~*~*~ Knoj Ser ~*~*~

[Guest]

Hatvats Shirvanzadei "Oriord Liza" patmvatsqits

 

"...Lsetseq!!! Mard@ bnutyunits tsnvats e kam struk linelu kam strkatsnelu dzgtumnerov. Yerb yerku eakner, ditsuq, ayr yev kin mianum en baxtavor aprelu hamar, nrantsits mek@ piti lini struk, myus@ - ter@. Urish kerp anhnarin e, vor nranq baxtavor linen. Nrants miatsnogh kap@ chi karogh arants dra amur linel... Yes xosum em ayn baroyakan yev hogekan arandznahatkutyan masin, voronq mi eakin angitaktsabar hpataketsnum en myusin. Lav lsetseq, angitaktsabar em asum yev voch te gitakstabar... Yes zgum em, vor knoj hamar aveli dyurin e yev qaghtsr hpatakvel, qan te hpatakatsnel. Hents ayd hpatakutyunn e, vorin mardiq anvanum en knoj ser. Yes ayspes em haskanum..."

 

Spasum em dzer kartsiqnerin ...

 

Aneta

[Guest]

Kartsiqner?...lol...Im kartsiknere ays hartsi veraberyal kam bolorovin sxalen haskanum, kamel parzapes chen uzum haskanal. Yes gtnumem vor andzamp im hamar ays hartsi veraberyal kartsik unenale (dzhbaxtabar) izure.

 

Gayane

[Guest]

Noone's willing to tackle this??? It's a shame, really; especially if you consider the lack of response from the men on this forum. Yes, gentlemen, that's a challenge

 

Subject: a woman's love of and devotion to her man.

Brief translation of Aneta's quote of Shirvanzade:

"Human beings are born either as masters or as slaves. When a man and a woman embark on a lifelong journey together, one needs to submit and the other lead. That's the only way of ensuring their happiness and this is the only circumstance where the vows that bind them can be unbreakable. I speak of that moral and psychological circumstance which forces one individual to subconsciously submit to another. I say subconsciously and not consciously. I feel that it's easier and sweeter for a woman to submit than to dominate (lousy translation). It is this submission that's called a woman's love. This is my understanding of it." --Shirvanzade

 

Ok, so much for Shirvanzade. My translation doesn't do it justice, but it'll have to do. Aneta asked for opinions, to which I replied that my opinions on the issue are either misunderstood or not understood at all, which necessarily makes them useless

 

But I reserve the right to jump in later

 

Gayane

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gayane:


Noone's willing to tackle this??? It's a shame, really; especially if you consider the lack of response from the men on this forum.

---

I think it's because they're shy and embarrassed!

[Guest]

Vayyyyyy, Mike...lol...I had never payed much attention to the "submit" button...Garik probably used the phrase on purpose in constructing the site...lol...joke, joke...but Mike, I gotta hand it to you, I've been laughing for 15 mins non stop, I'm not exaggerating..lol

 

Ok, now for my analysis of just this quote (i'll stick to the quote for now...after rereading my entry, i shouldn't have said that )

 

Masters and slaves: agreed.

 

One needs to submit and the other lead: well, yes, agreed. This is a radically conservative thought coming from me, I know, but I really do believe in the ability of a man to lead in such a relationship as well as in the necessity of male leadership. Keep in mind, however, I say leadership, not domination. Because I don't think marriages can ever have a 50-50 power split, I'd settle for 60-40. Mike, you say you disagree with this, but I don't think you do. I think you'd agree if you added the word "subconsciously" to the mix. You say your wife cooks out of practicality. I'd say that equals subconscious submission (I'm using the phrase sans the negative connotation).

 

Easier and sweeter for a woman to submit: sweeter, yes, easier, not by a long shot. It was interesting to read Mike's interpretation to be the polar opposite of mine. Gender difference? Perhaps.

 

Mike, you ask 'why should one submit, why should ONLY ONE submit?" My answer: to make life less difficult. It's a neat set up, think about it. Makes things a whole lot easier.

 

I also got a kick out of your comment about the implication that all dominant women are cold bitches. My first response was "yeah, they are. There's nothing feminine about a woman who rules a household; nothing." Example: I got into an accident once, and although the driver was the husband, the wife started negotiating with me!!!, with complete disregard for her husband!!! It took all the seriousness of the situation for me not to laugh. But then again, you have to consider that the definition of "dominant" and the understanding of that definition might vary from person to person.

 

Final point: let's remember that the excerpt from Shirvanzade equates submission to a woman's love of her husband, and the love to submission. This can be interpreted differently. While I'll scream if it's taken at surface value and argue against this like a total feminist (which I'm not), I can understand if the interpretation is at a deeper level and will actually agree. I'll come back to this.

 

Meanwhile, any thoughts?

