chicah

There are a lot of things to be said about Norway and the Norwegian culture. You could talk about the national day with the children's parade, the "bunad" (national clothing), music and so forth. But I think the thing that most of all defines culture is how people act in their everyday lives. Norwegians often come off as a bit rude. There are a couple of things all foreigners say about Norwegians after being to Norway: Norwegians seem rude and reserved, until 1) they drink or 2) you actually get to know them. We are bad at stopping when people look confused at a map in the street, for some thought that if you NEED help, at least have the guts to ask (then we will help you). I guess Norwegians are just somewhat straight-forward, we don't bother to mess around or be polite just for the sake of it. If you bump into someone in the street, it's no big deal, you were both busy and happened to bump into eachother, no reason to stop and have a chat. Neither of you expect that. So I guess what people interpret as rudeness is really just a pendant for not messing around. Norwegians aren't rude, just honest. Norwegians are, mostly, very loyal friends, and it is common for Norwegians to invite friends over instead of going out to restaurants and so forth. We also throw home parties, either in addition to going out (as a "vorspiel", abbreviated "vors" (before you go out) or "nachspiel", abbreviated "nach" (after you come home) - thanks to the Germans for those words) or instead of going out. This probably has something to do with alcohol etc. being expensive in Norway, thus it's cheaper to buy it in a store and bring it to a party, but it's also just a cultural thing, most people have friends/family over for dinner or drinks or just to hang at least once a week. Norwegians in general are accustomed to cold weather and love being outdoors (although we're all sun/warmth whores, because we're so depraved). The "sunday trip" in the forest or skiing is common. Weather is also a very common topic, not just because we're so outdoorish but also because the weather changes a lot in Norway, so it being sunny a week in a row does not guarantee you won't have a rainstorm for the next couple of days. Apart from eating weird food and loving celebrations, such as our national day where we all dress up and the children parade down the streets and we all eat ice cream and in the evening a lot of people get very drunk (Norwegians just like an excuse to drink, really) I suppose I've covered most of it. We also bring lunch from home a lot of the time instead of buying lunch each day. This tradition is called "matpakke". Oh, and we're all kinda egalitarian. Bragging about for instance having a lot of money or fancy cars etc. is looked down upon in Norway. The ideal is the down-to-earth-middle class person who works hard but has no need for flashing it to everyone. We abolished noblicity in 1814, although we still have a monarchy. But, even there you see our egalitarian streak - the royal children all attend public school, for instance. By the same note, complimenting a Norwegian isn't always easy, as Norwegians find it kind of embarrassing (at least if they're not your friend).

Just a tip: You say everyone should feel welcome, but NO ONE feels welcome if you can get banned before you have the time to spell out the word "revolution". Don't ged ahead of yourselves - this is just a SimCity website, no one died and made the chat mods kings.

Honestly, I felt kind of offended by most of the mocking comments in this thread. Just as I was about to give the entire subject up, JanYpe arrived to save the day (kudos to him). It's not that I think this is MORE important than other battles, it is because we need to fight even the SMALL battles to change the attitudes ot society. As this thread clearly states. One poster pretty much says that "there's a reason that streets are named after men, women haven't done that much memorable" - if that poster had any knowledge of cultural custom or history, I truly hope he would not have made that statement. The reason women are lacking from much of our historical achievments is not because we are weak,unable or stupid. It is because, throughout history, women have been constantly suppressed, undereducated, looked down upon, and underestimated. The women who HAVE made an impact are usually not remembered at all (unless they were very pretty, such as for instance the Egyptian queen Cleopatra). Why do we learn nothing of Hypathia, one of the greatest philosophers, teachers and matemathicians of her time, while we learn a lot about Socrates, Platon and Aristotle? Hypathia was dragged through the streets and killed. naked, because she was a woman and a lot of religious conservatives of the time did not like a woman having an impact on their youth (who came from all over the country to attend her lectures). Why do we learn so little of the women who have ruled dynasties, founded international organizations, written best-selling books, compared to what we learn about men doing the same thing? Why do we not honor the women the same way? THAT is the issue here. It is how we, as a society, look at history, see a long line of sucessful men and accept that. It is a truth with modifications. I think some of the women who stood up against a patriarchal society, against suppression, for freedom and justice are some of the TRUE heroes of our history. Even though, compared to invading a country or inventing penicillin it might not be so impressive, it was extremely impressive considering their situation, the risk they were put under and the punishment they faced (the witch-burnings is one great example, where women were burned to death simply for not adhering to society's strict codes of conduct and religious belief). The women who fought to give us the right to vote, to education, to equal pay, to maternity leave, to safety from sexual harrassment and assaults, for sexual liberation, for abortion, for the right to be judged by what we have between our ears instead of between our legs, for things such as the birth control pill and other tools that gave women the right to control their own bodies and wishes - why do we not consider them very important? That is the issue at hand there. When people say there are more important battles, they must not forget that every small battle is connected with the big battle, and that they are worth fighting even if they are small compared to other issues in life. It is about how we, as a collective population, look at ourselves and our history and our surroundings. In Oslo, the municipality/barracks choose the names of the street, and my party have, in several places, suggested and lobbied for local, female heroes - because we think they deserve the recognition history and society was never willing to give them. And, my final conclusion - those saying that stuff like this is what makes us inequal, as if inequality would not happen if we ignored it - they don't really get it, IMO. We don't MAKE inequality happen by focusing on things like this. We put light on already existing inequalities - inconvenient or trivial as they might seem.

This might just be my stupidity, but - where can I change the "About Me" section? Couldn't find it in the profile settings.

