What should married women call themselves?

[Æmeric]

What should married women call themselves? Mrs or Ms? Should they take their husband's surname or retain their own? And should they even call themselves 'wife' or is 'partner' a more preferable term in the post-sexist era?

[Loki]

And should they even call themselves 'wife' or is 'partner' a more preferable term in the post-sexist era?

I can't speak for women, but just want to comment on this line. I think "wife" is the designation after a religious marriage. Perhaps if people only live together, then she can be called a "partner". :icon1:

[Æmeric]

But some married women prefer partner. Hillary Clinton likes the word partner. A lot. She only use wife or marriage when absolutely necessary.

I've gotton the impression from pc programming on the BBC that partner had become the pc term in the UK. To avoid offending unmarried couples?:icon_ask: Or because some feminists find the term "wife" sexist?

[Loki]

I've gotton the impression from pc programming on the BBC that partner had become the pc term in the UK. To avoid offending unmarried couples?:icon_ask: Or because some feminists find the term "wife" sexist?

Nah, don't believe everything you hear on the BBC. Most women here in England want to get married, be called wife and call their partner husband.

[Ulf]

I married because I wanted a wife, and to be a husband. That said, my wife can use Mrs. Ms. or even her maiden name for all I care. The only part I care about is that I can call her my wife.

Wife and husband represent exclusivity. Partner, not so much.

[Loki]

Btw, the feminists can go to hell or become lesbians. There are enough good women out there who would love to have husbands. :)

[Tansy]

When women marry they should take their husband's surname and use "Mrs." in front of it. It is tradition and it shows that the woman is proud to take her husband's name. My mother never adopted my father's surname and always called herself "Ms. -maidenname-". Not only did it confuse other people, it confused me. When I was young I thought she was ashamed to be married to my father. I look forward to the day when I can call myself someone's wife.

But maybe I'm outdated. :rolleyes2:

[Lady L]

I like being called Wife, and calling him my husband. We have never said partner. I also like being Mrs. Lyfing. I wouldn't care for being Ms. - I was a Ms. before I got married but not now. I also like having his last name. It is better than mine was anyhow :D

[Ariets]

In Latin tradition women come to the family of the men and takes his name, and build their own branch of the family. And their children "recevaive" their nationality from their paternal line, not maternal as among Jews (this is ridiculous). Thats how it should be.

I don't belief in any sexist or post-sexist era. Family is husband and his wife, wife and her husband, men and women. Nothing else.

[Jarl]

But some married women prefer partner. Hillary Clinton likes the word partner. A lot. She only use wife or marriage when absolutely necessary.

That's coz Bill cheated on her with Monica :P

[Æmeric]

That's coz Bill cheated on her with Monica :P

It goes way back before Monica & that stained blue dress. Even back during the 1992 Democratic primary process she referred to her marriage as a "partnership". Not as a marriage. She was a partner. Then she made that remark about not being like Tammy Wynette, "standing by my man".:rolleyes: Too bad Wynette died just before that Lewinsky affair blew up.

DwBirf4BWew

For Hillary.:tongue

[Beorn]

I think "wife" is the designation after a religious marriage.

"Wife" is the name for a female. A female child is 'Wifcild', womankind is 'Wifcynn' and so on.

Me and my "partner" aren't married and never will be, but she is still my wife and my wíffréond; even if she stays wífléas.

[Ariets]

I think "wife" is the designation after a religious marriage.
By the way, I personally think that marriages should not be regulated by the state, but by churches, synagogue, mosque etc. } generally by religions, cause marriage (at least I think that) was allways a spiritual experience and conncected to faith, religion et cetera.

I don't recognize myself a state-marriages as a marriages at all:p...

[Aemma]

I use Mrs. as a designation all the time. I don't care for Ms. much. I think that Miss is sadly underused as well. Occasionally I'll use the genderless "candidate" for kicks. :D But I do have a double-barreled surname, yes hyphenated (mine+Tolleson's). Officially it is not hyphenated but since our son's name IS hyphenated I adopted the hyphen as well. Why both names? Well I wanted to keep my link with my French Canadian identity (I have an English first name you see). I am proud of who I am, an ethnic French Canadian. I didn't want to lose that. Why does our son have a double-barreled name, same reason: he is also partly French Canadian and since my father didn't have any sons, it became a way for my son to carry on our family's name. Our son is proud of the lineage he has from both sides of his family; he's never complained about having a double-barreled name either. :) Besides you can always recognise him on the ice when he's playing hockey: one of the few kids with a very long family name. :P

Tolleson has never minded the double-barreled name; it's never been an issue for him. It WAS an issue for his parents and my own father (oddly enough) when we got married but my in-laws have mellowed out about this over time since their own granddaughters have done/will be doing the same thing: have a double-barreled surname and kids with such too. :D

Oh and friends do refer to us as both The <insert Tolleson's surname here> family or The <insert double-barreled surname here>. On occasion Tolleson's even been called Mr. <insert my maiden name here>! He's always been a great sport about it. (Well let's face it, he would have to be a great sport, period. He did marry me afterall!) :D

I should also add that Tolleson equally had the choice to use a double-barreled name and chose not too. ;) and that never bothered me either! :P :D

We also refer to each other as husband and wife. Always have. :) It's nice and that is what our vows were: to be husband and wife (oh and none of this "man and wife" business nor was the word "obedience" ever used btw ;)...would you really expect anything less from me now? :P :D) Besides the terms "husband" and "wife" are good proper English words that really do have meaning and a long tradition.

Well that's my chiming in on this one. :)

Cheers!...Mrs. Tolleson :)

[Skandi]

I don't see how wife can be sexist, if it is then so is Husband. I have no objections to being somebody's wife, although I will not be Mrs James Smith, That is going to far Mrs (my first name) Smith would be fine though. I have no particular attachment to my surname, I am the only one in the family who has it anyway. My Aunt kept her maiden name, (hyphenated) but that was because she had a career as a successful research scientist and it was therefore easier for her to keep the name the same.
The only time I would consider not taking the mans name is if he had a ridiculous one, my ex's mothers maiden name was Earwicker, For cases like that I might object!

[Beorn]

I will not be Mrs James Smith, That is going to far

I agree. I always thought it strange that custom had it that way.

[Óttar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5yH0I6u3dk

:amour101:

:heartbea::heartbea::heartbea:

:cool:

[anonymaus]

I am not a huge fan of monogamy or marital exclusivity: not because I need to dip my pen in different ink every day, but because I hate feeling tied down or trapped; I think my diction would reflect that position in terms of what I prefer

My partner, on the other hand, can call herself whatever she likes so long as it indicates our convolution.

[Osweo]

The only time I would consider not taking the mans name is if he had a ridiculous one, my ex's mothers maiden name was Earwicker, For cases like that I might object!

Man, I might even consider changing surnames if my fiancee was an Earwigger! Earwicker, sorry... :tongue

Actually, sounds delightfully Anglo-Saxon. Such names need preserving, and the bad attitude towards OUR OWN heritage as something 'quaint' or 'laughable' needs a serious reexamining... :mad:


Anyway, could we set up a poll, perhaps? I would be adamant on my wife taking my name. I might consider her doubling it, but wouldn't dream of doing that myself, or of passing such on to our children. I know a man in Russia, who has a very English surname, but stuck his wife's absurdly Russian-Jewish surname on the end of it. Something not far from Saunderson-Yakubovsky... :rolleyes: I always thought that the last name in a double was considered the senior partner in the relationship, too! I recall English aristocrats leaving serious provisos about this sort of thing in their wills, for instance! Cavendish-Bentincks over Bentinck-Cavendishes! :D

No, for me to consider double-barrelling it, it'd have to be a real major sort of name - Schleswig-Holstein-Oldenburg-Battenberg-Windsor-MacOssu, for instance... ;)

I always liked the Spanish system, with its male AND female elements. Seems even biologically sensible, given inheritance of y chromosomes and mitochondria down exactly these lines, to the exclusion of all others. But I am English and it's not our tradition.

Here's a curious thing though; I know a woman in Russia, who uses her mother's surname. First of all, it was due to the difficult pronunciation of her father's non-Russian Qazaq name, and later on she retained it for professional reasons. Now however, she's concocted some rationale behind keeping it as a female surname, and has given it her daughter, while her son took her husband's name. Quite interesting. The surname she has might also have become extinct otherwise, being quite rare in Russia, if not unique. That is also some grounds for flexibility, I suppose, and quite in line ideologically with maximum preservation of cultural traits...


As for this 'Ms' mizzzz thing, it's just plain irritating and confusing. Can anyone use it aloud and not feel absurd?

[Aemma]

I always liked the Spanish system, with its male AND female elements. Seems even biologically sensible, given inheritance of y chromosomes and mitochondria down exactly these lines, to the exclusion of all others.

What is the Spanish system btw Ozzi? I'm not familiar with it. :confused:

I once knew a couple who were Polish Canadian. The couple had just the one surname (as did the kids) which was his, but they used a masculine and a feminine form. So he and their son went by the surname Fijalkowski, and she and their daughter went by the surname Fijalkowska. I'm not sure if this is actually a Polish tradition but it sounded pretty great to me. :)

[Skandi]

As for this 'Ms' mizzzz thing, it's just plain irritating and confusing. Can anyone use it aloud and not feel absurd?
That annoys me too, I was filling out a form a couple of days ago, and there was no Miss option you had to be Ms well I don't want to be :cry

[Útrám]

The male and female member of a union should be called by their ID number-- never their first, middle and/or last names because it could provoke undesirable emotional responses.

Individual or family arranged marriages, whether religious or civil should be outlawed and replaced with state sanctioned unions based on individual merit and personality compatibility.

[Æmeric]

What is the Spanish system btw Ozzi? I'm not familiar with it. :confused:



I'll try to explain it. Essentially each Spainiard - presumably born in wedlock - has a doublebarreled surname, the first part being the father's paternal surname & the second part the mother's paternal surname. For example if Jose Garcia y Marquez marries Inez Fernandez y Villegas, Inez becomes Inez Garcia y Fernandez. She carries her husband's paternal surname, followed by her father's. This is the surname of the children. Their son Juan will remain Juan Garcia y Fernandez for life. His children will have different surname, Garcia y ??????, depending on their mother's surname. The daughter of Jose & Inez will pass on Garcia as the second part of her children's name, but the first part will depend on her husband's name, ????? y Garcia.

