ScandinaviaBoard

Nioya wrote:

Hey guys. I want to describe the temperament of my people based off my stats. So they're supposed to be very nice, friendly, very religious, but also very intelligent and very compassionate. Do you think that's realistic?

Switzerland?

Ayyyyy

hello, fellow scandinavians

Svenska-Britannia wrote:

Ah, welcome to Scandinavia S.F.A

glad to be here

I want to ask this. A long time I got the book the Nordic theory of everything by anu partanen.

She has this unique take I never heard before. American conservatives think all social ills are really solved by the nuclear family model and says people just need to take responsibility and not rely on the state. She counters this in a unique way. She basically says "Yes, the family is good. Divorce is bad. Nordic people are bad with it. The majority of births are out of wedlock. That's bad. But modern relationships work differently. You can't expect everybody to just marry their highschool sweetheart and everything will work out. So you should expand the welfare state to help them."

Where exactly would that view fit on the Northern European political spectrum?

When you look back in history, stepfamilies/blended families/patchwork families are not new.

'the conservative ideal of nuclear family' may be an ideal for some people, which they like imagining. It's never been an accurate description of a broader social reality.

Two spouses who stay together all their lives have existed and exist. But what if a spouse died from illness, died from childbirth, died from a work accident, was killed by marauding warriors or robbers, went to war and was killed? It's hard to manage the farm or workshop, small children and household alone. Re-marriage of widows and widowers was common. What if a ruling couple had no children, thus no heirs? Blame the wife, divorce her, try with a new wife. Child born out of wedlock, but to parent(s) of means and status? Send child to a paid foster family. Child born to unmarried female servant? Marry her off to some other servant and give them some pocket money. These are examples of keeping up appearances and preserving social status differences, instead of a child being raised by the biological parents. What if a woman of means and status couldn't or didn't want to nurse her baby? Hire a wet nurse. The nurse wasn't officially part of the family, but de facto she kept the baby alive.

Today we see longer life expectancy. The modern decline in maternal mortality alone is an enormous factor. We still have many patchwork families, that's a constant. The main difference is that former partners very often are still alive and not dead.

Nisse wrote:

When you look back in history, stepfamilies/blended families/patchwork families are not new.

'the conservative ideal of nuclear family' may be an ideal for some people, which they like imagining. It's never been an accurate description of a broader social reality.

If we look further into prehistory, native societies, existing nomadic societies, and traditional societies it is clear that the nuclear family is very much a construct. In several to most societies throughout history, child rearing was a community endeavor and monogamy was hit-and-miss. Even today in our most developed societies true monogamy is very rare; most people have multiple partners over the course of their lives, we've just become more effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Muspellheim wrote:

Then the heir is the dead ruler's oldest surviving brother, if there's none, then uncle, then cousin and so on.

And frequently, the right to rule was contested.

Hej everyone~hope you're all having a good weekend and that the snow isn't too bad where you are❄️⛄🌨️

Hello :3

Thanks! If you can’t tell, I’m the after birth of a failed libertarian society, now in political ruin.