Victorians have a bad reputation for being supposedly stuck-up hypocrites who would conceal their feelings because they were too dishonest to talk frankly about what bothered them. They did, however, have a point. I noticed that when you keep talking about unpleasant things, you start feeling worse instead of better.
How many times did we all hear that we should never suppress our emotions and that if we have problems, the best thing to do is to share them with others? It works in some situations, but dwelling too much on the negativity only creates more of it. In the times past, people were taught to minimise their problems, to talk lightly of them and to concentrate on the pleasant things in life.
If you feel upset about certain things it's better to avoid discussing them. It may be politics or religion or family troubles or health problems or anything which makes you feel uncomfortable. If reading newspapers or watching the news makes your blood pressure rise, quit doing it! Life is too short to be wasted on worrying about things you can't change.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Attention Men: Feminism Won't Save You When The Enemy Is At The Door
Another post in the series on the feminist men. As you have probably noticed, I have a keen interest in history, especially history of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The more I learn, the more I understand that the roots of our modern problems go back at least to the Victorian times, and that includes feminism, too. It has become fashionable to solely blame women for feminism, while a lot of feminists have been men.
One would ask why did they choose to surrender their authority to women? The answer is simple, by doing so, they hoped to avoid the traditional male responsibilities of providing for one's family and fighting in wars, however, as the story I'm going to tell you shows, their feminism was a bad defence in the times of trouble.
While reading about the Easter Rising in Ireland, I found a very interesting story of a feminist man called Francis Sheehy- Skeffington, who suffered for the sins he hadn't committed.
Francis was a feminist, a pacifist and a writer. He was born in 1878, in the times of Queen Victoria, and though a Victorian, he was thoroughly modern in his ideas. In fact, he just as well could have been a modern Western liberal. You have probably noticed his unusual hyphenated surname. It's not because he was an aristocrat, but because when he married, he took on his wife's name. According to Wikipedia, Francis was an ardent proponent of women's rights, and organised a campaign for the female admittance to the Dublin University.
Though feminists tell us that all women before 1968 were always chained to their kitchens, the wife of Mr Sheehy-Skeffington was an exception, since she not only continued to work after her marriage, but was the primary breadwinner as well. While she taught school, her husband was busy campaigning for women's rights, not only in Britain, but also abroad, in France and USA.
Francis was against fighting in wars so in the beginning of WWI he campaigned against recruitment for which offence he spent 6 months in prison. When Easter Rising began in 1916, Francis as a pacifist stayed home, while his wife went to the barricades. Francis wasn't a bad man really, he tried to prevent looting and helped a wounded British soldier, but all this didn't save him. He was arrested as an insurgent sympathiser, and speedily executed without a trial.
His wife never suffered anything for her illegal activities and was even offered a pension by the British government for the unlawful killing of her husband, which she refused. By some reason, I found this story peculiar. Makes me think of a proverb, whistling girls and crowing hens (and male feminists) always come to some bad ends.
If you are interested, read the whole story of Francis Sheehy-Skeffington over here.
One would ask why did they choose to surrender their authority to women? The answer is simple, by doing so, they hoped to avoid the traditional male responsibilities of providing for one's family and fighting in wars, however, as the story I'm going to tell you shows, their feminism was a bad defence in the times of trouble.
While reading about the Easter Rising in Ireland, I found a very interesting story of a feminist man called Francis Sheehy- Skeffington, who suffered for the sins he hadn't committed.
Francis was a feminist, a pacifist and a writer. He was born in 1878, in the times of Queen Victoria, and though a Victorian, he was thoroughly modern in his ideas. In fact, he just as well could have been a modern Western liberal. You have probably noticed his unusual hyphenated surname. It's not because he was an aristocrat, but because when he married, he took on his wife's name. According to Wikipedia, Francis was an ardent proponent of women's rights, and organised a campaign for the female admittance to the Dublin University.
Though feminists tell us that all women before 1968 were always chained to their kitchens, the wife of Mr Sheehy-Skeffington was an exception, since she not only continued to work after her marriage, but was the primary breadwinner as well. While she taught school, her husband was busy campaigning for women's rights, not only in Britain, but also abroad, in France and USA.
Francis was against fighting in wars so in the beginning of WWI he campaigned against recruitment for which offence he spent 6 months in prison. When Easter Rising began in 1916, Francis as a pacifist stayed home, while his wife went to the barricades. Francis wasn't a bad man really, he tried to prevent looting and helped a wounded British soldier, but all this didn't save him. He was arrested as an insurgent sympathiser, and speedily executed without a trial.