I was going to include a poll with this thread but the server was acting up just as I was posting the thread.

[Osweo]

What is the Spanish system btw Ozzi? I'm not familiar with it. :confused:
I read about it in a book Spain by Salvador de Madariaga y Rojo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_de_Madariaga). I met his daughter a bit ago, and she gave me her book on Catherine the Great! :thumb001:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_naming_customs#Naming_system_in_Spain:thum b001:

I once knew a couple who were Polish Canadian. The couple had just the one surname (as did the kids) which was his, but they used a masculine and a feminine form. So he and their son went by the surname Fijalkowski, and she and their daughter went by the surname Fijalkowska. I'm not sure if this is actually a Polish tradition but it sounded pretty great to me. :)
Russians do it, and a few other Slavs. The Lithuanians have a similar system. As did the Romans, once upon a time. It's damned useful! You know which pronoun to use of scholars when referencing their work, for instance!

Names in -in become -ina. -ov > -ova, -sky > -skaya. Larina, Sharapova, Krupskaya. Names in -ich or -enko don't change (and are more Belorussian/Ukrainian), along with some other exceptions.

It pisses me off to see things like 'Madame Blavatsky' in English language writing. That charlatan Gimbutas uses the male form of her name too! :rolleyes: That alone should warn people against her 'Kurgans vs. Old Europeans' theory for the spread of IE languages...

[Osweo]

Possible poll options?

Wives should adopt their husband's surname.
Wives should retain their maiden name, and sod future genealogists!
Doubling is nice in some circumstances
Doubling is pretentious
There should be flexibility, i.e. I am a wet blanket.
Other.
Dunno.

'Ms.' is okay, as are dungarees and crew-cuts on women.
Mrs. is best.
Whatever.
Que?

[Skandi]

Ok I have added a poll, it is a little cumbersome as there are really two questions being answered here, so it is multiple choice folks.

[WinterMoon]

Call me old fashioned, but formally I would expect to be known as
"Mrs. James Smith." I would expect things like letters, invitations, and formal introductions to be in the manner of "Mr. and Mrs. James Smith." Informally, I have a first name and I would be "Mrs. MyName Smith". If I were being introduced in an informal setting, by my husband, I would not mind him introducing me as his "wife, name." In fact, I would find it most honorable to be introduced as "this is my wife, name." Not being introduced as "wife" or "Mrs." is shameful and embarassing. It also can lead to misinterpretations, or uncertainty on the part of the person you are being introduced to. (i.e. Oh, are you his wife?)

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Anything is better than the expression so often said:"the wife"
Pumpkin Sparkle
Aardvark

ASS or Broccoli Thighs(Loki likes that)

[Vulpix]

I think doubling is nice, but ultimately it should be up to the two individuals concerned to reach a decision on what they wish to call themselves and no one else.

[Arahari]

What should married women call themselves? Mrs or Ms? Should they take their husband's surname or retain their own? And should they even call themselves 'wife' or is 'partner' a more preferable term in the post-sexist era?

In traditional Aryan households the wife becomes the property of her husband. Her adoption of her husband`s surname and the courtesy title of `Mrs` is a reflection of this fact.

[The Lawspeaker]

In traditional Aryan households the wife becomes the property of her husband. Her adoption of her husband`s surname and the courtesy title of `Mrs` is a reflection of this fact.
Well.. I am just glad that we Europeans are no Aryans then. Aryans live in (Northern) India, Pakistan,Afghanistan (Pashtun) and Iran.

[Tabiti]

Females with higher education, especially ones with titles such as "engineer" always advise to keep the name, what is written in your diploma.
Myself, I can never adopt another name, since I'm not someone's property.

[Skandi]

Females with higher education, especially ones with titles such as "engineer" always advise to keep the name, what is written in your diploma.
Myself, I can never adopt another name, since I'm not someone's property.

I have a degree my maiden name is written on it, but I don't think that at this stage I have to worry about changing it. people understand that women do take their partners name. However if you have been using your name for business purposes or if you have published papers in your maiden name then it becomes more difficult. In that case I think that you should change your name but keep your maiden name for professional purposes.

[Óttar]

I read this newspaper article about a guy who had the damndest time being allowed to take his wife's last name. This is all well and good, but there's only one problem... He's not really taking her name, so much as he's TAKING HER FATHER'S NAME!

It's not really revolutionary if you're ultimately just taking another man's surname.

[Tabiti]

I read this newspaper article about a guy who had the damndest time being allowed to take his wife's last name. This is all well and good, but there's only one problem... He's not really taking her name, so much as he's TAKING HER FATHER'S NAME!

It's not really revolutionary if you're ultimately just taking another man's surname.
That happens if the female is from a distinguished family, which could help husband's future career.

[Psychonaut]

I read this newspaper article about a guy who had the damndest time being allowed to take his wife's last name. This is all well and good, but there's only one problem... He's not really taking her name, so much as he's TAKING HER FATHER'S NAME!

It's not really revolutionary if you're ultimately just taking another man's surname.

This is point that bears repeating. Women, in most (all?) European societies do not have their own names; only males do. Thus, the angst over a woman keeping "her" surname is ridiculous.

[Ariets]

Myself, I can never adopt another name, since I'm not someone's property.
Whats wrong with you damn evil women? How it is that you do want perserve European culture without European traditions?

Its not about being someones property btw.

[Ariets]

In traditional Aryan households the wife becomes the property of her husband. Her adoption of her husband`s surname and the courtesy title of `Mrs` is a reflection of this fact.Since when?

Where have you read that? Dude, are you Aryan? Are you high? GTFO from Europe:D

[Psychonaut]

In traditional Aryan households the wife becomes the property of her husband. Her adoption of her husband`s surname and the courtesy title of `Mrs` is a reflection of this fact.

Patrilineality does not necessitate ownership of females. I'd like to know what you mean by "tradition Aryan[s]." Granted I'm not familiar with all of the branches of the Indo-European tree, but I do know that women held rather high social positions among the Celtic and Germanic tribes, a societal feature that remained until the imposition of Christianity relegated women to the status of property.

[Loki]

Myself, I can never adopt another name, since I'm not someone's property.

One day when you fall in love with a man of your liking, you will want to be his property. That is the ultimate submission of love and dedication, and the most feminine thing you will ever do in your life.

[Radojica]

Just woman!!! :cool:

hehe, what can i say, once Balkanoid, always the one :rolleyes2::tongue

[Æmeric]

Maybe, but not half as sexist as those who think that women do not even deserve to get the vote -- i.e. have less fundamental rights than men. ;) Sorry Æmeric, but in the mysogynist stakes, you definitely take the cake! :cupgold0:
You call me a misogynist & then you make remarks like this:

One day when you fall in love with a man of your liking, you will want to be his property. That is the ultimate submission of love and dedication, and the most feminine thing you will ever do in your life.

Equating women with property & saying they will want it! It is the most feminine thing they could ever do! You take the cake, really you do.:rolleyes:

[Loki]

Equating women with property & saying they will want it! It is the most feminine thing they could ever do! You take the cake, really you do.:rolleyes:

I was alluding to their wishes ... which comes natural and is not forced. And I still think they should have the right to vote.

[Lady L]

Equating women with property & saying they will want it! It is the most feminine thing they could ever do! You take the cake, really you do.:rolleyes:

I think I know what Loki meant. For a controlling asshole to refer to his wife as his property as he controls her ever waking move is totally unacceptable.

But, for a man to truly and I do mean truly love his wife, treat her with love and respect and while the same time this women loves the man just as much, it is going to be her hearts desire to giver herself to this man. She is going to eat up all his attention and love and even a bit of jealousy from him. A women who loves a man with all her heart and has no intentions of ever cheating wants to feel from her husband that their is no other women in the world he'd rather love, spend his life with and *uck every night. :) :embarrassed


I was alluding to their wishes ... which comes natural and is not forced. And I still think they should have the right to vote.

I think it should come natural too, never to be forced. In most cases when it is forced their is abuse involved and the woman ends up getting away from this man however she can. Props to you for thinking women should have the right to vote. :thumbs up

[Beorn]

Hmm! This thread has certainly turned interesting.

[Piparskeggr]

Waaaay back in July of 1978, when the future Mrs Pip and I plighted our troth and became engaged, we were in agreement that her family name was old and honorable, and perfectly fine, as is mine; so I kept my maiden name. :p

We also agreed that if we should have children, they would bear her family name as their middle name and my family name as theirs.

Her keeping her family name had the side benefit of giving the US Air Force (she was an active duty officer at the time) less of an opportunity to screw up her records.

[Frigga]

What should married women call themselves?

Whatever they damn well feel like calling themselves!! :P

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Beware of property rights


Woman Sets Fire to Man's
Genitals

Updated: Saturday, 08 Aug 2009, 11:27 AM EDT
Published : Friday, 07 Aug 2009, 5:20 PM EDT


By LILY FU

A Greek woman set fire to a British man's genitals at a club after he allegedly made sexual advances on her.
The unidentified woman is being praised by her hometown in Crete for what she did and for also turning herself in to police immediately after the alleged incident. She has been charged with causing bodily injury and endangering private property, according to the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/5984266/Hero-Greek-woman-sets-fire-to-drunken-Britons-genitals.html) .
Police said that the incident took place at a club in the Greek resort town of Malia. The British man, who police have also not yet identified, allegedly took off his pants there and waved his genitals at a number of girls. He is then said to have "forcefully fondled" the Greek woman and asked her to hold his genitals.
The woman asked the man to stop harassing her, police said, and when he didn't, she poured Sabucco, a liquor that resembles Greek ouzo, on his private area.
When the man continued his advances, police said that's when the woman set fire to his genitals using a lighter.
The man is currently at in a Heraklion, Crete, clinic being treated for second-degree burns to his testicles and penis.
The judge and prosecutor in the case have agreed to set the woman free pending trial, which is an indication that they agreed with her argument of self-defense.
In July a New York man claimed his wife burned his genitals when she poured hot water on him while he was sleeping (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/dpgo_Man_Wife_Scalded_Genitals_fc_20090729_2708885 ) . He told the New York Post that she was upset over his infidelity.



http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/dpgo_woman_sets_fire_to_mans_genitals_lwf_080709_2 889469

[Arahari]

Well.. I am just glad that we Europeans are no Aryans then. Aryans live in (Northern) India, Pakistan,Afghanistan (Pashtun) and Iran.

