Anonymouse

Do you know how to read? Do you know how to assess what you read? If you haven't learned that by now, why are you on a forum? Thank you for quoting me, however that's just my viewpoint. I never said I think a woman should be a slave. This is, yet again, a desperate and silly attempt of you making assumptions to have some 'substance' to respond with since all of your replies have thus been empty, yet you call yourself Thoth, the wisest of the Egyptian Gods. My viewpoint was that I disagree with the general trends of how women are losing their 'feminity' in case that wasn't obvious, and like I said, that is just my personal opinion, why does it bother you more than feminists bother me? Essentially the same forces such as you who cry for 'tolerance' for feminism, are the least tolerate to those who have opposing views. I am beginning to think that you are about 17 years of age, in a world of illusions and fairy tales and stories. I mean I am not for "oppressing women" as you paint me out to be, but I am beginning to come to the conclusion that you are not that mature and incapable of actually having an intelligent discourse, discussing the POINTS I RAISED in my thread, not just my opinion versus your opinion. I never said women can't or shouldn't have an oppportunity or a career. In fact I did point out that if they earn it competitively so be it, what does that have anything to do with feminism? Feminism doesn't advocate the free competitive relationship of women in relation to men and the market place, it advocates something totally polar to this. But then again you have crossed your legs for so long that you have crushed your nuts and perhaps that is causing a blur in your cognitive abilities.

You believe in womens rights and equality? Did you read my thread? How do we have "equality"? What do you mean by "equality"? Can you perhaps define it? Equal outcome? Economic equality?

Of course it lacks substance since it actually presents an argument against feminism, in a Womens forum, and of course your bias will not allow you to assess this objectively, and hence it is not a "good presentation". You know, I am bound to get heckled in the "Womens forum" but you are misunderstanding my thread, perhaps intentionally or unintentionally, since I specifically stated that on a personal level, I disagree with the tenets of feminism, or radical feminism. However the rest of my post was actually trying to highlight something more than just "female bashing". You are making erroneous assumptions and placing words and ideas in me that I did not state. My personal disagreement with feminism was one tiny part of the entire thread which you cherry picked and have chosen it to be youre main focus, ignoring everything else. Of course the problem with your assumption of treating each person on an individual basis contradicts feminism since it is for the gender of women, the group, not individuals, and in that sense, it is a collective ideology. If you were actually reading the post carefully you would understand that I do not seek to impose my beliefs on anyone, thus your first mistaken assumption. And I am to guess you believe in governemnt legislation and interference in the free market to "make equality"? Will you address any of the points in my post or will you go on make spurious statements? I never said otherwise, you are again assuming things. In fact your whole response is nothing but one big lard of assumptions. Do you now care to address the actual content of my thread as opposed to trivial pursuits? The same person who seems adamant in the belief that each person should be allowed to do what he or she pleases and believe what he or shes wants to believe, seems to be telling me that I cannot somehow disagree with feminism and somehow that disagreement, which is on a personal leve, translates to oppressing them.

