This upset a Norwegian reader:
We have lost brave women in combat in Afghanistan. And you ramble about the size of a girl's forearms? Please google Marit Bjorgen. And Suzanne Svanevik. They are women that Norwegian girls idolise.
I could have told you to google a lot more, like our F16 bombings in Libya. But I wont. Because when people are so lazy that they don't even bother to check out basic facts before writing something, then its not about getting a story right. Its all about having something to rant about. I feel sad for your lack of ability to adapt to information.
OK, so that made me curious. Norwegian girls idolise Marit Bjorgen and Suzanne Svanevik. I've never heard of either of them, so I decided to follow Viking's advice and google them. It turns out that Marit Bjorgen is a cross country skier:
And Suzanne Svanevik is a weight lifter or body builder:
Now it's true that these photos do show that there are women who, as professional athletes, can develop muscle. But at what cost? These women look like half men/half women. And that's not surprising since the model of society they are following tells women to follow a masculine ideal, but to pragmatically retain just enough feminine attractiveness to hold male interest.
If that's what Viking wants, he can have it. For myself, I want women who are female in every way - they are the women who command my respect and admiration.
I don't know whether the Norwegian male who left that comment is saying the truth (that Norwegian women idolize those women), supports them out of some twisted loyalty or whether he has sort of weird sexual attraction towards them.ReplyDelete
Perhaps one of the following sums up the situation:
1) He's a brainwashed believer.
2) White knight gone even crazier.
3) He's lying or misinterpreting his socks off.
4) The women in his country are even more brainwashed.
5) The size of Norwegian female hamsters are the biggest in the world? And they can't stop it?
6) He finds those women sexually attractive and has some fetish towards matriarchal/soft egalitarian women, better yet hard egalitarian women since Norway is more of a "hard equality" with no double standards compared to the USA which is "soft equality" and has double standards (both men and women are equal, yet somehow women are more equal than men).
Or he's such a believer, that he thinks that petite, skinny from Hollywood movies can kick ass and fight.ReplyDelete
Most men would be able to overpower most women in the great majority of cases - but the biggest and strongest women would undoubtedly be able to overpower the smallest and weakest men.ReplyDelete
I don't know what the difference is between those woman and trannies, really.ReplyDelete
Oh, wait. Yes, I do. Many trannies are actually more feminine (looking and behaving) than they are.
It's sad when a society "idolises" women who are less feminine than male-to-female transsexuals.
When we compare apples with apples we find that male weightlifters (and generally athletes utilising brute strength) would also dominate their female counterparts. So... what's his point? Yes, women can build muscle if they commit their life to it! Thanks for that.ReplyDelete
but the biggest and strongest women would undoubtedly be able to overpower the smallest and weakest men.ReplyDelete
Incorrect. High school aged boys have been known to beat older, stronger female athletes.
I'm talking female athlete champions folks.
Would this boob hire a female body guard if his life depended on it? If he has half a brain, he wouldn't! It's no different with who we choose for our military.ReplyDelete
Viking is an idiot. Norway's not respecting women- you're looking at mass casualties in a war type situation. Essentially they've decided gender politics is worth more than the lives of young women.ReplyDelete
So, Viking idolizes suicide for the vast majority of women who are at a distinct disadvantage in combat? It just reaffirms that the left-wing has no real respect for people's lives. The irony is, by shaming the feminine and very real biological distinctions of gender, these people are denigrating girls and women and telling us our gender makes us lesser. So much for their vaunted equality.
Norwegian girls idolize muscle bound women that cant conceive?ReplyDelete
He's a brainwashed believerReplyDelete
I'd say that's most likely. The endless feminist, multicultural, pro-Islam, let's destroy our country and culture propaganda in Norway and Sweden is directed at men even more than women.
The attractiveness argument is not very convincing - after all, it's a matter of taste. More importantly, *it's not healthy* for women to pursue these body shapes. I mean, it's not healthy for men to pursue the shapes of the male body-builder physique either. It's fine for women to want to be fit and have muscle, but that's a different matter.ReplyDelete
Will it be deleterious to a society if its women don't pursue physical strength? Not at all. If men abandon physical strength? Most certainly.