I see so being Aryan is dependent on one`s place of residence, not by blood?:rolleyes:

http://aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.com/2008/12/aryan-term-not-confined-to-indo.html

It has become fashionable among most scholars of the post war generation to avoid the use of the term `Aryan` unless it is used in a purely linguistic sense as in describing the Indo-European languages of Iran and India or the peoples who speak them.
No doubt the use of this term by racialists in National Socialist Germany has had an impact upon this shift of useage despite the fact that the term was in common use as both a linguistic and a racial/ethnic term in all countries before then and indeed is still occasionaly used by some authors in its original sense.
These scholars ignore the body of evidence which makes it abundantly clear that the term Aryan and its derivatives can be found throughout the spectrum of Indo-European languages and has been used as a noun in some of those languages to describe the people who belonged to the ethnic group who spoke that particular Indo-European language.
Indeed it is quite amazing how Indo-European languages spoken so far apart from each other from India to Ireland make use of the term.
The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European tongue has the term *Ar-yo, *Heryos or *Herios from which the word Aryan is descended from in various Indo-European languages. It has the meaning of `member of one`s own group` so quite clearly from the very beginning it had an ethnic or racial sense. It was an exclusive term used by the speakers of Proto-Indo-European, the original Aryans in other words.
Here are some examples of how the term and its derivatives have been used amongst a wide range of Indo-European languages.

Sanskrit-Arya, the exalted, or noble, master, lord, an Aryan, one of the `exalted` ruling race.
Arya-man, a companion[Aryan].

Old Persian-Ariya. See above definition!

Iranian-Airya-a racial title used by Darius on his tomb. Has the same general sense as in the Sanskrit.

Hittite-Ara, member of one`s own group, peer, friend.

Lycian[Anatolian language from South-West Anatolia]-Arus, citizens.

Greek-Areion, better, stronger, braver, usually derived from Ares, war, but probably cognate with Airo, exalt. Ar-istos, best. Heros, a hero, a freeman. Arios or Herios a title of the Medes and Persians. Aeria or Herie, a Greek name for Egypt. Harma-chariot.

Gothic-Harri, lord or king. Her, a noble man. Her-sir, a chief, a lord.

Norwegian-Herre, lord, master, gentleman.

German-Herr, lord, master, gentleman.

Dutch-heer, lord, master, gentleman.

Cornish and Celtic-Arhu, command.

Old English-Hearra, lord, master. Eorl, Erl-cognate with Jarl, a chief, leader, hero, man of valour.

Modern English-Aryan, as a racial ruling title. Aristo-cracy, a government of the `best or strongest` men, the nobility, from the Greek: Aristo-crat, Aristo-cratic.

Old and Modern Irish-aire, freeman. Erin, Eire, Ireland-same sense as Aryavarta-land of the Aryans.

In the following languages the prefix ar has the connotation of to plough or till in certain words:

Latin-arare
Greek-aroun
Slavic-orati
Welsh-arad
Old English-erien
Gothic-arjan.

Closely related to this sense of the term the following langauges extend the use of the prefix to terms for the earth:

Modern English-earth
German-Erde
Dutch-aarde
Latin-arvum
Greek-era

The German word Ehre closely related to the Dutch eer which means honour also is a derivative of Aryan and generally conveys the notion of honourable conduct which is regarded as atypical of the Arya.
This article is intended to be a `work in progress` and will be amended, corrected and be added to in the course of time.

http://aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.com/2008/03/aryan-essentially-racial-or-ethnic-term.html

An extract from LA Waddell`s A Sumer Aryan Dictionary.

The title "Aryan" is the Anglicized form of the Sanskrit Arya, the "noble or exalted", a term which is employed in Indian literature, ancient and modern, solely in a racial sense to designate the fair ruling and civilizing race as opposed to the dark aboriginal subject people, and India itself was called the "Land or Region of the Aryas[or Aryans]." It is also used in its proper racial sense by Huxley in the heading in designating the fair long-headed people, now mainly represented in Europe by the British and Norse or Scandinavians, the so-called "Nordics" of modern anthropologists.
It is similarly used in a racial or ruling sense by the Sumerians, Akkads, Amorites, and Hittites in its earlier form of Ar, Ara, Ari, Har or Harri, also meaning "exalted or noble"[see Ar, Ara, etc in Dictionary], and similarly with a like meaning in Ancient Egypt[see Hari, Heri under Ar in Dictionary]; and ancient Greek name of Aeria or Harie for Egypt, probably designated that country as the "Land of the Ari or the Aryans". The Medes, as`Herodotus records, were formerly called Arii; and "Ariana" or "Land of the Ari" was`a title of Persia and the source of the modern name Iran for that land. The title Harri is used by the Mitani or the Early Medes, on their records about 1400 B.C. . Darius-the-Great calls himself on his tomb "an Ariyo of Ariyo descent". It is the Her title of the Ancient Goths, in their great epics, the Eddas, and the source of the modern Herr or "master" of the Teutons and Scandinavians, of the Irish Celtic Aira, a "chief" or "nobleman", and of the Ar in aristocratic[see Ari "Aryan" in Dictionary].
This title Ar, Ari, Arya, or "Aryan", appears, as I have shown, to have originally designated the Early Aryans as "The Ploghmen" from the Sumerian Ar, Ara, "plough", which is now disclosed as the source of the Old English ear, "to plough, to ear the ground" and of "ar-able", etc.[See Ar, "plough" in Dict]. The Aryans are now seen to have been the traditional inventors of the plough and of the Agricultural Era of the World; and the sense of Ara or "the exalted ones" appears to have been used for this title when this gifted race became the rulers of the various aboriginal tribes-the Sumerian also gives the plough sign the meaning of "raise up, exalt" as the secondary meaning of ploughing as "the uplifting" of the earth[see Ara, exalt, in the Dict].

Mr Waddell in his Makers of Civilization in Race and History writes:

"The title Arya, Englished into "Aryan", is the usual term employed for the white race, now called from its western stock "Nordic", from the very earliest Vedic period by the eastern or Indian branch of that race who have uniquely preserved its early traditional history and records; and the same race is similarly so termed by the Ancient Persians who also belonged to its eastern branch. And the title was and is solely used by them in a racial and in no other sense; and especially it is never used by them in a linguistic sense as is popularly supposed-a useage which was only introduced by European philologists a few generations ago. That title Arya literally means in both the Indian Sanskrit, the old classic language of India, and in the Ancient Persian language "the exalted or noble one"; and it is derived as I have shown from the Sumerian Ar, Ara "exalt, lofty, shining, glory"; which is also disclosed as the remote Sumerian root of our modern word "Aristocrat" or "noblest or most excellent governor", derived through the Greek, a word which well defines the older ethnic meaning of the word "Aryan". For the civilizers of the old world are now disclosed to have been more or less exclusively of this Aryan stock, which was essentially an aristocracy of master-men, the ruling race who established Civilization and who civilized the aborigines by their enlightened rule and science; just as in the Greek classic period of Europe, Greek Civilization reached its zenith under a military aristocracy of this same Aryan race, and weakened and became practically extinct with the weakening and practical extinction of this Aryan racial element from the population there. Indeed the later Sumerians do appear also to have used this title in a racial sense in the aspirated form of Ha-ra, which is defined in the bilingual Assyrian glossaries as "The host of the nation or people."

The title Ara, Arya or "Aryan" is found as a designation of rulers or masters to run throughout the whole family of the Aryan languages, including the Egyptian, presumably because the early rulers and masters were of this race. Thus it is in aspirated form the Her, Hera, Hearra or Herr, "lord or master" of the Goths, Scandinavians, Germans and Anglo-Saxons, the Aire "chieftain" of the Irish Scots and Gaels and so on. It is the Arios, Harios or Harri of the Medes, and Arya and Airya of the Ancient Persians in a similar exalted and racial sense; and it is thus proudly used by Darius the Great on his tomb where he calls himself "An Arya of Arya[n] descent", and Xerxes called himself a "Harri". The early sea-going branch of the Sumerians, the Morites or Amorites who have left many "prehistoric" inscriptions in the British Isles, whilst calling themselves Mur, Gut or "Goth" and Kad[forms of Khatti, Catti or "Hittite"], also called themselves Ari, which now appears to be a dialectic form of this title "Aryan".

[Arahari]

Patrilineality does not necessitate ownership of females. I'd like to know what you mean by "tradition Aryan[s]." Granted I'm not familiar with all of the branches of the Indo-European tree, but I do know that women held rather high social positions among the Celtic and Germanic tribes, a societal feature that remained until the imposition of Christianity relegated women to the status of property.


My reference to Aryan tradition is exactly that-the traditions common to the unseperated Aryan race prior to its geographical dispersal and seperation into different peoples.

http://aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.com/2008/08/role-of-women-in-aryan-society.html


"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of castes; out of the confusion of castes, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory the lack of understanding; and out of all this, all evils."[Bhagavad Gita]

The granting of the electoral franchise to women, property rights and "equal rights" in the 20th century should be viewed as a direct attack upon the Aryan western world.
The woman is a vital linchpin of the Aryan family and to tamper with her traditional role which nature has superbly equipped her for is to tamper with nature herself.

For millenia Aryan woman has been the nurturer and bearer of offspring. Just as the role of the man and father is clearly outlined by nature so is that of the woman and mother.

With the granting of "equal rights" has come the mistaken perception that the role of the woman and mother is essentially similar to that of the man and father and men and women could and indeed should swap roles. Over the last 10 years or so we have witnessed the absurdity of the "stay at home father", the "househusband" and the "careerwoman/mother".
This unnatural reversal of traditional gender role models will sow the seed of confusion in our young and add to the further destabalisation of western society.

The media, the willing tool of global capitalism has promoted this gender confusion. How often today do we witness television commercials and dramas portraying the man`s role as being in the kitchen and that of the woman as the strong career woman who belittles her husband, often in the presence of their children and makes all the decisions?

Our ancestors wisely saw that a woman`s heart is often vain and fickle and it is only under the jurisdiction of her father and later her husband can her negative thought patterns be corrected and channelled down positive paths.