It is high time to address the issue of "feminism" and its relatively proper position in our times. "Feminism" what began in the 1830s vis a vis the rise of abolitionism, in which both groups exclaimed the self ownership of the individual has dileniated itself from "the individual" simply because like all isms, in order to succeed it relies on the collective identity or mass minded thinking of the "great group". Of course, ignoring details, that is pretty much the gist of the root of the feminists, although some may argue otherwise, the details at this point I am not interested in. One can see from this point of view, and indeed the argument can be made of the idea that feminism is consonant with individualism, yet I think somehow there has been a schism in the "movement" with 99 percent of feminists not understanding what their "movement" is about. Ignoring the recent "ifeminism"(which I still find contradictary ) I will focus on "feminism" or "radical feminism" as understood by 99 percent of the feminists, and the world. The primary goal of all "movements" or "social movements" or "revolutions" is based on collectivity and the mob, or mass minded thinking. Of course when this is pointed out, it is not well received, whether one points out the mass mindedness in nationalism, marxism, or feminism, they all nonetheless, while in theory may claim to help the individual, but at the same time confine themselves because what they really claim to help is the individual within that group, and in so doing create "group consciousness" and a "collective identity". Indeed, if feminism is about the individual, why speak of women’s rights rather than individual rights? Indeed what is the point of "gay rights" or "womens rights" or "minority rights" or any other groups' rights, if your ism is about the individual? Then why not chant "individual rights" instead of "womens rights" or "minority rights"? That obvious point is what shows that these isms are rooted in collective mass minded thinking. I am going to ignore the whole idea of how "womens history" is created, much like "nationalist history" was created in 19th century. Of course the women didn't become a gender conscious political group movement or revolution until relatively recent times, just like workers didnt become worker or labor conscious until recent times, and just like nations or groups speaking a same language didnt because nationally conscious until recent times, but somehow we project these phenomenon into the past, and somehow we are able to create for ourselves a unique history, and view all of history may it be through Marxism, or Feminism, or Nationalism through a narrow rigid myopic view. Whichever you choose makes no difference since you blur history into a single focal point or rallying point from which each ism, respectivelly, relies on for legitimacy. The success of feminism, like all political group movements, whether it be "civil rights" or "any rights" in which a politically created and motivated collective group demands to achieve, is based on "equality" which has root in socialism, so in order for these movements to succeed they most work in tandem with government and lawmakers and create more laws and regulations in order to "create equality", meaning more government, and essentially this is the basis of "socialism" since all movements that rely on "equality" and legislation, and governements that promise that, are socialistic. The success of feminism is not due to the creed of feminism, but rather the government. The most well armed and well funded government in the history of the planet pushed feminism into the lawbooks, and government judges have supported it, perhaps out of genuine concern, but I am to guess that like all politicians they cared for "votes". Additionally, the movement was often insidious, an innocuous little new law here, another one there, and it never ends. This isn't just confined to feminism. The "gun control advocates" the "gays and lesbians" the "environmentalists" the "civil rights activists" all rely on this sort of mass mindedness to achieve their ends. On a personal level I do not agree with feminisms claims of advocating that women seek to fullfill their ends in the material world to build a career instead of a home and a family as the central importance of their lives. This material transcendence indeed has made society more denser and relative in recent times and not just for "feminists or women" but society as a whole, since in our socialistic society and school system, the only things we are measured up to is how much we earn, our positions, and essentially the materiality of all things, so when we say "equality" whether for blacks or women or gays, it is in essence nothing more than "material" equality. Just like the "civil rights" movement, the "womens liberation" movement is a raucus that was in the making and continues to flourish and all those that disagree with either the civil rights people or the womens liberation group, are racist and sexist, respectively. Of course this doesn't mean all feminists think that way, but this speaks for your average member with the preset group mentality, and hence how our critical thinking is lost in the haze of mass mindedness. Of course in the dictionary "feminism" is defined as the doctrine for the equal rights of women, or the belief in the equality of men and women. While such spurious statements are made and accepted and regurgitated by the social masses, few question the underlying implications of the said definitions. And assuming if one defines feminism as the belief in equal rights for women, it is implied that men and women are somehow equal since that is the reason why they would want equal rights. If not that, then what else? This isn't to deny that women have been traditionally "second class" or "held back" but then again one can compare the present and the past but only for so much, for to look at all history and say "women have always been oppressed" and make the barometer of judgement for the past, the present state, that is anti historical, since each society or epoch or period in history was different in its own way, and if you compare fine, but to attempt to create any more "meaning" out of it is going too far, and going back to what I said, viewing all history through this lens. And perhaps its even more pertinent to ask why women have always been second class or held back? Perhaps it is not so much rooted in the "social causes" but rather the innnate inequality of men and women. Perhaps we should indeed examine this more than most feminists would claim. Men and women are different both biologically and psychologically. Men cannot have babies, obviously. Both genders are implanted with two different hormones and chromosomes. They differ in minds, characters, and capacities since their bodies and personalities are built on different things. It is as absurd to claim men and women are of equal capabilities as it is to claim that a turtle can race with a horse. The radical feminists would find my above statement as "hateful" and "sexist" indeed, the Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug types would go berzerk at such a statement. Indeed there are women out there who deserve equal rights but they must earn it. There are women who can meet the same physical capabilities as a man to join the fire department or the army. There are women out there who are just fine as long as they earn their jobs competitively. No one disputes that each deserves to his/her share in what he/she gets. Your input equals your output. I do not believe in legislation to force "equality" or "level the playing field" simply because it is a woman, or a minority or anyone else. Women like men, should own property, whether its their own feminist club, a strip bar, or a house, or a business. No one disputes that. Everyone should have full rights to their body and property, not to expropriate those of others, as the feminists and civil rights advocates have achieved via the State, of making all else conform to their political group. If feminists intend that everyone enjoy equal outcomes, history teaches that this is impossible. Why totalitarian socialism won’t ever work perhaps deserves another thread of its own. Indeed I will end with perhaps one of my favorite figures in our time, Ludwig von Mises, and he had this to say about feminism within the broader scope of socialism: "So far as feminism seeks to adjust [woman’s] legal position to that of man, so far as it seeks to offer her legal and economic freedom to develop and act in accordance with her inclinations, desires, and economic circumstances, so far it is nothing more than a branch of the great liberal movement, which advocates peaceful and free evolution. When, going beyond this, it attacks the institutions of social life under the impression that it will thus be able to remove the natural barriers, it is a spiritual child of socialism. For it is a characteristic of socialism to discover in social institutions the origin of unalterable facts of nature, and to endeavor, by reforming these institutions, to reform nature."