His wife never suffered anything for her illegal activities and was even offered a pension by the British government for the unlawful killing of her husband, which she refused. By some reason, I found this story peculiar. Makes me think of a proverb, whistling girls and crowing hens (and male feminists) always come to some bad ends.
If you are interested, read the whole story of Francis Sheehy-Skeffington over here.
Friday, May 23, 2014
Prayer Request
My father-in-law is very sick. Please pray for his speedy recovery! I have been planning to write another post today but don't seem to be able to collect my thoughts...Well, tomorrow is another day.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Feminine Appearance
Mrs Andelin in her book "Fascinating Womanhood" devotes a chapter to the feminine appearance. According to her, a really feminine woman will give "...careful attention to her appearance." (F.W., Bantam Books 1992, p. 248.). She will try to look pretty at all times, and won't neglect her figure, hair, face or clothes. However, it's wrong to focus entirely on one's looks and spend hours in front of the mirror, forgetting about domestic duties.
An ideal woman will spend her day running the household, but she will do it while looking her best. Mrs Andelin points to the famous Proverbs 31 lady who despite all the things which she does at home, finds time to make beautiful clothes for herself: "She makes herself coverings of tapestry, her clothing is is silk and purple."
Unfortunately, nowadays women aren't taught any more how to look and behave in a feminine manner, as the society ideal for women is to copy men. Things started changing recently as we see the revival of interest in femininity and traditional female occupations, and dresses and skirts made a comeback. Helen Andelin gives tips on how to acquire the feminine appearance.
The key to a feminine appearance is accentuating the differences between yourself and men. "Wear only those materials and styles which are least suggestive of men's and which make the greates contrast to their apparel." (F.W., pp.248-249).
Mrs Andelin suggests following several rules:
First, you are to avoid fabrics typically used by men, such as heavy denim. Instead, you can wear soft fabrics, woolens, silk, crispy cottons, lace etc.
Second, chosing the right colours is important. Drab colours such as khaki are unfeminine, instead switch to pastels, clear colours and the like. Black is OK, though.
Third, avoid loud prints and any fabric design which lacks good taste (I once saw a lady draped in black fabric with white skulls and bones; unless you are going to a pirate-themed party you can better avoid it!:)
Fourth, the style is also important. Masculine styles are: pants, mannish jackets and coats and the like. Extreme feminine styles are full skirts, ruffles, puffed sleeves etc. Even a plain dress/skirt is more feminine than a pair of pants.
Fifth, Helen discusses wearing pants. Pants aren't the most feminine of garments, but women seem to be quite attached to them nowadays so Mrs Andelin suggests at least wearing a more feminine model and combining it with a feminine top.
Sixth, don't forget about trims, i.e. lace, ribbons, embroidery and things like that.
Seventh, the same goes for accessories. Anything masculine such as briefcases should be avoided, instead wear feminine scarfs and jewelry.
Eighth, don't forget about grooming and make-up. It's important to look clean, have clean hair and laundered clothes. In Helen's times it wasn't a problem, but we have to deal with it, so I'll add: please avoid covering yourself with tattoos. They are hideous and men will perceive you as easy. Don't believe me? Read what men actually think, instead of what MSM told you they do: The slut sell.
Last but not least, let's not forget about modesty. I'd like to quote Mrs Andelin in full: "...decent men don't respect women who expose too much of their bodies in public. Not only should the body be modestly covered, but the underwear. Men dislike visible slips, bra straps or exposed underwear. Higher types of civilisation have traditionally been modest. It seems to go with intelligence and refinement." (emphasis mine).
Looking feminine increases a woman's self-esteem and brings a favourable response in a man. Nice clothes don't have to be expensive, either. For instance, I bought this dress in a second-hand store. It cost me all of 10 euro:
.jpg)
This skirt I made myself using my own pattern. Fabric was bought at the market. Total cost - 5 euro:
.jpg)
It's possible to dress femininely and do your housework and take care of husband and children. Dresses are back in fashion! Just take a look at the Butterick pattern page for the ideas.
And, as Mrs Andelin points out, your husband will surely appreciate it!
An ideal woman will spend her day running the household, but she will do it while looking her best. Mrs Andelin points to the famous Proverbs 31 lady who despite all the things which she does at home, finds time to make beautiful clothes for herself: "She makes herself coverings of tapestry, her clothing is is silk and purple."
