[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Feminism co' a'p du.ng -du+o+c o+? Vie^.t Nam ?
Hi ba'c Vie^.t et al,
> That's why I said you guys "Ngu.y bie^.n"( My. Phu. nu+~). To prove that
> the Vnmese tradition was to respect women is a sadist joke.
Ba'c my. phu. nu+~ kie^?u na`y hay la('m, tui phu.c ddo'. Ddang cho+`
ke^'t qu?a xem co' effective kho^ng.
Theo kinh nghie^.m cu?a tui, co' nhie^`u ca'ch my. phu. nu+~ hay ho+n
chu+' ma` du`ng ca'i kie^?u khoa ho.c gia? ca^`y a` la my theory on "Dda.o
nha^'t vo+. nhi` tro+`i" cu?a tui thi` ke'm hie^.u qu?a la('m. Ca'c ba'c
ddu+`ng nghi~ tui du`ng ca'i thuye^'t do' dde^? my. phu. nu+~ ma` ba('t
chuo+'c la` "tie^`n ma^'t ta^.t mang" ddo'.
Thu+.c ra tui dda^u no'i chuy^e.n nga`y nay khi ba`n ve^` so-called dda.o
NVNT cu?a VN. Tui ba?o do' la` ca'i ne't va(n ho'a go^'c cu?a Giao chi?
xu+a kia. Nga`y nay co`n la.i dduo+.c bao nhie^u, tui dda^u co' dde^`
ca^.p dde^'n. Tui nga.i no'i chuye^.n tho+`i nay la('m. No'i chuye^.n
nga`y xu+a ddo+~ nguy hie^?m ho+n.
VN nga`y nay la` 1 to^?ng ho+.p va(n hoa' go^`m co' 1 Dongsonian
substratum, tre^n do' cho^`ng cha^'t mo^.t lo+'p Chinese da`y co^.p va`
ba^y gio+` la.i the^m mo^.t lo+'p Europian mo?ng nu+~a. Trong ddo' ca'i
lo+'p Chinese la` mainstream.
Va(n hoa' VN nhu+ va^.y co' nhie^`u do`ng tradition kha'c nhau. Tui no'i
"dda.o" Nha^'t vo+. nhi` tro+`i la` no'i ca'i Dongsonian tradition, ca'i
na`y nay chi? co`nm mo+` nha.t. In spite of the diversity cu?a ca'c do`ng
tradition, va^~n co' THE Vietnamese tradition, nhu+ng proportions cu?a
ca'c Dongsonian, Chinese, Europian elements trong ddo' ra sao thi` tha^.t
kho' no'i. Ma` ca'c nha` nghie^n cu+'u va(n ho'a cu~ng ddang no'i tu`m
lum, chu+a tha^'y ma^'y ai no'i nghe dduo+.c.
>
> Vnames proverbs said "Nha^'t vO+. nhi` tro+`i", "Le^.nh o^ng kho^ng
> ba(`n co^`ng ba`"... but that is not a practice. So I agree with Chi. My~
> Huye^`n.
>
That probably WAS a practice in Dongson time (cho dde^'n 200 AD). That is
nowadays still at work, but only sporadic
> Sometimes we can see strong woman characters, but they were only distorted
> figures under the pressure of 4000 years. Their extra-dominations reflect
> the fact that our male ancestors teated women not very well. Some Vnmese
> gentlemen used to take those examples as arguments: see, if women have
> power they will ruin the whole world.
>
I would like to saY "... the pressure of 2000 YEARS". Vietnam had its
Dongsonian model by ca. 200 AD. From then on it adopted the Chinese
model. The hierarchy of Qua^n-Tha^`n, Phu-Phu., Phu.-Tu+? belongs to the
Chinese model.
> In the modern time, women are partially responsible for their inferiority.
> The blame : My husband is not a real gentleman...reflect this inferiority
> complex, that has rooted in the Vnme women min. The power struggle is to
> fight for, not to ask for.
>
Aha, power comes again. Yes, it is a tendency in the history of mankind
that power becomes omnipresent.
So when I talked about Ti`nh & Quye^`n in my recent msg, I did not
implicate that Ti`nh would replace Quye^`n. I did not consider Ti`nh a
positive thing and Quye^`n a negative one. My distinction of Ti`nh and
Quye^`n implicated rather that Feminism, which is based on Quye^`n, will
be predominant in VN when the country will be modernized. Of course, Ti`nh
will not be replaced, ie. it will not be eliminated, but it can serve only
as a substratum.
Cheers,
La^m.