her. I don't need to be a guy. Knights don't need to have a 'rod' to be called a knight.

Okay, I wouldn't deny that I get flattered when a guy gives me special treatment.

If my date pays the bill then I won't stop him because that's what he wants to do. Not worth hurting him or his pride, but I think he shouldn't feel that way-- that he is supposed to be the one to pay for everything just because he is male.

If a guy does give up his seat for me, then I would gladly take it, not because I think I deserve it more than he does, but because I don't want to hurt his feelings. What I'm trying to point out is the guy don't have to do it, he DOESN'T HAVE TO FEEL GUILTY when he sees an EQUALLY ABLE WOMAN standing while he is comfortably sitting. I mean, why did the woman even board the bus knowing she'd end up standing? Better wait for the next bus.

GUYS, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE GUYS, SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO ACT AS THOUGH THEY ARE THE HIGHER SEX. AS THOUGH THEY ARE STRONGER. AS THOUGH THEY ARE MORE CAPABLE.

I consider chivalry as a form of STEREOTYPING. I am a very independent young woman and when I say EQUALITY, I mean it. No slight equality or part-equality. No 'we split the bill in half but it would make me feel good if you pay it all by yourself.'

The suffragettes of the 1900's, who fought for their right to vote, I think, played a big role in starting the domino of movements empowering women to be treated by men as equals.

MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL. WOMEN ARE NOT THE LOWER SEX. ABLE WOMEN ARE AS MUCH AS ABLE AS MEN.

If women think that they should be treated as royalties, then men should also get their fair share.. After all, it would be lonely to be queen, without a king..



Credits to Leah of Leah's Treasures for writing Guest Post: Chivalry, which acted as the 'trigger' for the author to write this post.. (;