Are those people even white? Look at the fuzzy haired black/arab guy. NORWAY WAKE UP!!!ReplyDelete
anonymous at 10:39:00ReplyDelete
This is wrong though. The smallest weakest man due to his physiology will be more than a match for the strongest woman (aggression, mentality etc)
I believe the US army did an experiment where they pitted the strongest females in their military against male soldiers. They found that even the meekest of male soldiers was more than a match for the strongest woman.
As for the pictures in this post.
Its just evidence that after months and years of training with a strict diet. A woman will only achieve the sort of body a man can achieve in weeks with calisthenics.
Women are not men. They never will be unless they are turned into men completely. Then of course why would they be women at all?
I expect they would then discover that a man does not have the unique value of a woman.
As a transgender woman found out life as a man was too difficult for her. She ignorantly thought as her radical ideology told her that men have privilege.
The reality is women have a privileged place in human society.
I don't care if she passed a drug test or what. Women can't get as hard and defined as a man by natural means.ReplyDelete
- Tonya Knight (interview in Muscle Mag, not online)
There's steroids behind those women.ReplyDelete
NOne are so blind as those who will not see.
Marit Bjoergen is one of the most drug-testet women in history cause she is the reigning ski champion of the world. If she ever even sniffed at a steroid pill (or any other performance-enhancing drug), she'd been banned long time ago.Delete
But what really triggers me to put in some words in this blog is that here you have a lot of people raving about how "Viking" can look at these women as attractive. Women who in the most women-liberate country in the world, where they can choose everything from dressing in burka to act in porn-movies, make their own choices to self-develop into what they want to be, chooses to become athletes. And you criticizes this and say they are brain-washed! Do you live in a free country, who express this? Maybe you are the ones who are brain-washed (of course you would't know it if you where), but it is a rhetorical question, to make you start thinking you're own thoughts.
This you criticize, but all the people writing in this blog with racist and fascist opinion, no one seems to bat an eyelid about?
I think a lot of you people need to start contributing with positive values to the world....
Also a "Viking"
Anon, the question is whether women are "liberated" as you put it by liberating themselves from their own womanhood. A traditionalist like myself would say no, because we see our manhood and womanhood as being part of our self - part of who we are - and therefore you cannot liberate the self by rejecting our manhood and womanhood.Delete
Anon, the fact that you believe that anyone who is not a liberal must therefore be a "fascist" shows a narrowness of thought on your part. Whereas I accept that there are liberal forms of thought in the modern West, you cannot seem to accept that there might be legitimate non-liberal ones. I don't think it's correct, therefore, for you to suggest that it should be us who should "start thinking our own thoughts" - I think it's good that you've been exposed at this site to people who think differently from the liberal culture you've been brought up with.
The Viking seems to forget that the women he mentions are doing what they do because they want to. Also they're not putting themselves or someone else in a position to get killed or maimed.ReplyDelete
Be that as it may, women can probably fill positions in the Norwegian army as radar operators, supply clerks, medical technicians, etc, but that doesn't appear to be what Viking has in mind.
Where Viking goes wrong, aside from what others have pointed out, is that he sees himself as a white knight, when he's really just the opposite.
He sounds so brainwashed doesn't seem to realize that it's not what the elites want that should count, it's what 18 year old Jane Doe might want that should count and if she wanted to go in the army she could enlist, she wouldn't have to be drafted.
they make these specimens look inferior by comparison.
and the most perverse thing is that this is feminism at its most naked. What could be more abject aping of masculinity than steroids that mimic testosterone? Steve Sailer did a bunch of posts on it last year.
now steve is an old guy who has seen steroids before.
But what about the noodle-armed, pot-bellied, male feminist lackey out there doing slutwalks and fawning over Title IX princesses in WNBA, who thinks that he is testosterone poisoned and who has grown up watching such women being treated as normal?
He would only think of you as an insecure misogynist who is keeping women from developing to their potential, and it's not even a century that women were allowed gym!
Steroids are ubiquitous, for women it doesn't have to be a dichotomy of no steroids and four times the amount of an average guy that female bodybuilders take.
"Looking at the women bodybuilders, you can kind of tell they must be doing something to enhance their physique, but I was shocked to learn how many fitness and bikini girls were also using physique enhancing drugs, or steroids to be exact!"
"She just wanted six-pack abdominal muscles. So in the summer of 2003, Dionne Passacantando, a 17-year-old high school cheerleader, gymnast, and vice president of her Allen (Texas) High School class, made a decision she regrets. She bought anabolic steroids from a boy on the school football team "
"And Suzanne Svanevik is a weight lifter or body builder"ReplyDelete
then she is a very weak one. Google 'Anna Watson cheerleader'.