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesF/oyster.jpg

This is the problem of all modern nation states that try to lay claims to land and political boundaries. They essentially project themselves into the distant past and create for them a history. Everyone is guilty of this, not just the Turkish government.

It's not simply a matter of "some truth" in that both the genetic composition and cultural characteristics have changed, it is simply a fact of history, for history is not a certain point in time, but rather a process. I know it's not a comfortable position to take for me, nor was it easy for me to come to this conclusion, but in all fairness with regard after much time with Late Antiquity both in Europe, and Armenian history, I cannot see anything to the contrary. Todays "Armenians" are very different from the "Armenians" of the Yervantid Dynasty, or the Artashesians. While in name we may still carry the label, history nonetheless, especially in the region of the Caucasus, has gone through many changes. Sure, we may somewhat have genetic markers or allele types that might resemble the Yervantids, but that's after you cherry pick the genetic study, since any genetic study can be cherry picked and focused on only certain gene frequencies while ignoring others. However this is not my point, my point is that the term "nation" is misused. The word "nation" in Random House Websters College Dictionary is defined as: nation, na body of people associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. Thus Armenian history has been one of disunity rather than unity. Thus the idea of an "Armenian" nation is sketchy at best. Right now we have an Armenian nation, however to suggest that there has always been an "Armenian nation" and project ourselves into the past, would be reducing history to a single point in time, and I can't agree with that since studying Armenian history the name has been interchangeable throughout. When an Arab Muslim can convert to Christianity and call himself Armenian, or certain nakharar houses allying with emirs, I cannot refer to that as a "nation" but rather whatever is politically beneficial at the time, is what people will seek. With each generation both the idea of what it has meant to be "Armenian" has changed, as well as the people. However we tend to view history through the present, by projecting ourselves into the past, and this isn't just for Armenian history, this is for Marxists who view all history as a "class struggle" or "Womens history" which attempts to project itself into the past, or "African American" history. In essence we try to create history, where there was none. Rather than study the past for what it is, we look at it through the present and try to make it fit into our preconceived notions of what history ought to be. Cheers.

Asking the question of the "origin" of the Armenian people is like asking the "origin" of the human race. Nevermind that the "Armenian people" have changed throughout their history, and the Armenians of today, pale in comparison to the Armenians during the Artashesian Dynasty. We will never know, but that doesn't deter us from coming up with wild or sometimes exaggerated claims of how we came to be. The religious Armenians see truth in Khorenatsi's Hayk, as the progenitor of the Hay peoples and descending from Japeth. The nationalist historians look at Hayasa, and the linguists look at the Indo-European ( or Aryan ) migrations. It depends from what angle you look at, since you can find evidence to back up essentially each of the above positions. It's funny just reading these names of "Armenoids" or "blond haired blue eyed" or "race". Ultimately, they do no justice nor answer the question of how "Armenians" came to be. A more important question to ask is, how did the present "Armenians" come to be, since the present "Armenians" are nothing like the Armenians of antiquity.

