u/SerbianMonies

North Korea holding elections, kings tracing their lineage to a divine figure, emperors claiming heavenly mandate, etc. What's the point of doing that if you're already in power and have armed men willing to enforce your rule? I kind of get it in cases where someone is just starting out and has to convince the populace to side with them. But I don't understand why they bother with such stories and affectations when they have the country firmly within their grip. Who's exactly going to rebel if there isn't a fake election? It's not like a disarmed and impoverished population will see much success against an organized and well-equipped army.

Par puta sam čuo od drugih da su devojke tamo generalno liberalnije i nemaju problem da priđu momcima, da je mnogo lakše s njima razgovarati, da bez natezanja dele račun, itd. Interesuju me vaše iskustva i mišljenja na ovu temu

Patriarchal societies typically have three elements that make it so: (1) patriarchy (rule of the fathers) - father figures hold a pre-eminent position in the family; (2) patrilineality - descent is traced through the male line; (3) patrilocality - the wife lives with or near her husband's family.

Now it seems like a lot of ancient societies seem to fulfill all three criteria. The Hebrews of the Old Testament are a good example - patriarchs hold a pre-eminent position and the genealogies trace descent through the male line.

But it seems like this definition breaks down when we look at modern societies. It is certainly no matriarchy, but it also doesn't look like a patriarchy in the anthropological sense. In many families it is a woman who holds a pre-eminent position, there are many men who move into their girlfriend's or wife's place, descent is now traced through both paternal and maternal lines, and property is usually inherited by all eligible children regardless of children.

Despite this state of affairs why do some people say modern society is patriarchal instead of just admitting that it is mixed?

I'm curious to know if there are any problems or arguments that you have faced as a feminist that could potentially or in fact did cause you to doubt feminism and the notion of gender equality. Almost every system of ideas has to face some challenges or problems that seemingly undermine it. Some are more obvious, some less so. To draw an analogy with communism some critics say that communism is apt to fall into what's known as the tragedy of the commons where the incentive to care for property is gone in cases where it is mutually owned and there is no coercion to maintain it. Communists have had to content with this objection if they wished to retain their belief in communism. Does feminism have something similar? A set of problems and challenges that might cause one to doubt and potentially abandon the political pursuit of gender equality or the idea that women have been historically oppressed?

Znači nmg više. Koliko puta mi se desilo da uđem u pekaru i red skoro nikada ne bude u obliku zmije nego ljudi uvek stoje onako raspršeno i onda dok raspitavaš strance ko je poslednji u redu odjednom se pojave tri osobe sa strane i kao "stanu" u red, a ja stigao pre njih. Wtf? Još kad na redu dođe jedan klinac i onda pozove milijardu svojih drugara i oni se dvoume oko toga šta će da uzmu. Što niste se odlučili dok ste čekali?? I ono famozno "samo da pitam" u pošti ili bilo kojoj državnoj ustanovi. Jbg i ja sam imao slučajeve gde doslovno imam samo jedno pitanje ali ipak sam stao i sačekao svoj red. Zašto su naši ljudi tako entitled?

Svaki put kad sa potegne diskusija o vozačkim propisima i stanju saobraćaja u većim gradovima pojavi se hrpa ljudi koji opravdavaju svoje loše navike raznim izgovorima tipa "niču zgrade bez parkinga", "nemam prosto gde, moram na trotoaru ostaviti auto", daju gas na žuto, haos. A pritom kada se razmatraju rešenja, što lična, što državna, uvek bude otpor. Prevrću očima kad kažeš da ako hoćeš auto trebaš da imaš mesto di da ga staviš. Sve ovo sam video i od ljudi koji misle da su nekako bolji i kulturniji od drugih, dakle nisu u pitanju neke gedže, nego urbana profesionalna klasa koja bi valjda trebala biti kosmopolitska i edukovana

Kad sam bio mali jedva sam čekao da zaradim za nabudžani komp i da igram svakakve igrice. Onda kad sam stvarno porastao i zaposlio se, u meni se prosto ugasila ta želja za igranjem igrica. Godinama više nisam uzbuđen za nove naslove. Nisam igrao nijednu igricu koja je izašla u ovoj deceniji. Jedino me GTA VI interesuje ali šansa da ću kupiti Soni samo da bi je igrao je jako niska.