I remember reading on your blog about Kollontai and her fascination with muscles. Patriarchy kept women from developing muscles! There is even a book on this, the Frailty Myth which I think Mr. Sailer reviewed. The poor woman author used steroid addled women like Flo-Jo to make her case.
iirc Sailer used Marion Jones as an example of a clean athlete, who looked feminine and not like those east german behemoths(one of them lives as a man now).
Jones was caught for steroids in 2007 and she never tested positive during the tests. In fact, she missed the one during high school.
How many girls are dabbling in steroids especially when Title IX could land them with a prestigious scholarship, not to mention the adulation that female sports stars get.
And Tanja Bergvist, who mentioned on her blog that swedish gender equality might mean one injection of testosterone a day!
Only misogynists will disagree, after all, the hyena society cannot have a rape culture.
Nice to see that my objection have been taken in consideration. Sortoff...ReplyDelete
I'm not going into the discussion about women since some like them big, some like them small and so on. My point was that norwegian girls are adapted to military service since we have a high focus on fitness and education. "Fit is the new slim" is a slogan that even the most posh norwegian girls have taken to their hearth. So yes, strong women are idolized by our society. By both men and women. And that means that the step to conscription for both men and women is no big deal. Unless someone have an optinion that women are something that only usable in the bedroom and sometimes in the kitchen.
Personally I cant understand why men dont want a strong, independent woman that can take care of herself. If you want to be the man in the house, that only means that you have to be even stronger. I dont see the problem. But thats a cultural trait because we have had to live like that just to survive. In the viking age we had shieldmaidens. In more civilized times it was the woman that took care of all the "male" chores at the farm while the man was out fishing. And if the men died at sea or got sick, it was not uncommon for women to take their place in the fishing boat. And today we have to be two hardworking partners in a relationship to be economical successfull and to raise a familiy.
So I guess it comes down to that Norway is an unforgiving country with no room for posh ladies. No matter what sex they are.
And no, this has nothing to do with "white knighting" or trying to score some political point. I'm seeing that there are some great misunderstandings about the norwegian society and I try (not very successfull, based on the comments here....) to tell how it is and how it works, based on my experience from beeing born and living in Norway. A life that also includes 1 year military service where I had a female sergant. She was only 1,60 meters tall but she managed to lift a 155 mm grenade. She had to use both hand while I used one, but that not the point. The point is that she did never order us to do something that she could not do herself. Thats a fact. And then you have to make up your own opinion about my observations.
And heres a goodie for the most conservative of the readers. Go to Youtube and search for "Til Valhall". Dont let the fact that both men and women served in that troop spoil the fun. :)
Viking, you won't ever make a society work which is based on the idea of a single, unisex, masculine ideal.ReplyDelete
First, large numbers of men will be left cold romantically by it and will look elsewhere for their brides (don't tell me you haven't observed Norwegian men go half way round the world to Thailand and the Philippines to find a wife).
Second, most women are not going to spend a whole life doing masculine grunt work in order to support a family. In Norway the female labour force participation rate is about 70% and of these about 45% are working only part-time. I would bet as well that most women choose comfortable white collar office work in urban areas.
Third, masculinising the women of a society doesn't lead to men then becoming more masculine but to the opposite. That's because masculinity and femininity are a yin/yang kind of thing. They are complementary principles, so it is when a man meets a very feminine woman that his masculine buttons are pushed and that he is mostly likely to be inspired to make masculine commitments.
Fourth, societies which worship independence and autonomy are not exactly famous for their strong marital bonds. I don't know the figure for Norway but Sweden leads the world in the percentage of people living alone (something like 47%). Hardly surprising if your ideal is not complementary relationships between men and women but independence.
Interesting links, but I hope this isn't accurate:
A recent report by the Oregon Health and Science University using data from the Centers for Disease Control said 5.3 percent of teenage girls admitted to using anabolic steroids, mostly for body-enhancing reasons or self-protection, not athletics. According to 2003 CDC data, seventh-grade girls were the fastest-growing group of steroid users, with more than 7 percent using them, the controversial report stated.