Indeed, what I am trying to say is that the modern Armenian nation attempts to project itself into the past that "we have always been one people" when historically different people have come and gone and settled in the region adopting the label and culture. Perhaps it was because of the location of Armenia that it has survived, in the center of everything yet in the highlands. What does it mean to be "Armenian" again I ask. In the past, there were many "Greeks" who spoke Armenian, and likewise "Arabs" or "Turks" who spoke Armenian. This problem with identity and labels continues to haunt us even today, such as in the United States. Politics thrives on it, nationalism loves it, and the individual proves it as erroneous. I am trying to answer the question most Armenian nationalists come up with, "Why weren't Armenians united?". To answer that question one must not view history through the lens of the present nationalistic fervor, but rather view the past for what it is, a complex world of chaos in which the bigger powers had tried to put "order" on, but this tradition of historiography has been handed down from generation to generation since the time of Herodotus, until now. That is what I am trying to say. I refer the reader to look into "The Myth of Nations" by Patrick J. Geary in which he tangles the subject of "nations" and how this idea came out of Europe in the 19th century and "Europe" itself has medieval origins, and like a domino effect everyone followed it since it was imposed by the powers that be, which at the time was "Europe". I have provided the review on Amazon.com for Geary's book if the readers are interested, you can check it out: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books Can you define what is meant by Armenian nation? If it is defined as comprised of Armenians who speak an Armenian language and have similar cultural traditions, then that is not so, since Armenians have always differed and even now continue to differ since the "Hayastansis" don't like "Beirutsis". The Armenians in "Greater Armenia" were not as "Greekified" as the Armenians in "Lesser Armenia", the Armenians in "Soviet Armenia" were not as "Turkofied" as the Armenians outside of "Soviet Armenia". Likewise, the Armenians of today are a combination of some people who had been there, others who intermarried or simply others who just adopted it as their "identity" as sometimes I myself can see the spectrum of Armenians who display certain "Mongoloid" features, namely Aram Asatryan, with those short Asiatic legs and the no neck. The point I am trying to make is that when we project ourselves into the past, we invariably do so in a nationalistic tone, "For the Armenian nation" which has "survivived" for so long, ignoring the fact that those same people of the past that we are looking at, didn't think of themselves as a "nation" or "to survive" because they envisioned a future independent Armenian state, they simply thought in contemporary terms of politics of trying to maintain autonomy of themselves, not for the sake of "nationhood" and if that meant adopting the Armenian culture and language, that's what happened. But it hasn't survived because these people were very "nationalistic" since that concept was alien to them. They survived because they were a resilient people, able to adapt and borrow and interact with other peoples and because of this "Armenian" has changed in its meaning throughout the ages. History is not a particular point in time, it is a process, and we cannot look at any one point in the past and use that as a justification for the present and the future. When Armenians of today try to imbue nationalistic traits into Tigran the Great, they do so mistakenly because Tigran spoke Greek and Persian and had no sense of what it is to be "Armenian" in the modern sense of the word. He was just a Hellenistic conquerer. I am not suggesting that "Armenian" is non existent. Quite the contrary, I like my people and my culture. There is an Armenian culture and we are all a part of this cultural consciousness, it's just it has changed over time and projecting ourselves into the past eventually fits with the nationalist agenda of keeping Armenians guilt ridden with ideas of "this nation has survived through thick and thin" and ultimately ties in to politics and Genocide. By creating an "Armenian history" full of peril, destruction, and survival of being "Armenian" and ultimately facing the Genocide, we somehow have this sense of Armenian being a fixed identity that others have tried to wipe out. Even now I see many Armenians kids instilled with this fear or hatred of "Turks" or this idea that "we are Armenian" and "a nation". Israel is based on the same thing, in which Zionists trying to creation the idea of "nationalism" among "Jews" have been able to maintain group solidarity and this "the world is out to get us" mentality. "Jews" are not "Hebrews" and Israel is based on a 19th century creed that came out of Europe ( Zionism ), at the same time when Europeans themselves were each building their own nations with the rise of nationalism. Of course, this idea has led to tremendeous consequences since political systems thrive on this.

