Toronto gets a bad rap sometimes. At least stuff happens there.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Toronto gets a bad rap sometimes. At least stuff happens there.
All this time, I thought Canada was imitating Vermont.
It's one region I've never been to, so I can't report firsthand. Did you know that there are a fair amount of such influences in Pacific Northwest? I didn't know myself until I spent some there Though they might be in decline.
You actually might enjoy it. I can confirm that they like to bike.
When does religiosity become religious nuttery for you?
Last edited:
Maybe, but I still hold that Toronto and Ontario as a whole is below average for the Canadian nation.
Y'know, I think that might be it. Any Vermonters or Canadians able to confirm or deny this?
While biking is great I don't see what it has to do with Scandi culture in particular.
And not surprising it is in decline; though a shame.
When you start to disregard very well documented scientific theories without presenting any evidence for your position. There is nothing wrong with being religious, but you need to accept the things which are proven to you. As long as they don't prove it Erasmus Montanus style of course.
You should look up an English translation of it; it is really hilarious and in my opinion one of the best plays Holberg wrote---although I don't know all his plays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Montanus
In short Rasmus Berg (calls himself Erasmus Montanus after coming back from university; direct translation of his Danish name) comes back from university and think he is so smart, since he can argue anything, but in reality his arguments are strange and not solid. It is an early 1700s satire over academics and learning.
One of his famous arguments is: A stone can't fly, mom can't fly, ergo mom is a stone. Which makes his mom break down. And the father of his fiancée breaks the engagement when Montanus keeps telling him that the Earth is round and that his future father in law is wrong by thinking it is flat.
His brother Jacob on the other hand several times proves to be the smarter man; as seen in this reply when Montanus and Jacob are discussing how Montanus is losing his engagement due to Montanus stubbornly not wanting to tell his future father in law that the Earth is flat.
JACOB. I believe, too, that the earth is round, but if any one gave me a seed-cake to say it was oblong, I should say that it was oblong, for it would make no difference to me.
Found an English translation on Gutenberg. Erasmus Montanus is the third play in that volume. It starts with Jeppe på Bjerget (a good one too which e.g. has poor, drunkard, abused by his wife, peasant Jeppe be the only one realising that the baron's bailiff is stealing large scale from the baron.)
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5749
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5749/pg5749-images.html
Oh and new students at university are still called russer (russes in the translation).
Jacob = brother of Montanus, Nille = mother of Montanus, Jeppe = father of Montanus.
Some good quotes from Montanus:
JACOB. Welcome home again, my Latin brother!
MONTANUS. I am glad to see you, Jacob. But as for being your brother, that was well enough in the old days, but it will hardly do any more.
JACOB. How so? Aren't you my brother?
MONTANUS. Of course I don't deny, you rogue, that I am your brother by birth, but you must realize that you are still a peasant boy, whereas I am a Bachelor of Philosophy. But listen, Jacob,—how are my sweetheart and her father?
MONTANUS. ... Listen, father! Will you admit that the man who drinks well is blessed?
JEPPE. I think rather that he is accursed, for a man can drink himself out of both reason and money.
MONTANUS. I will prove that he is blessed. Quicunque bene bibit, bene dormit. But, no,—you don't understand Latin; I must say it in Danish. Whoever drinks well, sleeps well. Isn't that so?
JEPPE. That's true enough, for when I am half-drunk I sleep like a horse.
MONTANUS. He who sleeps well does not sin. Isn't that true, too?
JEPPE. True, too; so long as a man's asleep he doesn't sin.
MONTANUS. He who does not sin is blessed.
JEPPE. That is also true.
MONTANUS. Ergo: he who drinks well is blessed.—Little mother, I will turn you into a stone.
Enter Jacob.
JACOB. Ha! ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! My brother may be a very learned man, but he is a great simpleton for all that.
NILLE. You wicked rascal! Do you call your brother a simpleton?
JACOB. I really don't know what I ought to call such a thing, little mother. It rained until it poured, and yet he let me walk along behind him with the cloak on my arm.
JEPPE. Couldn't you have been civil enough to have said, "Mossur, it is raining. Won't you put on your cloak?"
JACOB. It seems to me, little father, it would have been very strange for me to say to the person whose parents had spent so much money upon him to teach him wisdom and cleverness, when so much rain was falling on him that he was wet to his shirt, "It is raining, sir; won't you put on your cloak?" He had no need of my warning; the rain gave him warning enough.
JEPPE. Did you walk the whole way, then, with the cloak on your arm?
JACOB. Marry, I did not; I wrapped myself up comfortably in the cloak; so my clothes are perfectly dry. I understand that sort of thing better than he, though I've not spent so much money learning wisdom. I grasped it at once, although I don't know one Latin letter from another.
JEPPE. Your brother was plunged in thought, as deeply learned folk usually are.