It's not that we don't want strong independent women who can take care of themselves. Many of us want strong independent women a feminne concept of femininity. If she has overly masculine qualities, there's no point in having a relationship with her and going through all the risks of a divorce, family court, etc. She has to give you a reason to be invested in the relationship. If I want masculinity I can find it in my male friends.
Also your sergeant sounds like she's at the high range of female strength. But even the Israelis don't put women in front line combat units.
If I want masculinity I can find it in my male friends.ReplyDelete
But I'd go further than this. The male impulse is to want to create a protected space within which a woman can create a home life and within which a community can flourish and endure.
That is what masculine strengths were created for.
If women leave that protected space and instead take on the protector role themselves, then the whole project no longer makes as much sense.
That's where you get the confusion of men in feminist societies. I wrote a post on it once, focusing on Denmark, that's worth reading in this regard. It's about Danish men who feel that they have no direction and that they have lost contact with higher values in a unisex society:
"And that means that the step to conscription for both men and women is no big deal. Unless someone have an optinion that women are something that only usable in the bedroom and sometimes in the kitchen."ReplyDelete
That is not the traditionalist understanding of femininity in white, Western societies; it is a discreditable attitude you attribute to ideological opponents.
lifting a 155mm round and punching it with two hands just means the female sarg could break both hands instead of one. Could a battery of women gunners lift a 155mm gun, maybe I doubt they could do it reliably, as I know weak men struggle with it, as would the 99.99% of women.ReplyDelete
Remember choco's melt in the sun.
"Personally I cant understand why men dont want a strong, independent woman that can take care of herself. If you want to be the man in the house, that only means that you have to be even stronger. I dont see the problem. But thats a cultural trait because we have had to live like that just to survive. In the viking age we had shieldmaidens. In more civilized times it was the woman that took care of all the "male" chores at the farm while the man was out fishing. And if the men died at sea or got sick, it was not uncommon for women to take their place in the fishing boat. And today we have to be two hardworking partners in a relationship to be economical successfull and to raise a familiy."ReplyDelete
1) As soon as a woman has a child she is dependent (on her husband, extended family, the govt). "An independent woman of small children" is an absurdity unless she takes them with her wherever she goes.
2) In order to be 'even stronger' would imply patriarchy and inequality.
3) Your examples of women picking up slack when men are absent/incapacitated finds an equivalent example in women doing factory (and other) work during WWI & II. The problem with this line of reasoning is that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. 'Can' does not imply 'should'. Missing from your argument is the fact that men and women relate in different ways; merely being able to perform a task doesn't qualify you for a job. Just because ONE woman is capable of something doesn't qualify every other woman.
4) In order to maintain a society where both parents work, Norway has a giant socialist ediface that turns men into optional extras in a woman's life. More than that, it relies on community goodwill which is only maintained through a homogenous populace (see Putnam). So, in order to achieve this pinnacle of equalitarian goodness, Norwegian women are required to not have replacement level number of children, and Norway will have to import many 'diverse' peoples to suck at the tit of the welfare state in order to make more 'Norwegians' who hate Norway.
Do you see how these issues are all related?
"I hope this isn't accurate"ReplyDelete
I hope so too. The survey wouldn't have been accurate anyway with girls self-reporting. Here it is in more detail.
"The researchers also found that girls involved in team sports were less likely to use steroids."
or less likely to report it.
Many of these girls get into steroids due to their steroid-enhanced boyfriends. Boys have a huge incentive to use them, not only for the sports team and beyond, but for getting girls. Girls only need a small amount to make appreciable changes, the 'toned look', and it also has a side-effect of increasing their sexual appetite besides being a 'high', giving them excess energy thus allowing for more physical activity.
They don't lack for connoisseurs either:
Steoids also are a quickfire way of getting off excess fat, the amazing transformation story from weight-loss programs is more than just going to gym and having a good diet.
Viking sounds like a troll.
"So I guess it comes down to that Norway is an unforgiving country with no room for posh ladies."
ain't that homophobic? and that boardroom quota pioneering? nevermind the whole welfare state.
""Fit is the new slim" is a slogan that even the most posh norwegian girls have taken to their hearth."
and the recent WTA's slogan, "Strong is beautiful". If only Orwell wasn't so sexist, he would've put Big Sister in charge.
"And today we have to be two hardworking partners in a relationship to be economical successfull and to raise a familiy."