Još dalje saznajem za neke od milion povlastica koji ljudi na Zapadu imaju i često budem oduševljen i da priznam pomalo ljubomoran. Na primer imaju tzv work holiday vize gde možeš putovati i raditi kao omladinac u zemljama gde je inače teško dobiti radnu vizu (npr Australija), u Francuskoj kada napuniš 18 dobijaš 500€ od države da trošiš na "kulturu" a oni imaju baš široko shvatanje kulture i ako hoćeš možeš slobodno kupiti gomilu mange s tim novcem, pa onda ako hoćeš da studiraš u drugoj državi ako si državljanin EU članice možeš studirati bilo gde u istom. Možeš da se prijaviš za neki sljakerski posao u Švici, zaradiš kuću para, i onda kad se vratiš u svoju rodnu zemlju uložiš novac u depozit za neko parče imovine. Amazon, PSN, ultra jeftina elektronika na Newegg i sličnim sajtovima, jeftina hrana i suplementi, itd.

Mislim znam da je Srbija globalno gledano ok i da sam se mogao roditi u mnogo goroj državi ali ipak mi je malo nadrealno da ako bih se rodio samo par stotinu kilometara zapadnije od svog rodnog mesta moj život bi izgledao totalno drugačije

Braćo razumem da je kod nas haotično i da niko na vlasti ne mari za ideale niti principe ali to ne znači da je to tako svuda. Neki ljudi zapravo veruju u nešto i nije im ceo život samo hleb i cirkus. Ako samo gledate opresivne i nerazvijene države koji ne mogu sastaviti funkcionalan parlament da im život zavisi od toga onda ta predstava o sveobuhvatnosti ličnih životinjskih interesa će biti mnogo jača i imponirajuća. Al zato vam savetujem da pročitate bilo koje poglavlje iz istorije zapadne Evrope i videćete da bez idealista ne bi bilo progresa i u suprotnom bi ostali u feudalizmu i onom postromejskom paklu. Mora se u nešto verovati, čovek ne živi samo od hleba

The only other way for Dutch ships to reach the Atlantic Ocean would be to pass by Scotland, but I figure that would be more cumbersome. I'm assuming most Dutch ships passed through this strait, so why didn't the British stop them from doing so and thus prevent them from getting to their overseas territories?

Please bear with me as the question in the title doesn't contain all of the necessary info required to understand what I mean by it. At the end there will be a summary.

For context, I am a native speaker of Serbo-Croatian. Among the speakers of my language there is disagreement over the transcription of foreign names. Croats generally tend to preserve the original form of names while Serbs transcribe the names phonetically. So, for example, Croats would write the names "Shakespeare", "Goethe", "Lavoisier" exactly how they're written, whereas Serbs would write them as "Šekspir", "Gete", "Lavoazje".

There are many arguments for and against both practices - original transcription is problematic since it assumes a degree of familiarity with the phonology of the foreign language from which the name is derived whereas phonetic transcription is often inaccurate and makes it difficult to reconstruct the original spelling of a name.

But another argument that's often given by the anti-phonetic side is that many other European languages - English, French, German - also tend to preserve foreign names in their original form. "Goethe" is still "Goethe" in English, "Lavoisier" is still "Lavoisier" in German. But that wasn't always the case it seems, there are many historical exceptions. In the past the speakers of these languages tended to adapt names much more frequently. The name of one Serbian historical leader, for example, wasn't written as "Karađorđe" or "'Karadjordje" (a more English-friendly variant due to the absence of "đ") but as "'Karageorge'".