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gayane:

Mike, you say you disagree with this, but I don't think you do. I think you'd agree if you added the word "subconsciously" to the mix. You say your wife cooks out of practicality. I'd say that equals subconscious submission (I'm using the phrase sans the negative connotation)

---

(Quick response here, then it's back to work for me--have auto insurance rates to raise )

No, it really is out of practicality. She picks up our son and is just about always home first, so she makes dinner. When we first got married, we'd split the cooking. Also, it's always been whomever doesn't cook, does the dishes.

My main point is that the dominant-submissive roles can change from day-to-day and situation-to-situation. So they probably are more like 60-40 at any given moment, but it's not always I that gets the 60.



[This message has been edited by Pilafhead (edited October 27, 2000).]

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gayane:

Example: I got into an accident once, and although the driver was the husband, the wife started negotiating with me!!!, with complete disregard for her husband!!!

---

(OK, one more comment, the rates can wait)

I'd say that woman was just a plain old pain-in-the-ass. A husband that did the same thing in complete disregard of his wife is just as bad.

A little background here, I was raised by a single mother. Also I was heavily influenced by my grandfather who was dominant, but respectful and very loving towards my grandmother. So between the two role models, I tend to be pro-equality if not ever-so-slightly feminist.

[Guest]

Well, now that it's in English...

 

quote

"Human beings are born either as masters or as slaves.  

 

Yeah..(so far, so good)

 

quote

When a man and a woman embark on a lifelong journey together, one needs to submit and the other lead. That's the only way of ensuring their happiness and this is the only circumstance where the vows that bind them can be unbreakable.  

 

Whoa, there. I disagree. My best friend and I each have very strong marriages. In his case, he and his wife are both dominant personality types; in our case, we're both somewhat submissive. Now, I open her car door for her and she generally cooks dinner, but out of courtesy and practicality rather than anything else.

 

quote

I speak of that moral and psychological circumstance which forces one individual to subconsciously submit to another. I say subconsciously and not consciously.

 

Why should one submit to the other? Or why should ONLY ONE submit to the other? Doesn't the Bible (my favorite book

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Pilafhead (edited October 27, 2000).]

[Guest]

(just wanted to let you guys know I am following the discussion)

[Guest]

Me and others not posting here too.

[Guest]

apsos merav topic@ ... Astvats hogin lusavori

[Nané]

I want to revive this topic.

 

Comments?

[Azat]

I dont know. I see both sides of the issue and cant tell you which is right and which is wrong. I am a believer that there needs to be a "leader" based on each situation. One cannot expect the wife to cook and clean and raise the kids and the husband to just work and provide for the family(However there is significant proof that a family unit described above stays together MUCH longer). I feel that responsibilities have to be shared and I have no issue being the slave on any given night(no Eve not that kind of slave:)) as long as there is some equilibrium in the relationship.

 

Personally the biggest issue that I have with Armenian women is that one falls in love with an independent woman one who can take care of things and one who has an identity to her own and after marriage and especially after a child is born she no longer identifies by what she was but by her children and family. And this is a major issue because it was not the person that "I" fell in love with. Thus the problems start.

 

I think women need to stay more independent and need to be themselves. That will not result in a disfunctional relationship or a disfunctional family but will make for one that is MUCH stronger. Just my humble opinion. And I am sure many disagree, but this is one reason why I have always feared the "M" word.

[Anonymouse]

I agree with Shirvanzade. The essential point he is trying to get across is the attraction of femininity and a woman's love is derived not from her power or ability to dominate and "de independent" but her vulnerability and submissiveness. I recently read a study in the some journal of evolutionary behavior or something which I don't even remember the title of, but it dealt with the sexes. Basically it summed up this point that for the most part men are not attracted to the "independent", career women types but are rather attracted to those who have that certain femininity and vulnerability. That is what draws a man to a woman.

[Stormig]

Basically it summed up this point that for the most part men are not attracted to the "independent", career women types but are rather attracted to those who have that certain femininity and vulnerability. That is what draws a man to a woman.

style_images/master/snapback.png

How primitive and primordial.

[Azat]

Mouse are you not the same conservative young kid who has seen nothing in his life who use to preach that sex prior to marriage was wrong?

 

I know I know one has nothing to do with the other, but as you grow up from a little boy you a young man to and adult you may change your opinion about this as well.

[Anonymouse]

Mouse are you not the same conservative young kid who has seen nothing in his life who use to preach that sex prior to marriage was wrong?

 

I know I know one has nothing to do with the other, but as you grow up from a little boy you a young man to and adult you may change your opinion about this as well.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

First of all, I am hardly "conservative". Second, I have seen more than enough to know what I want in a woman and I don't think arbitrary age epochs have anything to do with it. It's a matter of personal taste which I don't think some people like Stormig might understand.