Unfortunately, nowadays women aren't taught any more how to look and behave in a feminine manner, as the society ideal for women is to copy men. Things started changing recently as we see the revival of interest in femininity and traditional female occupations, and dresses and skirts made a comeback. Helen Andelin gives tips on how to acquire the feminine appearance.
The key to a feminine appearance is accentuating the differences between yourself and men. "Wear only those materials and styles which are least suggestive of men's and which make the greates contrast to their apparel." (F.W., pp.248-249).
Mrs Andelin suggests following several rules:
First, you are to avoid fabrics typically used by men, such as heavy denim. Instead, you can wear soft fabrics, woolens, silk, crispy cottons, lace etc.
Second, chosing the right colours is important. Drab colours such as khaki are unfeminine, instead switch to pastels, clear colours and the like. Black is OK, though.
Third, avoid loud prints and any fabric design which lacks good taste (I once saw a lady draped in black fabric with white skulls and bones; unless you are going to a pirate-themed party you can better avoid it!:)
Fourth, the style is also important. Masculine styles are: pants, mannish jackets and coats and the like. Extreme feminine styles are full skirts, ruffles, puffed sleeves etc. Even a plain dress/skirt is more feminine than a pair of pants.
Fifth, Helen discusses wearing pants. Pants aren't the most feminine of garments, but women seem to be quite attached to them nowadays so Mrs Andelin suggests at least wearing a more feminine model and combining it with a feminine top.
Sixth, don't forget about trims, i.e. lace, ribbons, embroidery and things like that.
Seventh, the same goes for accessories. Anything masculine such as briefcases should be avoided, instead wear feminine scarfs and jewelry.
Eighth, don't forget about grooming and make-up. It's important to look clean, have clean hair and laundered clothes. In Helen's times it wasn't a problem, but we have to deal with it, so I'll add: please avoid covering yourself with tattoos. They are hideous and men will perceive you as easy. Don't believe me? Read what men actually think, instead of what MSM told you they do: The slut sell.
Last but not least, let's not forget about modesty. I'd like to quote Mrs Andelin in full: "...decent men don't respect women who expose too much of their bodies in public. Not only should the body be modestly covered, but the underwear. Men dislike visible slips, bra straps or exposed underwear. Higher types of civilisation have traditionally been modest. It seems to go with intelligence and refinement." (emphasis mine).
Looking feminine increases a woman's self-esteem and brings a favourable response in a man. Nice clothes don't have to be expensive, either. For instance, I bought this dress in a second-hand store. It cost me all of 10 euro:
And, as Mrs Andelin points out, your husband will surely appreciate it!
Monday, May 19, 2014
The Siege Of Alcazar
a movie.
First, some historical background. The siege of Alcazar took place in the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, in the summer of 1936 and lasted for more than two months. General Franco started the rebellion against the Republic on July 17. On July 18, the military governor of Toledo Colonel Moscardo with a group of officers loyal to Franco, several cadets and men from Guardia Civil joined the Nationalist uprising. They refused to surrender their arms to the Republican government and when confronted with the military forces of the Republic, locked themselves up in Alcazar, a medieval fortress on a hill, together with approximately 500 women and children.
Moscardo and his men held Alcazar against much stronger enemy forces till they were rescued by Franco on September 26, 1936. This victory wasn't very important from a strategic point of view, however the resistance at Alcazar had a huge symbolic value and provided material for successful propaganda of the Nationalist cause in Spain and abroad. As a result of it, Italy produced a film about the siege in 1940, called in Spanish: Sin novedad en el Alcazar, which currently is available on YouTube.
I didn't find much propaganda in the film though, apart from the use of the Roman salute forever associated with the bad guys, as the story line in the film was nearly identical to the one in Wikipedia, however, the movie wasn't only about the siege, but also included a love story which I'm going to write about (you can read more about Alcazar over here)
The film begins with everyone going on summer vacation, including two cadets and their captain by the name of Vela. One of the cadets, Francesco, is engaged to a girl called Conchita who lives with her elderly aunt at Toledo.Conchita is a very serious girl who is deeply in love with Francesco, but she has a friend called Carmen who comes from Madrid to spend a month with her.
Carmen is a flirt and thinks that all men exist to serve her. She laughs at Conchita for her devotion to one guy. Francesco's friend, a guy with funny glasses whose name eludes me, so I will designate him as Harry Potter, is very impressed by Carmen but she doesn't take him seriously.