Let us not forget: The politicians are the ones responsible. They reflect the people, you say, but we all know it's not true. Our democracy is far from perfect. Most people see no political relation in their everyday lives, they see no difference between a politician for that party or the other. Politics has become a modern-day game of thrones which the population does not have as much to do with as the politicians would have you believe. It is all an act, where those blessed with rhetoric abilities, charms and good looks hank in the votes regardless of politics. A lot of people do not even understand the language their politicians use. Besides, the Greek government tricked the Union well enough to let them join. There's nothing to say that they did not trick their people. I stand with the Greek people in this. They might even have demanded more than they could pay for - don't we all? Don't we all want to live a good life? Is that really such a bad thing? The politicians who knew what they were doing and still did it, who knew the people would suffer for it, they're the ones to blame. They were the ones who we elect to show wisdom in these matters. The extremely lax laws for demanding and collecting taxes for the richest must also have their blame. That has lost Greece billions of funding over the years. And, to finish, the myth that the Greeks are lazy bastards is exactly that: a myth. In fact, the average Greek worked more hours a week than the average of the Union.

Well, excuse me. This man can't be held responsible for the foolish actions of his government. It provokes me when people say "let the Greeks suffer, they brought this on themselves". That is a very cynical and one-sided way to look at things. I mostly think this is very sad, and it shows that the poor are always the ones to suffer for things they have no control over. And for those saying the Greeks should still have money to live for - the homeless rate has escalated as people are unable to pay their mortage and rent, the unemployment rate is rising accordingly and, the saddest part, more children than ever are given to orphanages as the parents can no longer provide for them. A human tragedy is unfolding in an otherwise rich, Western, European country and all we say is "it's your own fault, suckers". Makes me lose my faith in humanity entirely.

This is kind of similiar to a debate some people actually participate in in Norway. Some people have been caught stealing food from dumpsters, both of private homes and food stores. The food stores (I've worked at one myself, so I know the rules) considers this theft - even though they've thrown it out. A lot of private persons wants to prohibit people from going in their dumpster to take food. I think that if you've actively thrown something away, it's not your property anymore. Someone taking it won't harm you in any way.

Oh, just to keep people updated: The trial starts in a few days/a week (can't remember the exact date). He has been reviewed by a new board of psychiatrists, their report is not finished yet. The media has been allowed to film him and take pictures of him, but not to let him use them as a microphone for his crap. The rules have laxed, though, so he has amongst other things gotten a long, open letter to the government published in Norway's largest newspaper, VG. We have struggled in the aftermath with supporters of Breivik and his thoughts sending threats and hate mail to the survivors of the massacre or to politicians speaking up against strict immigration laws. Breivik has agreed to give one interview before the case starts in court, the Norwegian press are still kind of trying to decide what to do with it (the interview may be worthless since he will refuse to co-operate with the journalist and just keep saying the same phrases). A lot of the victims have f. ex. dropped out of school and/or work, a lot are displaying symptoms of PTSD. Some praise the government for the mental and physical help they have been given, others say it is not good enough. There have been several survivors and some dead victims' families claiming they were promised a helicopter while on the phone with police, a helicopter that never came (apart from a press helicopter from NRK). The police have issued an evaluatory report concluding they were not prepared enough, and that they could have handled the situation better. But everyone did what they had to do that hectic day. I just want to link to this, the most sad, but beautiful piece I've read about the aftermath. Unfortunately it is all in Norwegian, using Google Translate would at least allow you to understand it even if you wouldn't catch how beautifully it was written. http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/03/01/magasinet/hovedsaken/tomrommene/utoya/22_juli/20481172/ The title means "The Silence Afterwards".

The Daily Telegraph reports having filmed doctors perfoming illegal abortions on women, because the abortions were based on sex selection. This is evidently shocking and a scandal in Britain, who have discussed to ban "on demand"-abortions alltogether. To be honest, the somewhat shocking part of it all to me is that there is even a LAW against this in Britain. Exactly how is it enforced? Do every woman seeking to have an abortion have to go through a board of doctors, judging whether or not their intentions are "noble" enough? Who are we to force people to carry a child they don't want for nine months? I think the doctor "not asking questions" is the one doing the right thing. Whether or not to have an abortion is a choice, and a right. Whatever the reason, even if the reason is as unpopular as sex selection or removing fetuses with Downs Syndrome - it is NOT something the state or society should meddle in. It is the woman's choice and hers alone. It is the way it has to be. It would be wrong for us as a society to go into an individual case and say "you can have an abortion, you cannot". I mean, I'm still wondering how this is enforced. I can't see how it is even possible. I can't see how it is ethically right for someone to tell others what to do with their bodies, and ESPECIALLY not if that someone is the state. I thought Britain were somewhat liberal on abortion, I suppose I will have to reconsider that viewpoint.

Merlin... the Eurabia conspiracy has been debunked and debunked again. There is no probability that muslims will be a "majority" in Europe anytime soon. As for terrorism, they have conducted about 1% of all terrorism committed in Europe. Far right-wing, even far-left wing, and extreme nationalists have committed far more. Back to the subject of abortion. I don't consider abortion murder. A fetus is not a human being. It has the POTENTIAL to become a human being, it IS not a human being.

Actually, abortion is a right. I don't want anyone telling me what to do with MY body. THAT, I think, is immoral. The fetus is a part of the woman's body. And regardless of whether abortions based on "gender selection" is IMMORAL, I still think it's wrong to have a law against it. Again, for those of you thinking laws like this should be upheld, how do you imagine this can be enforced? The problem here isn't that the right to have an abortion opens for gender selection, the problem is the attitude that one gender is better than the other IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT's what we need to work with, not take away people's rights because we believe we know better than them.