"Nation". Armenia became a Nation-State in 1991 after it seceded from the Soviet Union. I have a particular problem with Armenian nationalist historians who try to use the past to justify the present and the future. What I will examine here, isn't just about Armenia as a nation, but rather, all peoples of the world and all nations. The idea of an Armenian "nation-state", which seeks to form a homogenous Armenian speaking land is not in accordance with history. This implies that "we have always been Armenian for thousands of years all the way from the Yervantid Dynasty to the present State". We project ourselves into the past that for some reason Armenians have always been a nation. That is untrue. When I see Armenians today speaking of Armenian history and saying "Why couldn't the Armenians have been more united?", well that ignores an integral part of history, which should not be viewed with the lens of isms that reared their ugly heads from the Enlightenment. Whether you are a Marxist viewing the rest of history with the lens of Marxism, or viewing history through the lens of Nationalism, makes no difference. When Armenians of the present, seek to compare themselves to the Armenians of the past, and outline a common ancestry or descent and project themselves into the distant past, that is anti-historical. This implies that Armenians ( and this isn't just for Armenains this applies to all modern nations ), have always had a fixed and common identity for all time. What this does is ignore the history of a world before nationalism became a potent ideology. Then, after that was established, all history was viewed through this lens. And to that degree, one can say that 'history' was created in 19th century Germany, where nationalism gained a foothold. The truth is that Armenians of today, or those who claim "Armenian ethnicity" are nothing like what the Armenians of the Yervantid Dynasty were, or the Arshakhuni. Throughout its history "Armenian" has been a term that has changed in meaning. At one point "Armenians" were those who were heavily influenced and interacted with the Greeks, at another it was with the Achaemenians. Many Armenian nakharar houses are of Persian origin as well, even the Mamikonians. Then when the Umayyads attacked Armenia, there was further demographic changes. The same applies to the Turkic and Mongol invasions, and then on to the Russian influence. Throughout all its history people have changed. The fact that an a nakharar such as the Bagratunis or Artsrunis can ally themselves with an Arab emirate in Armenia, against another "Armenian" nakharar house, show the fungible nature of what it meant to be "Armenian". Likewise if an Arab Muslim can convert to Christianity and call himself "Armenian" suggests the same thing. We must stop looking into the past, through the eyes of the Nationalist present. It is because of this bias that we are left with the question "Why weren't Armenians more united?". Yet acknowledging that nationalism has roots in the Enlightenment, that doesn't deter us from somehow giving ourselves legitimacy that "Armenian" has been a fixed national identity even before they knew themselves as a "nation". To quote Patrick Geary: "Even today, neonationlists acknowledge that the political self-consciousness of modern nationalism is a nineteenth- or twentieth century phenomenon, yet attempt to claim that while political ethnicity is of recent origin, cultural ethnicity is much more ancient. The people was a people, in other words, before it knew itself and language is both the sign and innermost reality of this immutable identity." The truth his the people that have been "Armenian" throughout the ages, have changed, and as they have changed, the language has changed also because of different influences. The same applies for "Turks". What is meant by a "Turk"? If it is someone who speaks a Turkic language in modern day "Turkey", then it is implied that he has always had a fixed identity for all time, descending from the Mongoloid invaders. Well, this ignores the fact that the region was heavily populated by Armenian and Greek speaking peoples and they were merely absorbed, since they were the majority and/or converted. That is why todays Turks Greeks and Armenians look far more alike with one another, than a modern Turk Greek or Armenian would with people from the 4th - 10th century who claimed to be "Greek, Turk, or Armenian". I know this isn't a comfortable position to take, especially one that is bound to get me ostracised in my own community. I nonetheless cannot taint history because of ideological bias. Cheers.