It is no coincidence to find that in mixed-race families it is often the woman that is the Aryan partner. The ancient Aryan sacred writings known as the Bhagavad Gita correctly saw that such biological confusion has its origins in our women. It is only through firm but fair male guidance that such folly can be prevented.

The confusion of caste will lead to our inevitable extinction as a special human species.

http://aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.com/2008/08/role-of-father-in-aryan-families.html

Aryan society has always been patriarchal from the very earliest days and this can be established by examining the structure and governance of households in post-Proto-Indo-European times.
Charles Morris in his The Aryan Race has this to say on the matter:


"In the early state of all the Aryan branches the family was organised under conditions of considerable similarity,-conditions doubtless inherited from ancient Arya. Each family, indeed, constituted a despotism on a small scale. The house-father was the head of the domestic group, and represented it in the community. Within the house precincts he possessed the governing power, and the right-if we may judge from the Roman example-to banish any member of his household, to sell his sons or daughters into slavery, to command them to marry whom he would, to seize on all their possessions, and to kill them at his will.

"It may be said, however, that some recent writers question the general absolutism of the Aryan house-father. It is certain, at all events, that his house was his castle. No one had the right to enter it without his permission, not even an officer of the law. It was his private kingdom, and for the acts of the members of the household he alone stood responsible to the community. The idea of personal individuality had not yet clearly arisen. The household was the primitive Aryan individual.

"In Greece the same conditions prevailed.

"In the Hindu family of today this inviolate character of the household is strictly maintained. A mystery overlies all its operations,-a remarkable secrecy, which is maintained in the humblest households, and is probably a survival of a very ancient system of family isolation.
With the Celts and the early Greeks there existed the right to expose or sell their children. This had become absolute among the Teutons, though the right was recognised in case of necessity. With the Russians the power of the house-father, says Mr. Dixon, is without any check. He arranges the marriage of his son, makes the son`s wife a servant, and stands above all law in his house. His cabin is not only a castle but a church, and every act of his done within that cabin is supposed to be not only private but divine."

Over one point alone the authority of the house-father was not absolute. He could do what he would with the movable property of the household and the labour of its inmates, but he could not sell or encumber the landed property. This was not individual, but corporate wealth. It belonged to the family as a whole, and was held inviolable. This was the law in all Aryan regions, from India to Ireland, with the possible exception of Rome, whose ancient laws relating to such matters are lost."

[Psychonaut]

My reference to Aryan tradition is exactly that-the traditions common to the unseperated Aryan race prior to its geographical dispersal and seperation into different peoples.

Much of what you say seems very Eastern and not at all in line with the Western half of the IE family tree. For instance...


The granting of the electoral franchise to women, property rights and "equal rights" in the 20th century should be viewed as a direct attack upon the Aryan western world.

In pre-Christian Scandinavian society, women, although they did have gender-specific duties, were afforded most of the same legal privileges as were men, including the ability to divorce their husbands and own whatever property they wished to acquire.

Source: Richard Tomasson's Iceland (http://books.google.com/books?id=tib4vWdUAt4C&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=women+ancient+iceland&source=bl&ots=AuMGN0NxIH&sig=A7P3DAKPBr5xlL6xma58TZ3c_nI&hl=en&ei=mcqHSpr7FpTsswPl3sXhAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=women%20ancient%20iceland&f=false), pp. 106-112

[Arahari]

[QUOTE]Much of what you say seems very Eastern and not at all in line with the Western half of the IE family tree. For instance...



In pre-Christian Scandinavian society, women, although they did have gender-specific duties, were afforded most of the same legal privileges as were men, including the ability to divorce their husbands and own whatever property they wished to acquire.


This is not representative of the actual situation in the majority of Aryan lands and furthermore your sources I suspect are quite late.

[Psychonaut]

This is not representative of the actual situation in the majority of Aryan lands and furthermore your sources I suspect are quite late.

How about Tacitus?


Their marriage code is strict, and no feature of their morality deserves higher praise. They are almost unique among barbarians in being content with one wife apiece -- all of them, that is, except a very few who take more than one wife not to satisfy their desires but because their exalted rank brings them many pressing offers of matrimonial alliance. The dowry is brought by husband to wife, not by wife to husband. Parents and kinsmen attend and approve the gifts -- not gifts chosen to please a woman's fancy or gaily deck a young bride, but oxen, a horse with its bridle, or a shield, spear and sword. In consideration of such gifts a man gets his wife, and she in her turn brings a present of arms to her husband. This interchange of gifts typifies for them the most sacred bond of union, sanctified by mystic rites under the favor of the presiding deities of wedlock. The woman must not think that she is excluded from aspirations to manly virtues or exempt from the hazards of warfare. That is why she is reminded, in the very ceremonies which bless her marriage at the outset, that she enters her husband's home to be the partner of his toils and perils, that both in peace and war she is to share his sufferings and adventures. That is the meaning of the team of oxen, the horse ready for its rider, and the gift of arms. On these terms she must live her life and bear her children. She is receiving something that she must hand over intact and undepreciated to her children, something for her sons' wives to receive in their turn and pass on to her grandchildren.

That sure doesn't sound like the kind of property transactions that you see among the Semites. It sounds much more like an equal partnership with differentiated roles, not one of dominance and subservience.

[Vulpix]

I was alluding to their wishes ...

What do you know about women's wishes :rolleyes2:?

To call a person someone's property is nothing short of dehumanizing. No psychologically sane woman is up for that.

[Beorn]

What do you know about women's wishes :rolleyes2:?

We know you lot all want electrical goods for your birthdays, Christmas, special occasions and so on....

Us blokes know you women inside and out :cool:

[Arahari]

How about Tacitus?



That sure doesn't sound like the kind of property transactions that you see among the Semites. It sounds much more like an equal partnership with differentiated roles, not one of dominance and subservience.

There is nothing in that rather modern translation of yours which suggests that women had anything approximating to `equal rights`. You are seeing something which just is not there.
Male and female functions were different and seperate and it is the husband and father who was the lord of his own house.
Only freemen of proven worth were allowed to vote and air their views at the Thing-women were excluded.
The granting of `equal rights` and marital property rights from the 1960s onwards sounded the death knell for families and order in society in the UK.

[Psychonaut]

Male and female functions were different and seperate

That's exactly what I said. You equated a wife to property, something which this account seems to show was not the case among the Teutons.


The granting of `equal rights` and marital property rights from the 1960s onwards sounded the death knell for families and order in society in the UK.

So, pre-Christian Iceland was already in decline? It's not disputed at all that Scandinavian women owned large tracts of land, homes, etc.

[Arahari]

That's exactly what I said. You equated a wife to property, something which this account seems to show was not the case among the Teutons.



So, pre-Christian Iceland was already in decline? It's not disputed at all that Scandinavian women owned large tracts of land, homes, etc.

Perhaps my use of the term `property` is unfortunate but the very fact that their identity is subsumed into that of their husband and they have no surname of their own except that which their father or husband grants to them speaks volumes.
Prior to the 1960s wives in England and Wales had no ownership of their children-they belonged legally to their fathers. Only reforms in the divorce legislation changed that and for the worse in the 1960s.
Please bear in mind that I am not particularly concerned with Scandinavia but with the Aryan peoples in general and the UK in specific.
Aryan societies have in the main been patriarchal throughout their histories. Feminism has eaten away the fabric of our societies.

[Vulpix]

Arahari, I'm pretty sure there is some misogyny site missing you right now.

[Arahari]

Arahari, I'm pretty sure there is some misogyny site missing you right now.

Really? Well tell me where it is and I will post on there as well.:thumbs up

[Psychonaut]

Perhaps my use of the term `property` is unfortunate but the very fact that their identity is subsumed into that of their husband and they have no surname of their own except that which their father or husband grants to them speaks volumes.
Prior to the 1960s wives in England and Wales had no ownership of their children-they belonged legally to their fathers. Only reforms in the divorce legislation changed that and for the worse in the 1960s.

OK, well that's hardly "property" in the same way that a Saudi woman is quite literally property on the same order as a cow.


Please bear in mind that I am not particularly concerned with Scandinavia but with the Aryan peoples in general and the UK in specific.
Aryan societies have in the main been patriarchal throughout their histories. Feminism has eaten away the fabric of our societies.

You were generalizing about all IE tribes. I raised the Scandinavians as a particular example to show that it was a flawed generalization.

[Arahari]

OK, well that's hardly "property" in the same way that a Saudi woman is quite literally property on the same order as a cow.



You were generalizing about all IE tribes. I raised the Scandinavians as a particular example to show that it was a flawed generalization.

You used Tacitus when he offered no commentary about Scandinavia, only on Germania and Britannia. Furthermore your sources are late and not indicative of the actual state of family relationships prior to the xtianisation of Europe.
Always, always remember that there are always exceptions to the rule; it is in the nature of things but does not in any way disprove my hypothesis.

[Vulpix]

Really? Well tell me where it is and I will post on there as well.:thumbs up

Diddums! Google is your friend.

[Arahari]

Diddums! Google is your friend.

Thanks but I am really not that interested. Don`t let me stop you from doing so though.;)

[Jarl]

My reference to Aryan tradition is exactly that-the traditions common to the unseperated Aryan race prior to its geographical dispersal and seperation into different peoples.

How come? I think it is hard to say anything certain about the IE traditions before separation and the dispersal. We can't even precisely determine who exactly were the proto-Indoeuropeans and where they originated from and when/how exactly they dispersed. All we know for certain comes from historical sources. These are relatively fresh and date back to antiquity, when main IE branches had already undergone substantial differentiation. Consequently, the IE traditions we do know are extremely diverse and can't be simply re-united into a common system.

Besides, even if there existed a uniform IE tradition, it would be a primitve one. What relevance can "traditions" of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers or Bronze Age pastoralists have today? You can't reconcile them with modern society in any way. Precisely what traditions are we looking at? Burning the dead and burrying their ashes along with all necessary equipment for afterlife? Or herding cattle across the Black Sea steppes? We are not Bushmen anymore. With the aid of Roman law and Christianity, European nationas have laid the foundations of modern legal and polictical systems, philosophy, arts, ethics and forged a unique culture... which differes from nation to nation, yet overall presents a cohesive unity in contrast to cultures of other continents. Those IEs who remained outside of Europe participated in totally different processes.

