Random gems - morfizm
|Mar. 19th, 2010 03:35 pm Random gems|
I have a feeling, that the society you live in affects the way you view yourself even gender-wise. You are Americanized in a way that you feel like "a person(ality)" before you feel like a woman. Girls in Russia however are more conditioned to feeling like a woman rather than a person, because gender roles and stereotypes are still strong here. Girls are raised to be maids, wives, mothers, lovers, arm candies... We don't raise them to be strong individuals, professionals, competitive in spirit and independent in their will. They take after their mothers generation after generation. 11 comments - Leave a comment
Women in the US are different, I've noticed that on multiple occasions. Most of them feel no different from a man, they are confident, they are street-smart... And that's the way to be, I think.
(This was something I thought about many times but couldn't express so clearly.)
* * *
Tagad apskatīsimies, ko nozīmē vārds 'lover' pēc būtības. Tas var būt cilvēks, ar kuru tu ' make love'. Krieviski 'любовник' nozīmē apmēram to pašu- tāds, kas saistīts ar 'любовь'. Un tagad saldais ēdiens: latviešu valodā šo cilvēku sauc ' mīļākais'. Tas izsaka, ka tev ir partneris (vīrs), bet tas otrais ir mīļāks
((c) knowingwell, original post)
(Again, IMHO, it's very true.)
well, I said it there and I will repeat it here, this is a rather useless generalization, not a gem. IT is especially interesting how women who were raised in Russia, by mothers who were raised in Russia, etc., say these things and don't see any logical flaw.
Uhm...there would've been a flaw if I was trying to prove that I am not like the rest of Russian women. However I admit to being a product of my society, and yes - I feel like a woman first, not a genderless individual.
If I stayed in the US for long enough, that might have changed. And I would've loved it.
Yes, it is a generalization, but it's not the most groundless one. I can not speak for every woman, but I can talk about tendencies.
Miri said that (that she cannot imagine she'd be raised in such an environment).
as I answered there, while I was partially raised in such environment, I left that country when I was rather young - at least young for real "relationships" - and as such the rest of my views - adult views - were in fact formed here. To me it is a big difference.
|Date:||March 20th, 2010 07:17 am (UTC)|| |
This is an example of a post where in the past we might have had a long and meaningful discussion. But I've thought about it a lot, so now we wouldn't :) I am able to explain why.
You talk about logical flaws, assuming that this post have some meaning in rational space.
Olya, it doesn't.
First of all, it doesn't have any meaningful claim. You cannot agree or disagree, because you don't know to what. Notice that there are no quantors ("Girls in Russia" - you don't know is it "All girls", "Some girls", "Many girls", "Few girls", "Two girls" or "Three hundered and fifty-five girls").
Second, if this post has any value to someone, this value is emotional. The words in the post form some model, which has nothing to do with reality by itself, but it can remind you of some of the patterns and real life cases that you can use to support it. These "arguments" in no event should count as a proof, because there's no proof. They don't directly support any claims (because there no reasonable claims). They can just resonate with emotional feeling of what you've read.
So if this text resonates with negative feelings or trigger some bad memories, you're welcome to tell about them in form of examples and thoughts, but don't pretend that you have a strong disproof. There can be no proof or disproof, because there're no claims.
I personally have a lot of real life observations that resonate with this text, but I didn't write about them because (a) I don't intend to prove anything to anybody, (b) I don't think it's worth spending my time on examples. To people who find it useful, the text alone will be enough. To people who will not, my examples may not be enough.
So, generally, I consider that this type of posts are pretty much meaningless to comment, unless you support them. It's like: "is it useful for you? tell me how; no - why bother?". In rational domain this is meaningless... You can safely assume it's "wrong" by default, unless you find it "right". But, still, you're welcome to present examples that show why you feel disagreement.
Maybe I should create a new tag for such posts, say, "this is wrong", so that you could quietly nod to it and move on :)
If you're in "intuitive" thinking mode, then you'll ignore this tag and read, otherwise it will work as a filter.
|Date:||March 20th, 2010 04:09 am (UTC)|| |
Офигеть, насколько балтийские языки консервативные. Слово vir есть в латыни.
|Date:||March 20th, 2010 07:01 am (UTC)|| |
Да, vīrs это муж по-латышски. Vir, как я вижу, мужчина.
У меня, вообще, сложилось впечатление, что в латышском языке очень много заимствовано из разных языков - как из немецкого и родственных ему, так и из славянской группы (но оттуда меньше).
|Date:||March 20th, 2010 04:40 pm (UTC)|| |
Это не заимствование, а продолжение ИЕ-корня.
can the second piece be somehow translated? ;)
|Date:||March 20th, 2010 08:49 pm (UTC)|| |
Now let's take a look, what the word "lover" really mean. It can be a person with whom you "make love".
In Russian, "любовник" means approximately the same - somebody, who's connected with "любовь" (love).
[note: in my opinion, it's actually a slight distinction, in Russian you can say "lover" as "person who loves you and you love him"]
And now, for the dessert, in Latvian this person is called "mīļākais" ("the most loved one"). It expresses that you have a partner (husband), but the other one is more loved :)
|Date:||March 21st, 2010 03:03 pm (UTC)|| |
А первую часть тогда уж тоже переведи, а то не понимаю