76
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 50:
Line 50: + + + + + + + + + +
→Why isn't this article being reverted?: new section
The vikings, including, women used boats to travel, and women were essential to the creation of settlements. Unless an objection is raised, I'll be removing that sentence. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:20, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
The vikings, including, women used boats to travel, and women were essential to the creation of settlements. Unless an objection is raised, I'll be removing that sentence. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:20, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I'm somewhat skeptic about this "used by women" interpretation. What would prevent Vikin men from using the same tools if necessary? It seems likely that there are some preconceived notions about gender roles at work here. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:I'm somewhat skeptic about this "used by women" interpretation. What would prevent Vikin men from using the same tools if necessary? It seems likely that there are some preconceived notions about gender roles at work here. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
::Because they're <big>Vikings</big>? You modern-day Scandinavians might have gone soft but back then.... More seriously in the past gender-roles where more fixed. It might not be <i>proved</i> that women used them in this instance, but it seems a reasonable assumption. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I don't know. The question of gender roles is quite complex, and very culture-dependent. In many cases, what we might consider 'traditional' gender roles date only a couple of centuries back at most, and projecting those backwards on past societies is problematic. In any case, common sense would suggest that clothes would need mending whether or not there were any women around to take care of it. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Fair enough, you're the historian. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 12:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
== Why isn't this article being reverted? ==
Does anybody else find it strange that once it was pointed out that Leif Ericson was a christian Schlafy sort of gave up on his claims that there was no real evidence for the settlement? What happened to Schlafy's claims that there was only a tiny amount of evidence and what little there was could be explained by other means?