[Azat]

and I was always under the impression that "Women should have no sex prior to marriage" and allow me to paraphrase you here "womens beauty is in her submissiveness" were conservative values. But who know I can be totally wrong.

 

All I am trying to say is that as you get older your opening may change on some of these

[Anonymouse]

and I was always under the impression that "Women should have no sex prior to marriage" and allow me to paraphrase you here "womens beauty is in her submissiveness" were conservative values.  But who know I can be totally wrong.

 

All I am trying to say is that as you get older your opening may change on some of these

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Well, I do know that no sex until marriage is a conservative value and by that I would be deemed a conservative, however, the idea of womans beauty being in their femininity and submissiveness, that to me is not a "conservative" value but a general value which has pretty much been the norm. Just thinking about Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales reminds me of this. And if you believe a womans love and beauty is not found in her femininity and submissiveness, then where is it found, in her masculinity, in her power, in her ability to replicate being 'manly' and 'independent', 'rough' and 'tough'? Only recently have "gender roles" become a topic or that it is "socially constructed". By submissive and feminine I do not mean a slave which all too often is the redundant accusation hurled upon me by the feministic among us. A womans love is found in her femininity and her ability to relinquish power for love. The idea behind it is that there is a genteel softness to a woman, where she is "kanatsi", "papook", "noorp" or "hez", that no man possesses and when a woman loses that she has lost that femininity. The opposite of this is an inverted woman and as a recent study suggested most men do not want to be or marry these women. These are also the women who spend most of their time thinking more about their careers and their personal material endeavors. Hey, perhaps I am wrong I do not know, but this is what I happen to believe based on my putrid years of existence.

Edited December 27, 2004 by Anonymouse

[Azat]

to me submissiveness is defined as - http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/submissiveness

 

I HATE HATE HATE women who only care about their look and all that and nerve have an opinion about things and have no career plans.

 

All the other objectives that you used to define women as noorp and kanatsi and all that I am all for.

 

I dont know maybe I am not explaining it properly also

[Anonymouse]

to me submissiveness is defined as - http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/submissiveness

 

I HATE HATE HATE women who only care about their look and all that and nerve have an opinion about things and have no career plans.

 

All the other objectives that you used to define women as noorp and kanatsi and all that I am all for.

 

I dont know maybe I am not explaining it properly also

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

It all depends on what you mean by submissiveness as there are several meanings. I most closely associate submissiveness with passivity, calmness and not argumentative or not vying for power. In any relationship one will either be dominant or submissive, never a "we are all equal" mumbo jumbo. The idea of the family from God, to King, to the Man of the house is a patriarchal type and I am most definitely in agreement with that. The phrase "man of the house" is what I align with, as the lion is the "king of the jungle" and ruler of his domain, and a man shall wear the pants in the house.

 

As far as a career, I did not speak against it, in fact in this age it's impossible for both people to not work. I only referred to women whose careers consume their lives and it becomes an end in itself.

Edited December 27, 2004 by Anonymouse

[Anoushik]

The idea behind it is that there is a genteel softness to a woman, where she is "kanatsi", "papook", "noorp" or "hez", that no man possesses and when a woman loses that she has lost that femininity.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I disagree. A woman can be very feminine yet have enough power (meaning self-respect) to be independent, even in a marriage. "Papook", "noorp" and "hez" has nothing to do with femininity. These are just words that men use to define the ideal woman in their eyes, someone whom they could exercise their (supposed) power on.

[Anonymouse]

I disagree. A woman can be very feminine yet have enough power (meaning self-respect) to be independent, even in a marriage. "Papook", "noorp" and "hez" has nothing to do with femininity. These are just words that men use to define the ideal woman in their eyes, someone whom they could exercise their (supposed) power on.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I think you are missing the point. If a woman needs to be independent then she does not need a man. The idea of love is to be dependent on the other person, which is embodied in the institution of marriage. If a woman has to be independent to 'do her own thing' have her own bank account, then she clearly does not need to be bothered with. You may disagree with the idea of the man wearing the pants in the house, but if you disagree with that, then you must clearly believe in exercising enough power to wear the pants. It's either one or the other, and no happy mediums.

[Azat]

Mouse man, I clearly disagree. I think both man and the woman had to be dependent on each other, but at the same point the woman(I am talking about traditional Armenian marriages) cannot be so dependent that she looses her identity and identifies herself only via her husband and her children.

 

BTW: I am a firm believer that each should have their own bank accounts and a joint one as well. Contributions to the joined one should be made based on the income of each.

[Anoushik]

The idea of love is to be dependent on the other person, which is embodied in the institution of marriage.

style_images/master/snapback.png

And I thought that the modern idea of a marriage is to have a companion to share the rest of one's life with. I completely disagree and don't think that love means to be dependent on the other person.