Now where does the common IE tradition, dating back to Bronze Age, or perhaps Paleolithic, comes into our equation? You can't compare a flea to a giant...



"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of castes; out of the confusion of castes, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory the lack of understanding; and out of all this, all evils."

Like Psychonaut pointed. That quote conerns the role of women in the Hindu caste society. A different continent, a different civilisation.


The granting of the electoral franchise to women, property rights and "equal rights" in the 20th century should be viewed as a direct attack upon the Aryan western world. The woman is a vital linchpin of the Aryan family and to tamper with her traditional role which nature has superbly equipped her for is to tamper with nature herself. For millenia Aryan woman has been the nurturer and bearer of offspring. Just as the role of the man and father is clearly outlined by nature so is that of the woman and mother.

For millenia, men lived and died by the sword. Brute physical strength was the means of survival. For millenia each man had to be a farmer, a hunter, a carpenter and a potter. Now it has changed... History and fate has already "tampered" with nature of human life.


With the granting of "equal rights" has come the mistaken perception that the role of the woman and mother is essentially similar to that of the man and father and men and women could and indeed should swap roles. Over the last 10 years or so we have witnessed the absurdity of the "stay at home father", the "househusband" and the "careerwoman/mother". This unnatural reversal of traditional gender role models will sow the seed of confusion in our young and add to the further destabalisation of western society. The media, the willing tool of global capitalism has promoted this gender confusion. How often today do we witness television commercials and dramas portraying the man`s role as being in the kitchen and that of the woman as the strong career woman who belittles her husband, often in the presence of their children and makes all the decisions?

With this I agree. There is a steady sex role reversal going on. Particularly in the West. There is a growing pressure for women to be strong and independent, have successful careers etc. That would be just fine, but it all too often comes together with egoism and materialism and occurs at the expense of traditional family life. No wonder birth rates are falling dramatically... Media have not only promoted that global brainwashing. They created it. And they keep doint it. Free love, free abortion. Every damn thing oozes with sex. You can't evade these dicks and boobs. They're everywhere now, closing down on you from all sides...





Our ancestors wisely saw that a woman`s heart is often vain and fickle and it is only under the jurisdiction of her father and later her husband can her negative thought patterns be corrected and channelled down positive paths. It is no coincidence to find that in mixed-race families it is often the woman that is the Aryan partner. The ancient Aryan sacred writings known as the Bhagavad Gita correctly saw that such biological confusion has its origins in our women. It is only through firm but fair male guidance that such folly can be prevented.

Which translates into "woman should be constantly under someone's jurdistiction, whether its the jurisdiction of her father/brother/husband", right? If so, then this"Aryan" custom is simply some primitive barbaric atavism and does not differ at all to similar customs found all over the world, from Amazonas through Sudan to Tibet and Papua New Guinea. Women can be vain, yet men too frequently think with their genitals... and it shows. If all European men stood by their women till the end, there would be no need for them getting involved with "easy-option" immigrants.


The confusion of caste will lead to our inevitable extinction as a special human species.

That is interesting... but seems unfounded. What is "caste confusion"? How will it lead to "inevitable extinction"?


Aryan society has always been patriarchal from the very earliest days and this can be established by examining the structure and governance of households in post-Proto-Indo-European times. Charles Morris in his The Aryan Race has this to say on the matter:

"In the early state of all the Aryan branches the family was organised under conditions of considerable similarity,-conditions doubtless inherited from ancient Arya. Each family, indeed, constituted a despotism on a small scale. The house-father was the head of the domestic group, and represented it in the community. Within the house precincts he possessed the governing power, and the right-if we may judge from the Roman example-[b]to banish any member of his household, to sell his sons or daughters into slavery, to command them to marry whom he would, to seize on all their possessions, and to kill them at his will.

Is this that "Aryan tradition" we are talking of? Isn't it simply primitive, vulgar and barbaric?


"It may be said, however, that some recent writers question the general absolutism of the Aryan house-father. It is certain, at all events, that his house was his castle. No one had the right to enter it without his permission, not even an officer of the law. It was his private kingdom, and for the acts of the members of the household he alone stood responsible to the community. The idea of personal individuality had not yet clearly arisen. The household was the primitive Aryan individual.

To my utmost pleasure, Mr Morris has noticed that crude fact as well...


"In Greece the same conditions prevailed.

Unfortunately, in some areas, they still prevail up till today.


"In the Hindu family of today this inviolate character of the household is strictly maintained. A mystery overlies all its operations,-a remarkable secrecy, which is maintained in the humblest households, and is probably a survival of a very ancient system of family isolation. With the Celts and the early Greeks there existed the right to expose or sell their children. This had become absolute among the Teutons, though the right was recognised in case of necessity. With the Russians the power of the house-father, says Mr. Dixon, is without any check. He arranges the marriage of his son, makes the son`s wife a servant, and stands above all law in his house. His cabin is not only a castle but a church, and every act of his done within that cabin is supposed to be not only private but divine."

Over one point alone the authority of the house-father was not absolute. He could do what he would with the movable property of the household and the labour of its inmates, but he could not sell or encumber the landed property. This was not individual, but corporate wealth. It belonged to the family as a whole, and was held inviolable. This was the law in all Aryan regions, from India to Ireland, with the possible exception of Rome, whose ancient laws relating to such matters are lost."

Right... but this is all goes back to the world 2000 years ago. The world has changed since then. A lot of things have changed, and an average English family model/lifestyle is worlds apart from the average Greek model, not to mention an Afghan or Hindu one. So what's the ultimate suggestion? To move back to the Bronze Age, lock our women at home and take to bows and spears?

[Tabiti]

Locked in home breeding/washing/cooking machines without the right to vote. The next would be burkas, maybe? And most of you are still such a harsh Islam/Middle Eastern/African haters...Irony, isn't?

[Jarl]

Locked in home breeding/washing/cooking machines without the right to vote

...that's right, baby! :whip:

[Vulpix]

Thanks but I am really not that interested.

Like *I* am interested! :rolleyes2: I'm not the primitive one who thinks women are their husbands' property.


Don`t let me stop you from doing so though.;)

AS IF you could stop me from doing anything. :tongue

[Lulletje Rozewater]

My reference to Aryan tradition is exactly that-the traditions common to the unseperated Aryan race prior to its geographical dispersal and seperation into different peoples.

http://aryan-myth-and-metahistory.blogspot.com/2008/08/role-of-women-in-aryan-society.html
"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of castes; out of the confusion of castes, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory the lack of understanding; and out of all this, all evils."[Bhagavad Gita]

http://books.google.co.za/books?id=AqRKPpKzyKwC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=Aryan+falsehood&source=bl&ots=0-Aot29Gwh&sig=LiJPCXIF0PBBN2kid-Bzy8c8gpM&hl=en&ei=gjuJSq-aJYb6-Aas74i7CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=Aryan%20falsehood&f=false

Look at my AVATAR, I am an Aryan

[Arahari]

OK, well that's hardly "property" in the same way that a Saudi woman is quite literally property on the same order as a cow.



You were generalizing about all IE tribes. I raised the Scandinavians as a particular example to show that it was a flawed generalization.

There are always exceptions to the rule: it is in the very nature of things but that in itself does not make it illogical to generalise. You sir are making or attempting to make[rather unsuccessfully] the exception to be the rule!


[QUOTE]How come? I think it is hard to say anything certain about the IE traditions before separation and the dispersal. We can't even precisely determine who exactly were the proto-Indoeuropeans and where they originated from and when/how exactly they dispersed. All we know for certain comes from historical sources. These are relatively fresh and date back to antiquity, when main IE branches had already undergone substantial differentiation. Consequently, the IE traditions we do know are extremely diverse and can't be simply re-united into a common system.

You have made an interesting post but I have only time to answer each of these points seperately with seperate posts.
The way in which Aryanists learn about the common Aryan past of the Urvolk is through the sciences of comparative philology and comparative mythology as historical sources can take us back only so far.
There are many theories in terms of the Urheimat and they tend to come and go like fashions. One must examine the evidence for onself and come to one`s own judgement which is precisely what most scholars do.
Where there is common ground amongst the oldest Indo-European languages and mythologies then we can start to assume albeit with caution a common heritage and any deviations from this common heritage must be considered as later localised developments.



[QUOTE]Besides, even if there existed a uniform IE tradition, it would be a primitve one. What relevance can "traditions" of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers or Bronze Age pastoralists have today? You can't reconcile them with modern society in any way. Precisely what traditions are we looking at? Burning the dead and burrying their ashes along with all necessary equipment for afterlife? Or herding cattle across the Black Sea steppes? We are not Bushmen anymore. With the aid of Roman law and Christianity, European nationas have laid the foundations of modern legal and polictical systems, philosophy, arts, ethics and forged a unique culture... which differes from nation to nation, yet overall presents a cohesive unity in contrast to cultures of other continents. Those IEs who remained outside of Europe participated in totally different processes.



If you divorce a people or a race from its genetic cultural heritage you will cause it to suffer alienation and dysfunction and this is precisely what xtianisation, capitalism and industrialisation have done to the Aryan peoples to the extent that we have become divorced and alienated from our genetic cultural roots and the very natural world in which we reside.
The Aryan peoples had cultures millenia before the jew was born in Bethlehem and will still have cultures once this eastern religion has finally died.
The examination of non-European cultures, languages and mythologies can shed light upon our ancient common Aryan heritage.



[QUOTE]Now where does the common IE tradition, dating back to Bronze Age, or perhaps Paleolithic, comes into our equation? You can't compare a flea to a giant...




I find it interesting how as a `modern` you disparage ancient Aryan civilisation and culture in such an arrogant and ignorant fashion.


[QUOTE]


Like Psychonaut pointed. That quote conerns the role of women in the Hindu caste society. A different continent, a different civilisation.





A different continent but not a different people. The Nordic Aryans who created the Hindu caste system were doing, albeit in a more intense way what the other Indo-Europeans were doing outside of India.
The Aryan peoples have always known a variation of this caste system. The Aryan Hindus simply made it more intensive and inflexible to guard against racial miscegination with the Dravidian aboriginal masses.
Our ancestors had the common sense to realise that women are as a rule guided and ruled by dangerous emotions which must be kept in check by the guardianship of their fathers and husbands. This is common sense for any race, peope and society!