Here is an interesting essay about swedish housewives trying their best to stop feminists from bringing them into the working world. Many of them now are caretakers of other women's children, while those women take care of theirs.
yesterday the jamaican reigning women's 200m world champion was busted for testing positive for a diuretic, used as a masking agent for steroids.ReplyDelete
The world records in women's track events still stand from the 80s, the whole thing has become so ludicrous that some of the women competitors want them to be scrapped altogether.
"As distance runner Joan Nesbit Mabe puts it, "a man can only become a faster man. A woman can become a man and get faster. They have a double boost. A woman who becomes more male, she's basically not a woman.""
"Before Kratochvilova's run, the 800-meter record had fallen 23 times since World War II. It has not been broken since, and now stands as the oldest world record in track and field. "
Google the women's 800m record holder and you might be mistaken for thinking that you mistakenly typed in men's 800m record holder.
A turkish journalist sparked outrage last year when he said that olympics destroyed womanhood.
'One Turkish columnist, Banu Tuna, sarcastically asked Aytuğ if he thought the term 'woman' meant just a collection of legs, hips and breasts."
LOL how dare he constrain womanhood and question the proclivity of woman athletes to not sprout breasts when they are at the Olympics in the first place because of their proclivity to do so?!!
slightly NSFWish threads on steroid transformations of waif-like girls (or in the vein of the turkish journalist 'womanhood dying'), maybe Hanah Rosin will use this too to proclaim the end of men.ReplyDelete
"Incorrect. High school aged boys have been known to beat older, stronger female athletes."
You are absolutely correct. As a young bloke I was a fairly good javelin thrower but nowhere near international level. As a sixteen year old I was throwing further than any woman has ever done, even to this day.
The difference between a muscular man and a muscular woman: a muscular man is virile, the muscular woman is sterile.ReplyDelete
In living up to the masculine ideal the man becomes virile.
In living up to the masculine ideal the woman becomes sterile.
My point was that norwegian girls are adapted to military service since we have a high focus on fitness and education.ReplyDelete
They are not adapted to military service. They are adapted to the type of military service suitable for Norway, i.e., with no real chance of serious, high-intensity combat.
Personally I cant understand why men dont want a strong, independent woman that can take care of herself.
Because then she doesn't need you, and you don't need her, idiot.
The point is that she did never order us to do something that she could not do herself. Thats a fact.
Nope. She is not, and can never be, as strong as a man, that is physiological reality.
"But I'd go further than this. The male impulse is to want to create a protected space within which a woman can create a home life and within which a community can flourish and endure."
The word your looking for is inspire. Masculine women don't inspire men.
Thanks for this post. I just found your blog and appreciate your sensible take on things.ReplyDelete
I work out every day. There is no way that I could look as muscular as those women unless I took steroids. I'd never have a period ever again! It's ludicrous.
I'm not sure if all these fitness models are steroids abusers. Its possible to get the look with out using steroids.ReplyDelete
Both men and women can get large muscles from training. Men will just get them quicker, they will be larger and more stronger.
Now that is just talking about men or women being athletic and bodybuilding before they drastically cut down on body fat.
I think with women who choose this they are trying to ape men. That is a problem.
The drastic reduction in fat "cutting" means they completely destroy their femininity possibly forever. Women who train their muscles tend to look fine prior to this.
There are other techniques to get the dramatic fatless look like dehydrating yourself.
This fad seems to be a mix of body dysmorphia and copying men because they have fallen in with a male subculture.
Its to be expected our similar societies put a lot of worth on athletic people. In some of the Nordic countries I know being an athlete is guaranteed entry into politics,you get given land and become a household name. Basically set for life.
So its no wonder people want to pretend to be extremely athletic.
Can women be equally good as men in a battle? Some women may make the grade, but to base an army on that assumption, is a recipe for disaster.ReplyDelete
There are differences in a woman's psyche that make her unfit for battle. These difference will manifest themselves in situations of extreme stress. The men in the platoon will then be confronted with a bad situation, as they naturally try to protect a woman in distress, at the cost of the mission.
Then there are differences in speed, reaction times, and 3D awareness of a battle. These are manifest in a tennis match or football match. A muscular and fit international standard female player will be defeated by a national standard player of the same age but with no requirement of physique. The same applies in a football match.
Then there are issues of women soldiers captured by Islamic forces. The pressure on politicians, and thus the army to do something about it, will be intolerable - Private Ryan multiplied a thousand times.