Captain Vela goes to Madrid with Francesco and HP, where they get the news about Franco and decide to return to Toledo. As the Republican forces are approaching, women and children have to be evacuated and to stay in the dungeons under Alcazar. Francesco and HP come to fetch both girls and the aunt. Carmen is indignant that she can't take all her dresses, but HP tells her it's only for a couple of days.
When Carmen finds herself under the ground, she right away starts complaining and demands HP to provide her with more comfort and if possible, a room of her own. HP is happy to oblige and brings her a matress, a pillow and then goes to fetch a screen so that the girl would have some privacy. When she departs, Carmen tells Conchita that she has yet to meet a guy who wouldn't want to serve her.
Captain Vela finds HP running around looking for feathers to make the pillow softer and decides to go and investigate. When Carmen sees him, she repeats her complaints but Vela's reaction is quite different from what she expected. He says: "You are very spoiled, Miss. It's not a hotel!" and announces that he is taking the matress for the wounded, together with the pillow.
As a result of this conversation, Carmen falls in love with the captain and decides to prove that she isn't a spoiled brat he took her for and next time she meets Vela, asks his permission to help in the hospital. She got her nursing diploma when she was trying to catch a doctor, but now she wants to become a real nurse. Vela gives his permission and so, besides nuns, Carmen becomes the only woman to work there.
Vela regularly comes to the hospital on business but continues to ignore Carmen who, however. chooses every opportunity to draw his attention to herself. The captain starts noticing that she is actually pretty, but at this moment she meets a guy she knew and flirted with in Madrid who was wounded and is in need of medical help, by the name of Pedro.
Pedro used to be the same sort of person as Carmen, but the recent events made him more serious, and he decides to propose to the girl, but Carmen refuses. She loves Vela, but is afraid to talk to him about her feelings. Pedro dies during a sortie, but before this, he tells Vela about Carmen. The two finally confess their feelings to each other. Carmen says that she is a changed woman, and that she hopes that she is now worthy of such a man as himself. Vela agrees that she is. HP doesn't stand a chance.
I thought the male-female dynamics in the movie quite interesting, especially compared to modern films. It was a bit like a fairy tale, where the Stepmother's daughter has to turn into a Cinderella first to get her prince. Vela was one of many characters in the film, so he didn't have that much of screen time, but he was shown undoubtedly as an alpha.
In the beginning, when he interferes in the conversation of Francesco and HP with the girls at the train station, asking cadets for some change and reminding them who is the boss. In the dungeon, when he puts spoiled Carmen in her place. In the hospital, when Francesco dies from his wounds, HP has to turn away because he can't conceal his tears, but Vela keeps looking. In the scenes of the final battle, when Vela risks his life to get rid of the Republican flag on the destroyed tower, it's him who climbs the ladder under the enemy fire and reinstalls the Rebel flag.
The film teaches a valuable lesson that to get a man of quality, you must become a woman of quality yourself. You can watch the movie on YouTube, but it is in Spanish. English subs can be found on the internet.
First, some historical background. The siege of Alcazar took place in the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, in the summer of 1936 and lasted for more than two months. General Franco started the rebellion against the Republic on July 17. On July 18, the military governor of Toledo Colonel Moscardo with a group of officers loyal to Franco, several cadets and men from Guardia Civil joined the Nationalist uprising. They refused to surrender their arms to the Republican government and when confronted with the military forces of the Republic, locked themselves up in Alcazar, a medieval fortress on a hill, together with approximately 500 women and children.
Moscardo and his men held Alcazar against much stronger enemy forces till they were rescued by Franco on September 26, 1936. This victory wasn't very important from a strategic point of view, however the resistance at Alcazar had a huge symbolic value and provided material for successful propaganda of the Nationalist cause in Spain and abroad. As a result of it, Italy produced a film about the siege in 1940, called in Spanish: Sin novedad en el Alcazar, which currently is available on YouTube.
I didn't find much propaganda in the film though, apart from the use of the Roman salute forever associated with the bad guys, as the story line in the film was nearly identical to the one in Wikipedia, however, the movie wasn't only about the siege, but also included a love story which I'm going to write about (you can read more about Alcazar over here)
The film begins with everyone going on summer vacation, including two cadets and their captain by the name of Vela. One of the cadets, Francesco, is engaged to a girl called Conchita who lives with her elderly aunt at Toledo.Conchita is a very serious girl who is deeply in love with Francesco, but she has a friend called Carmen who comes from Madrid to spend a month with her.