JACOB. Ha, ha! the devil split such learning!
JEPPE. Shut up, you rogue, or shame on your mouth! What does it matter if your brother is absent-minded about such things as that, when in so many other matters he displays his wisdom and the fruit of his studies?
JACOB. Fruit of his studies! I shall tell you what happened next on our trip. When we came to Jeronimus's gate, he went right to the side where the watch-dog stood, and he would have had his learned legs well caulked if I had not dragged him to the other side; for watch-dogs are no respecters of persons: they measure all strangers with the same stick, and bite at random whatever legs they get hold of, whether Greek or Latin. When he entered the court, Mossur Rasmus Berg absent-mindedly went into the stable and shouted, "Hey, is
Jeronimus at home?" But the cows all turned their tails to him and none of them would answer a word. I am certain that if any of them could have talked, they would have said, "What a confounded lunk-head that lad must be!"
NILLE. Oh, my dear husband, can you stand hearing him use such language?
JEPPE. Jacob, you will get into trouble if you talk like that any more.
JACOB. Little father ought rather to thank me, for I set him to rights and took him out of the stable toward the house. Just think what might happen to such a lad if he should go on a long journey alone; for I'm sure that if I had not been with him, he would have been standing in the stable yet, gazing at the cows' tails, from sheer learning.
JEPPE. A plague on your impudent mouth!
[Jacob runs off, Jeppe after him.
NILLE. The confounded rogue!—I have sent word to the bailiff and the deacon, so that my son can have some one to dispute with when he comes back.
Montanus has received a letter from his fiancée stating that her father is really mad at Montanus due to him not wanting to admit that the Earth is flat. Instead of knowing he has to give in to get the woman he loves he replies this...
MONTANUS. Jacob, the letter which you delivered to me from my sweetheart has had no influence upon me. I adhere to what I have said. The earth is round, and it shall never become flat as long as my head remains on my shoulders.
JACOB. I believe, too, that the earth is round, but if any one gave me a seed-cake to say it was oblong, I should say that it was oblong, for it would make no difference to me.
MONTANUS. That might be proper for you, but not for a philosophus whose principal virtue is to justify to the uttermost what he once has said. I will dispute publicly on the subject here in the village and challenge all who have studied.
JACOB. But might I ask Mossur one thing: If you win the disputation, what will be the result?
MONTANUS. The result will be that I shall have the honor of winning and shall be recognized as a learned man.
JACOB. Mossur means a talkative man. I have noticed, from people here in the village, that wisdom and talking are not the same thing. Rasmus Hansen, who is always talking, and whom no one can stand against in the matter of words, is granted by every one to have just plain goose sense. On the other hand, the parish constable, Niels Christensen, who says little and always gives in, is admitted to have an understanding of the duties of chief bailiff.
MONTANUS. Will you listen to the rascal? Faith, he's trying to argue with me.
And I got a bit carried away; as mentioned a really good play. You should read it.
Has anybody of you ever heard of Ludvig Holberg?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Holberg
He was a man of many skills who among other things wrote scientific works on history, geography, and philosophy. He was an academic of international level and introduced the early enlightenment to Denmark--Norway. He wrote many novels, plays, and poems which now are classics.
Also this quote shows he was a skilled scientist:
Holberg's concept for science was that it should be inductive (through experience built on observations) and practical to use. One example is his Betænkning over den nu regierende Qvæg-Syge (Memorandum on the prevalent cattle disease), (1745) where he reasons that the disease is caused by microorganisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludvig_Holberg
He was a man of many skills who among other things wrote scientific works on history, geography, and philosophy. He was an academic of international level and introduced the early enlightenment to Denmark--Norway. He wrote many novels, plays, and poems which now are classics.
Also this quote shows he was a skilled scientist:
Holberg's concept for science was that it should be inductive (through experience built on observations) and practical to use. One example is his Betænkning over den nu regierende Qvæg-Syge (Memorandum on the prevalent cattle disease), (1745) where he reasons that the disease is caused by microorganisms.
You liked the quotes or you were thinking about other works?
If you liked the quotes I really think you should read Erasmus. It is not that long and worth the read.
Jeppe på Bjerget (Jeppe on the Hill) as mentioned is good too and worth a read.
@al-Aziz, @DeathNoteForCutie is Jeppe's wife beating him (because he drinks up all his money) with the whip Master Eric feminism?
16th and 17th centuries were better, but then Danish letters would be one of my personal gaps.
Remember the man was born in 1684 and died in 1754. Abstract sciences didn't really exist back then. And either way my point was that he broke with previous traditions and advocated that experiments should be the basis for scientific knowledge. (Also how many in the mid 1700s had realised that disease came from micro organisms?)
Dear Ludvig was by no means the only scientist of his time period who thought like that, of course. Inductive reasoning was all the rage back then - actually for quite a while until science was developed into the current "feedback" method.