[[QUOTE]For millenia, men lived and died by the sword. Brute physical strength was the means of survival. For millenia each man had to be a farmer, a hunter, a carpenter and a potter. Now it has changed... History and fate has already "tampered" with nature of human life.



Are you implying that men are still not living and dying by the sword? This is how the `west` carries out its form of `diplomacy` in the world today. Absolutely nothing has changed. Human nature and human instincts remain exactly what they are.

[Psychonaut]

There are always exceptions to the rule: it is in the very nature of things but that in itself does not make it illogical to generalise. You sir are making or attempting to make[rather unsuccessfully] the exception to be the rule!

Generalizing? Perhaps. But I think it's far more likely to think that we can extrapolate knowledge about the Germanic meta-ethnic group as a whole from a combination of Scandinavian sources and Tacitus than it is to extrapolate knowledge about the whole Indo-European family from the Indians.

[Arahari]

[QUOTE]With this I agree. There is a steady sex role reversal going on. Particularly in the West. There is a growing pressure for women to be strong and independent, have successful careers etc. That would be just fine, but it all too often comes together with egoism and materialism and occurs at the expense of traditional family life. No wonder birth rates are falling dramatically... Media have not only promoted that global brainwashing. They created it. And they keep doint it. Free love, free abortion. Every damn thing oozes with sex. You can't evade these dicks and boobs. They're everywhere now, closing down on you from all sides...


Not only are women hypnotised into becoming masculine in their outlook, behaviour and assumption of traditionally male roles by the feminist, anti-male and anti-Aryan establishment but likewise men are being hypnotised into becoming effeminate in their outlook, behaviour and assumption of traditional female roles.
This is deliberate social engineering by the bolshevics in suits.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Which translates into "woman should be constantly under someone's jurdistiction, whether its the jurisdiction of her father/brother/husband", right?

I think this would work best for society. Of course, they could be 'free agents' or 'lone wolfs' if they really want to. But most of them don't they want safety from any potential violence and any physical discomfort or lack of wants. Throughout history these things were provided by men, and then suddenly women decided they "didn't need men" anymore. So what do we have now? The Police State and the Welfare State, to provide women the things they used to get from father/brother/husband/son etc.


If so, then this"Aryan" custom is simply some primitive barbaric atavism and does not differ at all to similar customs found all over the world, from Amazonas through Sudan to Tibet and Papua New Guinea.

Ya all those countries with high birth rates and low divorce rates.


If you divorce a people or a race from its genetic cultural heritage you will cause it to suffer alienation and dysfunction and this is precisely what xtianisation, capitalism and industrialisation have done to the Aryan peoples to the extent that we have become divorced and alienated from our genetic cultural roots and the very natural world in which we reside.

That stuff had to come about as the natural progression of society, unless you think we should all still be living in caves as a hunter-gatherer society. The trick is to manage technological progress while still remaining true to our natural (genetic) selves.

For example due to the invention of such things as the washing machine, dishwasher, vacuum, microwave etc women no longer need to stay at home spending all day cooking and cleaning. Now this can be done with maybe 3 hours/week instead of 8 hours/day. Combined with the increase in jobs which do not require physical strength, it now makes sense for women to work outside the home in many cases.

Another example, urbanization and specialization of labor means most men work away from the house, so women need to have the right to own weapons such as firearms and should train with them to make sure they don't become a victim of a crime while their man is off working.

In contrast, there is no technological advance which would necessitate women voting, or offer society as a whole any benefit whatsoever other than change for its own sake, so this is a societal development which should not have come about and should be gotten rid of.


QUOTE=Jarl;82374][

What are you, DiabloBlanco? Learn to use the quote function!

[Arahari]

[QUOTE]

Which translates into "woman should be constantly under someone's jurdistiction, whether its the jurisdiction of her father/brother/husband", right? If so, then this"Aryan" custom is simply some primitive barbaric atavism and does not differ at all to similar customs found all over the world, from Amazonas through Sudan to Tibet and Papua New Guinea. Women can be vain, yet men too frequently think with their genitals... and it shows. If all European men stood by their women till the end, there would be no need for them getting involved with "easy-option" immigrants.





Aryan culture is traditional culture and has much in common with other patriarchal cultures. This does not make it `wrong` but a reflection of nature`s iron laws. To transgress those laws is to invite destruction which is exactly what the modern `western` world is doing. It is all part of its disintegration.




[QUOTE]That is interesting... but seems unfounded. What is "caste confusion"? How will it lead to "inevitable extinction"?



Miscegination-the tool of of racial genocide, the means of our self-destruction as a race.


Is this that "Aryan tradition" we are talking of? Isn't it simply primitive, vulgar and barbaric?



To my utmost pleasure, Mr Morris has noticed that crude fact as well...


How interesting that you should attach a value to the notion of the concept of `primitive` which after all simply means "of or belonging to the beginning; original"[Collins Concise English Dictionary].




[QUOTE]Right... but this is all goes back to the world 2000 years ago. The world has changed since then. A lot of things have changed, and an average English family model/lifestyle is worlds apart from the average Greek model, not to mention an Afghan or Hindu one. So what's the ultimate suggestion? To move back to the Bronze Age, lock our women at home and take to bows and spears?

This is a typical argument of the looney left: "The world has changed since then" as if that has ever justified anything! Is that the best that you can manage in defence?
Human nature has not and never will change and allied to this are the gender roles assigned to us by nature. Legislation and mind conditioning will never alter that.

[Loki]

This is a typical argument of the looney left: "The world has changed since then" as if that has ever justified anything! Is that the best that you can manage in defence?


I'm leftwing, and almost loony, but I think he has a point. :coffee:

[Skandi]

Will members please remember that there is a multiquote (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4568&highlight=multiquote) function, and not post lots of consecutive posts, thanks

[Vulpix]

This "Aryan" man thought of his wife as his property.

Muslim man sentenced to life in jail after killing his German-born wife because she was 'too independent' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1207931/Muslim-asylum-seeker-sentenced-life-jail-killing-wife-independent.html)



The 27-year-old Kurdish man, identified only as Onder B, was found guilty today of stabbing his wife in the eyes, beating her with a billiard cue and then running over her in his car.
...
Under a deal between their families a marriage was 'arranged' between him and Mujde, in which he then viewed her, according to prosecutors, 'as his property'.
...
The court heard how he was upset 'that she behaved the way she did and didn`t do what he told her'.
'She was too independent and she had to die for it,' said the prosecutor.

[Arahari]

This "Aryan" man thought of his wife as his property.

Muslim man sentenced to life in jail after killing his German-born wife because she was 'too independent' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1207931/Muslim-asylum-seeker-sentenced-life-jail-killing-wife-independent.html)

Whilst I do not advocate the killing of feminists surely you are beginning to see that no man in his right mind would want to be shackled to some disrespectful, aggressive, materialist and abusive woman as unfortunately the majority of `western` women are today.
It is certainly high time that Aryan men started to enforce discipline in their own households even if that means the odd clip around the ear.;)

[Psychonaut]

Whilst I do not advocate the killing of feminists surely you are beginning to see that no man in his right mind would want to be shackled to some disrespectful, aggressive, materialist and abusive woman as unfortunately the majority of `western` women are today.
It is certainly high time that Aryan men started to enforce discipline in their own households even if that means the odd clip around the ear.;)

Are you seriously suggesting that "Aryan" men need to start beating their wives to make them less independent?

[Arahari]

Are you seriously suggesting that "Aryan" men need to start beating their wives to make them less independent?

I am saying that Aryan men must acquire some balls and stop acting as emasculated eunochs when it comes to women.
No real woman can respect a half-man who douses himself with perfume, applies moisturiser to his skin, gells his hair and carries a handbag.
If necessary husbands and fathers should apply corporal punishment to members of their households in order to ensure discipline. It is time for Aryan man to take back his lands but before he can do this he must take back his hearths..

[Psychonaut]

I am saying that Aryan men must acquire some balls and stop acting as emasculated eunochs when it comes to women.
No real woman can respect a half-man who douses himself with perfume, applies moisturiser to his skin, gells his hair and carries a handbag.
If necessary husbands and fathers should apply corporal punishment to members of their households in order to ensure discipline. It is time for Aryan man to take back his lands but before he can do this he must take back his hearths..

A simple "yes" would've sufficed. I guess I must be an untermensch then, because I won't be using corporal punishment on my wife anytime in this life.

[Loki]

No real woman can respect a half-man who douses himself with perfume, applies moisturiser to his skin, gells his hair and carries a handbag.


I did it this morning after shower. :redface_002:



If necessary husbands and fathers should apply corporal punishment to members of their households in order to ensure discipline. It is time for Aryan man to take back his lands but before he can do this he must take back his hearths..

Here's a question for you: are you single? :coffee: If not, I hope the police pay you a visit at home, to inspect possible domestic abuse and violence.

http://media.abum.com/image/8949.jpg

[Arahari]

A simple "yes" would've sufficed. I guess I must be an untermensch then, because I won't be using corporal punishment on my wife anytime in this life.

No, a `simple yes` would not have `sufficed`. It is all a matter of discipline and women understanding that nature has equipped them for a specific role: to bear children. Only those who are afflicted with a genetic deformity or disease or those who are just plain ugly or unable to conceive should refrain from marriage and sexual relations.

[Arahari]

I did it this morning after shower. :redface_002:



Here's a question for you: are you single? :coffee: If not, I hope the police pay you a visit at home, to inspect possible domestic abuse and violence.

http://media.abum.com/image/8949.jpg

My marital status is none of your business and entirely irrelevant. I will run my household as I see fit without any interference from your ZOG friends.;)
I can tell from your politically correct answer that you must be a young thing in your 20s, possibly the product of a university education. For that is the kind of nonsense we have come to expect from those quarters.

[Psychonaut]

No, a `simple yes` would not have `sufficed`. It is all a matter of discipline and women understanding that nature has equipped them for a specific role: to bear children. Only those who are afflicted with a genetic deformity or disease or those who are just plain ugly or unable to conceive should refrain from marriage and sexual relations.