Then there is the social cost. If a male soldier is killed in battle, its just him. When a young women soldiers are killed, its not just them, but a future generation is lost. It is the reason that Palestinian terrorists targeted young Israeli women.In fact they openly stated that was their motive.
I wonder why Norway even needs a military, as it evidently has decided to surrender to Muslim takeover. Does gender blending have anything to do with a people lacking the will to live? I think it does.ReplyDelete
Personally I cant understand why men dont want a strong, independent woman that can take care of herselfReplyDelete
The answer is in the very words you wrote. If she's independent and can literally take care of herself, what does she need a man for? Why would a man be attracted to a woman who seems to have no need of him? Men want to care for a woman. This want is going to be lessened if she 'can take care of herself.'
Steven Covey said something like this: Independence is good. Interdependence is the next step after that. It's better.
I stumbled over the original post when I searched for an English source for the female conscription in Norway.ReplyDelete
As a Swede (and infact half Finn) I support this move for non gender specific conscription. And with Norway being my brotherland I've to stand up for "Viking".
First of all it's a cultural thing. The Nordic culture is vastly different from the Anglosphere world.
Personally I don't understand you at times either but I wont call you indoctrinated etc. You're just different and it's nothing wrong with that.
We're basically diametrically opposite in all kinds of aspects. When the British talk about arctic weather it's -2. We sit here in -40 and giggle at them. You in UK, US and AUS think it's ok to beat your children but go all cry baby wishywashy about whaling. You think freedom is driving under influence but forbid guns. Nordic region is very militarised and in Sweden you can own fully automatic sub-machine guns but drink driving is punished hard.
On and on and so forth.
By conscripting both men and women you get the best person suited at the given position. The military isn't all about forearms and in fact there're positions where females are better suited than men. Men and women are different and by excluding women you just lose competence which otherwise could be utilised.
I was conscripted just like "Viking" and how many of the posters here, including original poster have even done military service? I even stayed and worked for the Air Force a few years. Military is a sort of rite of passage here, in Finland it's on the verge of being a ground for harassment if one haven't done so.
The concept of manliness is very different in the Nordic compared to the Anglosphere world and southern/eastern Europe.
Nordic is about walk walk and not talk talk. A Nordic man is quiet, reserved and let the results talk for themselves. Bragging is frowned upon and considered gay/unmanly. Thus sports cars with big engines, nice clothes is a no no if you try to impress.
This is complete opposite of the hey look at me attitude, posers are considered ridiculous. Which is more along the lines outside Nordic region.
I know alot of women who can handle a chainsaw, play ice-hockey, reversing road-trains, change tyres etc.
These are by no means unattractive or not feminine, they like to put high heels on, go partying or cook food aswell.
Personally I prefer a woman who actually could handle a flat tyre on her own. Without breaking down crying rivers or helpless called me. I could never respect a women only because she can cook and look pretty, that's simply not enough.
A guy who would put a woman on a pedestal, giving them gifts, treating them as ladies. A Nordic woman would be flattered first but then belittle and call the man pathetic, thus not a real man.
It's probably a matter of perspectives, everything is relative. If you think our women are too manly for you. We men are probably more men than you ever could imagine.
I've observed the differences as I'm a university student (macroeconomics). I hang with alot of exchange students and hooked up with an Australian and Canadian amongst others and they've been very submissive. They did everything to please but in the long run then what?
For me the concept of masculinity and manliness are stupid. My back is hairy and I drive a Volvo 245, yet I still have to turn down women.
But I'm just probably indoctrinated and you there downunder probably know better than anyone else how the world functions. Or maybe you still think it's flat? I don't know what you're going to do with this input but this was just my two bitcoins.
Well, thanks for the comment, but I don't think that this has much at all to do with the Nordic type.ReplyDelete
Your society has just gone a bit further than ours along the lines of a liberal politics and it is the aim of this liberal politics to create gender neutral societies.
What "Nordic type"? Society is formed by it's culture and like Viking said it's not a matter of "Liberal politics". Christianity, core family values etc. Has never really got a foothold in the Nordic region. We're all about survival, if we sat down in a snowbank feeling sorry for ourselves, we would freeze to death. So the concept of a strong independent women is older than this. It's not pragmatic to keep up appearances that women would be incapable.ReplyDelete
We don't celebrate the birth of Jesus during christmas. We celebrate Yule, a midwinterfeast at the time of the year when the polar nights are complete miserable. It's all a matter of making life endurable.