I might be wrong, but as far as I have understood then the idea of microorganisms being behind diseases still was really novel in 1745.
(And I wasn't saying he was the only inductive scientist.)
I thought that we were talking about drama here.
But if you want something funny from the 18th century, try anything by Sterne.
Hey, anyone know the answer to the following:
Why does osmosis happen?
Why does is homeostasis a goal for cells?
Why does diffusion [not of ideas, but of substances] occur?
It's not for homework; I was just curious.
Okay, so what is feminist? Feminist, loosely defined, pertains to advocacy for or action in favor of the rights and benefit of women (and arguably gender-related minorities) and against the power structure that abuses women and gender-related minorities. So perhaps we can interpret from there.
But can a medieval person's actions truly be characterized as feminist? Clearly, her mindset was not framed in the modern sociopolitical context of political actions. But it did occur in the context of a male supremacist society, so it may be characterized as individual, personal resistance to male dominance and exploitation of the family's money. So while it may not be feminist, it could be proto-feminist.
I assume that the contextual society is an archetypal Western and male-dominated one, in which there is significant stigma on divorcees, especially for people acting within the female role, and the female and the nuclear family is reliant on the income of the person acting within the male role, both as assigned at birth. If either of these assumptions are not true of the society in the story, then the situation must be reevaluated. Additionally, if I am incorrect in interpreting Jeppe's behavior as financial abuse, then the following must be disregarded.
Also, note that the above societal structure sucks for everyone, not just for people acting within the female role.
For one, the male domination of the female is explicit in the story: Jeppe, although he is a complete incompetent drunkard, is in charge of the acquisition of money and the management of finance; his wife is reliant on him because society will punish or prevent gender nonconforming behavior such as the acquisition of a job other than societally-stigmatized and thus dangerous jobs such as prostitution. She is thus controlled by him in a gendered familial power relationship. This is structural misogyny and a relationship inherently vulnerable to abuse.
Although Jeppe is a complete incompetent drunkard, his wife is not allowed to leave him by means of divorce. This is because of his financial dominance over her and because of society's punishment towards women for escaping any male power.
In Western and multiple other societies, under the typical power structure people acting in the female role are placed under the power of people acting in the male role, from the day they are born to the day they die. At birth, they are forced into a particular sex and into a particular gender identity and role. In childhood, they are trained to behave in a ladylike manner by their mother, who in this case acts as an instrument of male power and control over females, who are placed below her in the familial structure. They are betrothed and given over into the care of someone acting in the male role, approved by the father or by male dominance acting through the mother. They bear children and work informally, always subservient and financially reliant on someone acting within the male role. Their desires are stigmatized and ignored, whereas the actor of the male role is given a great deal of power over someone acting within the female role- regarding their body, regarding their finances, regarding their abilities and access to education.
When people acting within the female gendered role mitigate the power of the abusive and exploitative structure, society acts to place them back within the abusive structure, through direct punishment, denial of privileges, or any number of negative feedbacks that counter their agency.
Divorce is one of these escapes from an abusive structure. I assume that it is denied to Jeppe's wife by society's structure. Running away, likewise, is an escape from abuse. But the financial power relationship within the family makes either of these wildly unfeasible.
Jeppe's wife may have felt disempowered, with no escape from abuse. To this end, she responded with physical violence and attempts at domination- perhaps it was a result of patriarchal emphasis on dominance as judged by physical violence, or perhaps that was her wont as a naturally violent person, or perhaps there was some other reason. Either way, the other means of escape from inherently gendered abuse were unavailable to her because of society. So in this context, yes, Jeppe's wife's action against the patriarchal structure that led to valuable money being thrown away on alcohol was a proto-feminist action because she was acting against the patriarchy for the benefit of a woman, namely herself.
I do not usually condone the attacks and abuse perpetuated by women or females of men or male partners, or any partners at all; but in this specific context it *was*, as a defiant and self-defensive reaction to abusive power structures, a proto-feminist action, though not, perhaps, an optimal action from a utilitarian standpoint or a particularly morally-correct standpoint.
We could also analyze it from a class perspective, but I don't want to since meh and also economics is hard.
You know, Wagonlitz, usually you're the one who responds with a massive, serious post to a joke; I feel a bit odd right now, like the roles have reversed.
Also, I'm a known feminist, but it's a bit odd to assume that DNC would know or have an opinion on this. Idk?
Why does osmosis happen?
Why does is homeostasis a goal for cells?
Why does diffusion [not of ideas, but of substances] occur?
It's not for homework; I was just curious.
Domestic abuse is always bad. Then again, Jeppe sounds like he might be engaging in financial abuse, so it's just a bad situation on all sides.@al-Aziz, @DeathNoteForCutie is Jeppe's wife beating him (because he drinks up all his money) with the whip Master Eric feminism?