Now, I realize phonetic and "onomastic" transcriptions are not the same thing, but the point here is to highlight the use of alternative systems of transcriptions used in Western Indo-European languages.

Then there's another problem - languages written in non-Latinate scripts. Cases like Arabic, Sanskrit, Chinese etc. Names from these languages are never written in the original script because it's presumed our fellow speakers are unfamiliar with foreign scripts and wouldn't be able to understand names written in them. It would also look a bit weird if we wrote stuff like "习近平 is planning to open the 洛阳 Business Centre in Минск". But even though there are somewhat official transcription systems in place it doesn't seem like they are used accurately outside of specialized academic texts. Very rarely do we see, e.g. "ʾAḥmad" instead of "Ahmad" or "Dèng Xiǎopíng" instead of "Deng Xiaoping".

So, to summarize:

1. When did speakers of major Western languages stop adapting foreign names and began writing them almost exclusively in their original form? (e.g. Serbian "Karađorđe" used to be "Karageorge" in English but is now just "Karadjordje")
2. Is it true that modern Western languages almost never bother with transcribing foreign names from Latin-script languages and almost always write them in their original form? Are there any exceptions to this? Are there any explicit or implicit rules regarding this? (i.e. would a name like "Goethe" be written the same across English, French, Italian, etc? Are languages written in Cyrillic script the only major exception to this supposed rule?)
3. How do modern European languages transcribe foreign names from languages written primarily in a non-Latin script - Arabic, Sanskrit, Chinese? What if there are several transcription systems in place, e.g. one for English, one for French? Which ones do the speakers of a smaller language, e.g. Croatian, choose and why?
4. Is there any hope for consistency regarding this issue? Some people insist on writing modern Western names in their original form but make exceptions for figures from antiquity and the middle ages, e.g. biblical figures like Elijah (whose Hebrew name is actually Eliyahu), greco-roman names (Avidije, Cezar, Aristotel instead of Avidius, Caesar, Aristoteles), and medieval figures like Charlemagne (Karl der Große or Karl Veliki instead of Charlemagne/Carolus Magnus).

I sometimes hear people say "I want to focus on my career or education instead" when they're asked why they don't pursue a relationship. Now, I'm not saying everyone should be in a relationship, but this reasoning is somewhat suspect to me given the evidence. There are numerous trends indicating that married couples tend to be more stable and prosperous - they have higher average incomes, they contribute more in taxes, they are more likely to be financially successful overall, they live longer and lead healthier lives. Many great men in history had lovers and wives - Caesar was married to Calpurnia when he conquered Gaul, Napoleon obsessively wrote to Joséphine all while he was busy fighting multiple coalitions of European armies, George Washington deeply loved his wife Martha and was married to her for 40 years. There are so many examples in history that I had to narrow it down to just a handful. Admittedly, this statement makes more sense when it comes from women than men because the motherhood penalty is a very real phenomenon. But I'm less sure about the men because so many examples undermine this opposition between career success and marriage.

First, I just want to clarify that I'm not here to argue /for/ gay marriage, I only want to have some of my questions answered. I also came here, to a Catholic subreddit, instead of an Orthodox place largely because I also want to understand this topic from a more historically Western perspective.

I understand marriage has appeared in many forms throughout history a lot of which might not match the Christian ideal or could even violate the basic tenets of religious matrimony. There are rules in place for what constitutes a licit marriage. Conservatives, as for the sake of clarity that's what I'm going to call those who oppose the legalization of gay marriage, usually appeal to a variety of arguments to support their view on this matter. One of the most common ones is the fact that marriage is seen as an institution whose purpose is procreation and rearing of offspring. Since same-sex individuals are unable to fulfill the first criterion, same-sex couples do not fit the necessary criteria for a valid and licit marriage. But what about those cases where a couple neither adopt nor produce a child but nonetheless get approval for their union? Infertile couples, older couples where the woman has entered menopause, and Josephite marriages in which no sexual intercourse occurs. What makes these marriages licit?