The term liberal has a complete different meaning in the Nordic region aswell. Again it's a matter of perspectives. Liberal means right-winged.
Nordic politics, in short:
Left winged - Anti European Union, state ownership, equality, conscription, pro guns, free speech, anti alcohol
Right winged - Pro European Union, free market, lower taxes, professional army, anti guns, pro alcohol
So if you don't like just be glad. You've nothing to do with it either way. Just like I don't care about your states' internal relations.
In what universe does left wing = Anti EU? The EU is leftism personified.ReplyDelete
There are some left-wing parties in Scandinavia which are anti-EU (I know it's surprising.)
Your Scandinavian societies are amongst the most liberal on the planet.
They were predominantly left-liberal for a generation (say 1970s to 1990s).
In fact, if there is anything distinctive about countries like Norway and Sweden it is how earnestly they have tried to implement liberal principles, whether of the left or right wing variety.
It is liberalism that is shaping how your societies will be in the future, not climate.
I also think it's unfair for men like you to tell women to be strongly independent and to engage in masculine pursuits.
What happens is that men say these things but then large numbers find these women romantically unattractive and choose instead to partner relatively slight looking Asian women.
@Randian: In the universe called Europe. If you don't understand then read about it. Those who support the European idea are right-winged conservative and liberal parties, together with a bunch of centrist parties.ReplyDelete
The only right-winged party (except far-right extremists) against the EU are the British Tories.
You can't use Australian right or left political spectrum on world politics. A left party in Australia could be centrist somewhere else etc. In the same way I would trust you if you said it was cold outside.
@Mark Richardson: Again you use the term "liberal" incorrectly. During the years 1970-1990 Sweden was outright socialist. Sweden switched to being liberal in the nineties.
There was a hippie wave in the seventies like the rest of the world but this isn't "liberal".
What I try push forward here is that our culture goes hand in hand with climate. It formed our drinks and drinking culture as with anything else.
My point is that this is older than few years during the seventies. The whole conservative man/woman issues are foreign to us as as islam. These thoughts and ideas with nobility, kings and queens are alien to us. They're only few centuries old here and haven't really settled like in central Europe, from where it came. Most people have been peasants where a man and his wife did the chores together on their small farm. When the crown came to collect taxes for the king, to support his lifestyle he was simply a tosser. We were industrialised relatively late aswell, so the housewife concept have never really settled either.
There may be countries where there're liberal parties who like to make these changes for these reasons. But that's not the case in the Nordic. You've to put in a context and not just apply your views as they were universal.
Like the Brazilian exhange student, bought a litre of milk and put into the cupboard. It smelled like death in the whole kitchen a day later. He's used to UHT milk and in Sweden we only have fresh low pasteurised milk (that needs to chilled). It's the same in politics.
I haven't told women to be masculine. I want women to be whatever they want to be, just like men or people in general.
My sister loves to play soccer and no one forced her to do it. It's her own choice, why stop her if it's deemed too masculine? She's not ugly and she has a boyfriend. I don't see any problems with it whatsoever.
The Australian exchange student I mentioned before had an Asian mother. So I guess it had something with her father's taste. I don't know and I really don't care.
I am using the term liberal in its general philosophical sense.
You have to remember that there is a liberal left and a liberal right.
The Scandinavian social democratic parties belong to the liberal left. The right wing parties to the liberal right.
Most Western countries have a very similar distinction between left and right liberal parties (in Australia the right-wing party is called the Liberal Party, the left-wing social democratic one is called the Labor Party).
I just read the Norwegian Labour Party manifesto.
It's exactly the same politics as the Australian Labor Party.
I'm sorry but I don't think Norwegian politics is as unique as you think it is.
Again, Sweden was far from liberal left. It became so in the nineties. I don't know what terms you're comfortable with, but use your opposite to liberal and then add left to it.ReplyDelete
If you look at any party that states a random ideology, you'll find that it's pretty much the same all over the world.
But looking at each question at hand. It will be completely different. That's why EU never can agree on anything.
I separated the left from the right in the Nordic region. Is the Australian labor party pro guns and conscription aaswell? I doubt it, it's not even the case in Europe.