Okay, so what is feminist? Feminist, loosely defined, pertains to advocacy for or action in favor of the rights and benefit of women (and arguably gender-related minorities) and against the power structure that abuses women and gender-related minorities. So perhaps we can interpret from there.
But can a medieval person's actions truly be characterized as feminist? Clearly, her mindset was not framed in the modern sociopolitical context of political actions. But it did occur in the context of a male supremacist society, so it may be characterized as individual, personal resistance to male dominance and exploitation of the family's money. So while it may not be feminist, it could be proto-feminist.
I assume that the contextual society is an archetypal Western and male-dominated one, in which there is significant stigma on divorcees, especially for people acting within the female role, and the female and the nuclear family is reliant on the income of the person acting within the male role, both as assigned at birth. If either of these assumptions are not true of the society in the story, then the situation must be reevaluated. Additionally, if I am incorrect in interpreting Jeppe's behavior as financial abuse, then the following must be disregarded.
Also, note that the above societal structure sucks for everyone, not just for people acting within the female role.
For one, the male domination of the female is explicit in the story: Jeppe, although he is a complete incompetent drunkard, is in charge of the acquisition of money and the management of finance; his wife is reliant on him because society will punish or prevent gender nonconforming behavior such as the acquisition of a job other than societally-stigmatized and thus dangerous jobs such as prostitution. She is thus controlled by him in a gendered familial power relationship. This is structural misogyny and a relationship inherently vulnerable to abuse.
Although Jeppe is a complete incompetent drunkard, his wife is not allowed to leave him by means of divorce. This is because of his financial dominance over her and because of society's punishment towards women for escaping any male power.
In Western and multiple other societies, under the typical power structure people acting in the female role are placed under the power of people acting in the male role, from the day they are born to the day they die. At birth, they are forced into a particular sex and into a particular gender identity and role. In childhood, they are trained to behave in a ladylike manner by their mother, who in this case acts as an instrument of male power and control over females, who are placed below her in the familial structure. They are betrothed and given over into the care of someone acting in the male role, approved by the father or by male dominance acting through the mother. They bear children and work informally, always subservient and financially reliant on someone acting within the male role. Their desires are stigmatized and ignored, whereas the actor of the male role is given a great deal of power over someone acting within the female role- regarding their body, regarding their finances, regarding their abilities and access to education.
When people acting within the female gendered role mitigate the power of the abusive and exploitative structure, society acts to place them back within the abusive structure, through direct punishment, denial of privileges, or any number of negative feedbacks that counter their agency.
Divorce is one of these escapes from an abusive structure. I assume that it is denied to Jeppe's wife by society's structure. Running away, likewise, is an escape from abuse. But the financial power relationship within the family makes either of these wildly unfeasible.
Jeppe's wife may have felt disempowered, with no escape from abuse. To this end, she responded with physical violence and attempts at domination- perhaps it was a result of patriarchal emphasis on dominance as judged by physical violence, or perhaps that was her wont as a naturally violent person, or perhaps there was some other reason. Either way, the other means of escape from inherently gendered abuse were unavailable to her because of society. So in this context, yes, Jeppe's wife's action against the patriarchal structure that led to valuable money being thrown away on alcohol was a proto-feminist action because she was acting against the patriarchy for the benefit of a woman, namely herself.
I do not usually condone the attacks and abuse perpetuated by women or females of men or male partners, or any partners at all; but in this specific context it *was*, as a defiant and self-defensive reaction to abusive power structures, a proto-feminist action, though not, perhaps, an optimal action from a utilitarian standpoint or a particularly morally-correct standpoint.
We could also analyze it from a class perspective, but I don't want to since meh and also economics is hard.
You know, Wagonlitz, usually you're the one who responds with a massive, serious post to a joke; I feel a bit odd right now, like the roles have reversed.
Also, I'm a known feminist, but it's a bit odd to assume that DNC would know or have an opinion on this. Idk?
No, seriously!
Like, we're not at that level yet. I want to know why it happens. We were just talking about this subject in our biology class; osmosis exists, it's the movement of water in a cell, diffusion is like osmosis but for other substances, hypotonic this hypertonic that, homeostasis is maintaining the same level of concentration between the inside and outside, solute this solubles that, but it wasn't ever explained why. If they explained why I would remember it.
So I was wondering if anyone here knew.
Just consult happycats; I'm an incorrigible asker of questions. I like picking people's brains for information, especially when they know lots more than I do.
I had freshman biology, too; you don't have to condescend to me like this.
The flattery approach. Nice touch!
(I'm joking.)
You might look into Marie de France. She approaches something like recent feminism. Not exactly my sort of thing, but there you go. Marguerite de Navarre was rather later, but same sort of applies.