Yes, women are equipped by nature to bear children...and this somehow translates into husbands needing to beat them into submission?

http://palmwebos.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/vader-fail.jpg

[Arahari]

Yes, women are equipped by nature to bear children...and this somehow translates into husbands needing to beat them into submission?

http://palmwebos.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/vader-fail.jpg

Stop putting your words into my mouth!
If you step back a little and stop being so emotional and start to analyse the character of women generally you will find that they are prone to being led by their emotions and not their intelligence and this makes for poor decision making. They need to be led and guided. If in extreme situations chastisement of a corporal nature is necessary then so be it. That does not equate to them being "beaten into submission." That is a higly emotional response.


http://www.heretical.com/miscella/onwomen.html


The nature of the female

One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man's without being essentially happier or unhappier.

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.
Natural weapons

In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.
Female truth

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.
Feminine charms

Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.
Absence of genius

Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.
Insipid women-veneration

This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.
Monogamy and 'filles de joie'

In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers. What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one. There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second.
No argument about polygamy

There can be no argument about polygamy: it is a fact to be met with everywhere and the only question is how to regulate it. For who is really a monogamist? We all live in polygamy, at least for a time and usually for good. Since every man needs many women, there could be nothing more just than that he should be free, indeed obliged, to support many women. This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full.
Property and inheritance

In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Manu, she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son. It is, to be sure, a revolting thing that a widow should immolate herself upon her husband's funeral pyre; but it is also revolting that she should spend her husband's money with her paramours – the money for which he toiled his whole life long, in the consoling belief that he was providing for his children. Happy are those who have kept the middle course – medium tenuere beati.

In almost all nations, whether of the ancient or the modern world, even amongst the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that a departure has taken place; but not amongst the nobility, however.

That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time, or otherwise fool it away, is a grievance and a wrong as serious as it is common, which should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. In my opinion, the best arrangement would be that by which women, whether widows or daughters, should never receive anything beyond the interest for life on property secured by mortgage, and in no case the property itself, or the capital, except when there cease to be male descendants. The people who make money are men, not women; and it follows from this that women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it, nor fit persons to be entrusted with its administration. When wealth, in any true sense of the word, that is to say, funds, houses or land, is to go to them as an inheritance they should never be allowed the free disposition of it. In their case a guardian should always be appointed; and hence they should never be given the free control of their own children, wherever it can be avoided.

[Psychonaut]

Stop putting your words into my mouth!
If you step back a little and stop being so emotional and start to analyse the character of women generally you will find that they are prone to being led by their emotions and not their intelligence and this makes for poor decision making. They need to be led and guided. If in extreme situations chastisement of a corporal nature is necessary then so be it. That does not equate to them being "beaten into submission." That is a higly emotional response.

Your words:


Whilst I do not advocate the killing of feminists surely you are beginning to see that no man in his right mind would want to be shackled to some disrespectful, aggressive, materialist and abusive woman as unfortunately the majority of `western` women are today.
It is certainly high time that Aryan men started to enforce discipline in their own households even if that means the odd clip around the ear.


If necessary husbands and fathers should apply corporal punishment to members of their households in order to ensure discipline.

Perhaps my definitions are a bit different, but where I come from giving your wife a "clip around the ear" or using "corporal punishment" on her is unequivocally deemed to be abuse and is unacceptable. :shrug:

[Poltergeist]

This thread could soon degenerate into sado-maso.

[Arahari]

Your words:





Perhaps my definitions are a bit different, but where I come from giving your wife a "clip around the ear" or using "corporal punishment" on her is unequivocally deemed to be abuse and is unacceptable. :shrug:

No, YOUR WORDS! A clip around the ear is exactly that. It does not amount to a savage beating, which is not what I have condoned or are condoning.
Your last sentence reeks of modern political correctness, the literal bane of our societies.

[NSFreja]

I am saying that Aryan men must acquire some balls and stop acting as emasculated eunochs when it comes to women.
True, but that don't mean they have to kick the s*it out of their women, only thing that is needed is to showing some respects towards his woman, to show her she do a good job raising his children, showing love and that he cares for the family.

No real woman can respect a half-man who douses himself with perfume, applies moisturiser to his skin, gells his hair and carries a handbag.
That is also true, but also, no real woman will ever respect a man that abuse his family!

If necessary husbands and fathers should apply corporal punishment to members of their households in order to ensure discipline.
Are you stupid or do you just play stupid?
By doing as you write, it only create hate and if you ever get sons and use this way to discipline them (or their mother), they will most probably kick you a*s as soon as they are old enough to do it.
I have gone through this and my sons hates their father for what he have done to me and to them...

It is time for Aryan man to take back his lands but before he can do this he must take back his hearths..
Take back his hearts? By discipline his family? Good luck...your children will become rebels and your wife/gf will hate you for the rest of her life (or rest of your life)...

[Jarl]

Yeah! Yyyyyheeww! :whip:

[Arahari]

True, but that don't mean they have to kick the s*it out of their women, only thing that is needed is to showing some respects towards his woman, to show her she do a good job raising his children, showing love and that he cares for the family.

That is also true, but also, no real woman will ever respect a man that abuse his family!

Are you stupid or do you just play stupid?
By doing as you write, it only create hate and if you ever get sons and use this way to discipline them (or their mother), they will most probably kick you a*s as soon as they are old enough to do it.
I have gone through this and my sons hates their father for what he have done to me and to them...

Take back his hearts? By discipline his family? Good luck...your children will become rebels and your wife/gf will hate you for the rest of her life (or rest of your life)...

Where did I suggest that men should "kick the shit out of their women?" Are you following a different thread to this one?:confused:
Since when was the disciplining of women and children considered `abuse`? Sounds like feminist pc claptrap to me.
Stop projecting your emotions and experiences on to me and try and be rational about this!
The word is HEARTH not heart!:rolleyes:

[Jarl]

This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full. Property and inheritance

In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Manu, she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son.

In almost all nations, whether of the ancient or the modern world, even amongst the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that a departure has taken place; but not amongst the nobility, however.

That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time

So indeed, You are proposing we took to bows and spears and locked our women at home!


[/b]This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women;[/b] they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity (...)

Then I propose you watched the Rape of Nanking documentary. This will help you to appreciate how the noble "Orient" treated the women:

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DiqH47MIpuoA

To me "our Old French gallantry" is the price of freedom and the price of humanity. The beast-like, barbaric ways which the European civilisation has disposed of many centuries ago, and which you call "Aryan", reek of primitive tribalism and egoism.

[NSFreja]

Where did I suggest that men should "kick the shit out of their women?" Are you following a different thread to this one?:confused:
Since when was the disciplining of women and children considered `abuse`? Sounds like feminist pc claptrap to me.
Stop projecting your emotions and experiences on to me and try and be rational about this!
The word is HEARTH not heart!:rolleyes:
Feminist pc claptrap? lol
Is it feminism if one want to be treated like a human? Wow, didn't know that...

Thank heavens that the men with my political view think higher about their woman and family than you do. Too bad i found "Mr. Right" too late...

About abuse (if you didn't know it already):
An important piece in understanding the dynamics of domestic violence is the definition of abuse. Abuse is defined as the systematic pattern of behaviors in a relationship that are used to gain and/or maintain power and control over another. When one defines domestic violence in terms of physical abuse only they do not fully understand the dynamics that keep these relationships together.

Physical: Hitting, pushing, biting, punching, choking...
Emotional: cursing swearing, attacks on self-esteem, blaming, criticizing your thoughts feelings….
Psychological: Threatening, throwing, smashing, breaking things, punching walls, hiding things, sabotaging your car.
Sexual: any non-consenting sexual act or behavior

It is important to note that many examples can be put into more than one category. I find it helpful to say emotional abuse plays on the persons feelings while psychological alters their reality and sexual often does both.

[Arahari]

Feminist pc claptrap? lol
Is it feminism if one want to be treated like a human? Wow, didn't know that...

Thank heavens that the men with my political view think higher about their woman and family than you do. Too bad i found "Mr. Right" too late...

About abuse (if you didn't know it already):
An important piece in understanding the dynamics of domestic violence is the definition of abuse. Abuse is defined as the systematic pattern of behaviors in a relationship that are used to gain and/or maintain power and control over another. When one defines domestic violence in terms of physical abuse only they do not fully understand the dynamics that keep these relationships together.

Physical: Hitting, pushing, biting, punching, choking...
Emotional: cursing swearing, attacks on self-esteem, blaming, criticizing your thoughts feelings….
Psychological: Threatening, throwing, smashing, breaking things, punching walls, hiding things, sabotaging your car.
Sexual: any non-consenting sexual act or behavior

It is important to note that many examples can be put into more than one category. I find it helpful to say emotional abuse plays on the persons feelings while psychological alters their reality and sexual often does both.

As I said, feminist pc claptrap. This is why I believe firmly that women have no place in deciding issues in society and their talents would be better served in rearing children and keeping house.

[Treffie]

^You're obviously not married, are you? :D

[Brännvin]

Arahari is gone, sad! :( :D

[Germanicus]

Btw, the feminists can go to hell or become lesbians. There are enough good women out there who would love to have husbands. :)


By the way, most men do not know where the word wife comes from. It is an Anglo Saxon word, way back when the whole of England was a vast sheep farm the women used a weight to use to string the wool which was called a Wiff, understandably this was a womans job, hence women were called the wiff...=wife

[Jarl]

Arahari is gone, sad! :( :D

Yeah. I did not share his beliefs, yet it was nice to have here someone who is interested in the IE ethnogenesis and culture. Only if he was no so rigid...

[Óttar]

What was he banned for? How does reputation go in the red?

[Cello]

In traditional European culture the woman takes the man's name. Mrs James Smith so. Jane Smith is acceptable too, but in my opinion calling yourself Ms after marry is disrespectful of husband and out of place. Ms is for unmarried women. I'm married and go by the name of my husband, I never use my maiden name any more either, it's gone.

[Absinthe]

If and when I get married, I will most certainly keep my name because of its "historical" significance (but Mrs instead of Ms), and most probably add my husband's name as well.

One other reason for keeping my family name would also be the uniquely infamous G-r-e-e-k bureaucracy that comes with name changes, IDs and all that. ;)

[Æmeric]

It's not that hard for American women to change their names - upon marriage. It's primary a case of changing the name on their drivers license, which I guess require the marriage license but I don't think that always the case before 9/11. They also notify the Social Security Administration & change the name on their bank accounts. I think most newly married women like doing it.

[Skandi]

It's not that bad here either, well... car registration, passport, driving licence, banks, electoral roll, bills, insurance companies, etc etc a pain in the arse but they all have mechanisms to try and make it easy, trouble is they ALL want the marriage cert at the same time :p Also most official forms ask you for any old names as well.

[Absinthe]

Ibut they all have mechanisms to try and make it easy.

We do have mechanisms to make it easy as well. ;)

http://static.soxfirst.com/soxfirst.com/imgname--britain_moves_on_bribery---50226711--bribery3.jpeg

[Fortis in Arduis]

She should be Mrs James Smith, but Joanna Smith is acceptable for work purposes.

There is a profusion of hyphernation just now. This should only really happen if a line will otherwise disappear without an 'heir'. It is 'cool', but not if there is no good reason for it, because in which case it becometh pretentiacious in extremis.

I knew a family who took the mother's name but I never knew why they did that.

[Loki]

Alright, I've (ab)used my admin privileges and removed my vote, just to be able to add multiple choices -- I did not realise the first time around.

I voted for the following:

(1) She should be Mrs James Smith.
(2) Wives should adopt their husband's surname
(3) Wives should earn the right to any name, by performing in the bedroom

I believe that, if a woman desires to have a husband who is not emasculated or overly effeminate, then she should be willing to accept and desire the above options (1) and (2). Some women prefer men who take the backseat in a relationship, and let her drive. And some prefer to wear the pants in a relationship, or like obedient and submissive men. In other words, men who do not have a sufficient supply of testosterone.

For me, it would be an immense honour to have my future wife carry my surname. I think it is right and proper, and culturally correct. That does not imply anything sinister or anti-female. Instead, I think traditional marital roles can very easily be fitted into modern lifestyle. It's give and take on both sides -- and bound by love and mutual respect. A man should love his wife with passion, and try to give her the world -- everything which is within his power. In other words, dedicate himself to honour her feminine submission in the marital role.

I have voted for option (3) as well, just for fun sake. :wink

[Brännvin]

The important; being beautiful and good in bed. I do not care much for the rest ;)

[Æmeric]

I knew a family who took the mother's name but I never knew why they did that.

I think that is a custom among the upperclasses in Britain when property is acquired by inheritance via the maternal line. Like the Churchills of Blenheim, they are actually descended paternally from the Spencers of Althorp but they got the Churchill title & estate so they took the name. Or they do it because of the prestige associated with the maternal ancestors. For example Prince Philip of Greece took his mother's family name of Mountbatten upon becoming a British subject. Hyphenated names are common among the British aristocracy for the same reason. For example Queen Elizabeth hyphened her name, Windsor, with her husbands surname of Mountbatten.

[lei.talk]

What was he banned for? How does reputation go in the red?
http://i29.tinypic.com/juvbq8.jpg

[Frigga]

But, one must at least be a funding member to give negative reputation. ;)

[Liffrea]

Personally I hate the word partner, she isn’t your partner, she’s your wife, as my old man said he was proud to call my mother his wife, it’s a term of respect and honour.

Partner makes it sound like some back room business deal, yeah I bought her off e bay for £100.

[Lutiferre]

Wife, husbands surname or double surname.

[lei.talk]

But, one must at least be a funding member to give negative reputation. ;)
that does significantly reduce the number of "possibles":


http://i32.tinypic.com/2s80kuv.jpg (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showgroups.php)


should "negative reputation" be regarded as an alternative
to presenting fact-based ratiocinative discourse
when encountering a differing opinion?

[Murphy]

Well, if any women is mad enough to marry me, I would wish her to take my name. Murphy isn't so bad, is it :D?

Regards,
Eóin.

[Brynhild]

I took my ex husband's surname when we married. Now I've gone to the trouble of reverting to my maiden name since I am not reconciling with him. If I ever did marry again (highly unlikely), I would retain my maiden name so that I wouldn't have to go through the process of changing all my documentation again. I would be happy to be called his wife, otherwise.

I call myself Ms because I no longer consider myself married, and it would be ridiculous to call myself Miss because that applies to the unmarried.

I chose other, because, depending on the situation, the woman has a right to call herself whatever she wants to.

[Phlegethon]

They should calll themselves Phlegwenches! ;)

[Phlegethon]

Murphy isn't so bad, is it :D?


Murphy, Murphy, darling dear
I long for you now night and day
Your pain was my pleasure, your sorrow my joy
I feel now I've lost you to health and good cheer

[Absinthe]

Concerning the Ms and Mrs, in Greece it is a little different...

Yes, after one gets married she's addressed to as Mrs instead of Ms.

But also the "Mrs" is the appropriate way to address a woman who's passed her 30s or 40s as the use of "Ms" would seem inappropriate (disrespectful for her age) in that case...

I never realized it until now that Brynhild mentioned it. If a woman in her shoes was addressed to as "Ms" in Greece, she'd be seriously pissed off! :p

[Phlegethon]

You've finally made it now, old Missus! Praise the elderly!

[The Lawspeaker]

Whatever she would like to call herself. :) I would of course like it if they would take my name so my branch of the family won't go extinct when we have children but ah well.
Too bad that Dutch naming rules are sometimes so rigid.. and we can only:

1) Adopt my last name
2) Adopt her last name
3) She can combine my last name and her own maiden name.

As far as I know the concept of both keeping your last names or of a "boys name" is unknown here.


Dutch naming law (surnames) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_name#Most_common_Dutch_surnames)

In Dutch tradition, marriage requires the female to drop her maiden name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiden_name) and take on the husband's name. The current law in the Netherlands gives people more freedom: upon marriage, both partners keep their own surname, but are given the choice to use their partner's surname, or a combination of both. So if a person called Jansen marries someone called Smit, each partner has the choice to call himself or herself Jansen, Smit, Jansen-Smit or Smit-Jansen. The preferred option will be registered with the municipal registration, without giving up the right to use one's original name.
However, in practice the standard procedure is that when the woman marries she either keeps her maiden name or has a double surname, for example, Miss Jansen marries Mr Smit she either chooses to become Mrs Jansen or Mrs Smit-Jansen. It is not common to only take the partner's surname. This can cause problems for foreign national females living in the country, for instance when registering at the city hall you are required to present your birth certificate and passport as proof of identification. If you have changed your surname upon marriage then you are advised that in municipal records your surname as it appears on your birth certificate takes precedence.
Also within day-to-day life and banking a woman's maiden name is given preferential status.
Parents can choose to give their children their father's name or their mother's family name, as long as the parents are married or are living together and the father has acknowledged the child. The surname of younger siblings has to be the same as the surname of the oldest child.

[Phlegethon]

That's not rigid, it is still one too many options if you ask me.

[The Lawspeaker]

That's not rigid, it is still one too many options if you ask me.
Nah. I would prefer to adopt the Icelandic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name). And leave the choice for a surname for the kids to themselves when they are mature enough to make such a lasting decision.

So if I were to get married and get a son called Jan, it would be Jan Tristansz or Jan Tristanszoon. And if my wife's name would be Nicole and we would get a daughter called Ingrid- it should be Ingrid Nicolesd or Nicolesdochter.

While both my wife and I would keep our own names (under the Icelandic system there are no real last names in the European sense).

[Arahari]

Nah. I would prefer to adopt the Icelandic system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_name). And leave the choice for a surname for the kids to themselves when they are mature enough to make such a lasting decision.

So if I were to get married and get a son called Jan, it would be Jan Tristansz or Jan Tristanszoon. And if my wife's name would be Nicole and we would get a daughter called Ingrid- it should be Ingrid Nicolesd or Nicolesdochter.

While both my wife and I would keep our own names (under the Icelandic system there are no real last names in the European sense).

The Icelandic is the original Germanic system and one which I favour.

[Comte Arnau]

I'll try to explain it. Essentially each Spainiard - presumably born in wedlock - has a doublebarreled surname, the first part being the father's paternal surname & the second part the mother's paternal surname. For example if Jose Garcia y Marquez marries Inez Fernandez y Villegas, Inez becomes Inez Garcia y Fernandez. She carries her husband's paternal surname, followed by her father's. This is the surname of the children. Their son Juan will remain Juan Garcia y Fernandez for life. His children will have different surname, Garcia y ??????, depending on their mother's surname. The daughter of Jose & Inez will pass on Garcia as the second part of her children's name, but the first part will depend on her husband's name, ????? y Garcia.


I'm afraid that it is not accurate, at least nowadays in Spain.

In Spain, married women don't lose their surname. If Inés Fernández Villegas marries José García Márquez, she will be Sra. Fernández Villegas. The old way of adding "de García", that is, of + husband's surname, is old fashioned.

If José and Inés have a child, the child will have two surnames, the father's and the mother's. Traditionally, the father's is the first, but it can be the mother's too, as long as the order is respected if there are more children. So the child of José García and Inés Fernández will most likely be, for instance, Carlos García Fernández.

If the surname is a double one, it's usually written with a hyphen. So the daughter of David Gómez-Pérez Flores and María Tena-De Rozas Casas could be Luisa Gómez-Pérez Tena-De Rozas. Or Luisa Mercedes Gómez-Pérez Tena-De Rozas, if she's given two first names. This is obviously uncommon. The thing is, everybody has always just two surnames in the Identity Card, even if one or the two of them are compound.

The conjunction y (and) is not added nowadays for Spanish surnames in Spain, at least 'by default'. Things change in Catalonia, where Catalan surnames are usually joined by the i, as in Josep Guardiola i Sala.

As for calling an unmarried woman Señorita (Srta.), it is not done anymore. It is Señora (Sra.), just as it is Señor (Sr.) for unmarried men.

[Svarog]

My answer is a modificated number 10, I don't give a damn how they call themselves as long as they preform in the bedroom. Mine - not neighbor's.

[safinator]

They should take husbands surname

[CommonSense]

They can call themselves whatever they please, as long as they keep on being good wives.

[El_Jibaro]

In my culture we don't change surname upon marriage, and so my partner kept her espagueti surname. If we have a kid they will take on my paternal surname and her surname.

[Mortimer]

Wives should adpot their husbands name

[frankhammer]

Girls should retain their maternal surname and boys, their paternal. Family is family. If you’re raised well, you know which relationships count and who care.