Carmen is a flirt and thinks that all men exist to serve her. She laughs at Conchita for her devotion to one guy. Francesco's friend, a guy with funny glasses whose name eludes me, so I will designate him as Harry Potter, is very impressed by Carmen but she doesn't take him seriously.
Captain Vela goes to Madrid with Francesco and HP, where they get the news about Franco and decide to return to Toledo. As the Republican forces are approaching, women and children have to be evacuated and to stay in the dungeons under Alcazar. Francesco and HP come to fetch both girls and the aunt. Carmen is indignant that she can't take all her dresses, but HP tells her it's only for a couple of days.
When Carmen finds herself under the ground, she right away starts complaining and demands HP to provide her with more comfort and if possible, a room of her own. HP is happy to oblige and brings her a matress, a pillow and then goes to fetch a screen so that the girl would have some privacy. When she departs, Carmen tells Conchita that she has yet to meet a guy who wouldn't want to serve her.
Captain Vela finds HP running around looking for feathers to make the pillow softer and decides to go and investigate. When Carmen sees him, she repeats her complaints but Vela's reaction is quite different from what she expected. He says: "You are very spoiled, Miss. It's not a hotel!" and announces that he is taking the matress for the wounded, together with the pillow.
As a result of this conversation, Carmen falls in love with the captain and decides to prove that she isn't a spoiled brat he took her for and next time she meets Vela, asks his permission to help in the hospital. She got her nursing diploma when she was trying to catch a doctor, but now she wants to become a real nurse. Vela gives his permission and so, besides nuns, Carmen becomes the only woman to work there.
Vela regularly comes to the hospital on business but continues to ignore Carmen who, however. chooses every opportunity to draw his attention to herself. The captain starts noticing that she is actually pretty, but at this moment she meets a guy she knew and flirted with in Madrid who was wounded and is in need of medical help, by the name of Pedro.
Pedro used to be the same sort of person as Carmen, but the recent events made him more serious, and he decides to propose to the girl, but Carmen refuses. She loves Vela, but is afraid to talk to him about her feelings. Pedro dies during a sortie, but before this, he tells Vela about Carmen. The two finally confess their feelings to each other. Carmen says that she is a changed woman, and that she hopes that she is now worthy of such a man as himself. Vela agrees that she is. HP doesn't stand a chance.
I thought the male-female dynamics in the movie quite interesting, especially compared to modern films. It was a bit like a fairy tale, where the Stepmother's daughter has to turn into a Cinderella first to get her prince. Vela was one of many characters in the film, so he didn't have that much of screen time, but he was shown undoubtedly as an alpha.
In the beginning, when he interferes in the conversation of Francesco and HP with the girls at the train station, asking cadets for some change and reminding them who is the boss. In the dungeon, when he puts spoiled Carmen in her place. In the hospital, when Francesco dies from his wounds, HP has to turn away because he can't conceal his tears, but Vela keeps looking. In the scenes of the final battle, when Vela risks his life to get rid of the Republican flag on the destroyed tower, it's him who climbs the ladder under the enemy fire and reinstalls the Rebel flag.
The film teaches a valuable lesson that to get a man of quality, you must become a woman of quality yourself. You can watch the movie on YouTube, but it is in Spanish. English subs can be found on the internet.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
How To Dress Nicely For Your Husband
So I'm told there is a new Christian movie out there, which already created controversy.
I haven't watched it, neither am I planning to, as I generally dislike films presenting women as know-it-alls and men as doofuses, however I watched the trailer (can be viewed here). One thing I noticed though is that the lady in the film is dressed down while at home but puts on her best clothes for "a girl's night out" with her friends which makes the husband compliment her on her appearance.
Compare this modern attitude with the 1960s, when wives used to put on their best dresses for a dinner at home with their husbands (scroll to approximately 10.35 and watch till 12.35). I'm not a big fan of Bewitched due to the liberal attitudes, but this segment is funny on its own, as it shows a feminist mother upset that her daughter lowers herself by doing housework and trying to please her husband.
This educational video from the 1950s teaches girls to change for dinner and suggests having a date with your family. The commenters naturally mock the idea that the women of the family would want to look nice for their men. Imagine a wife doing something so simple for her husband as changing her work clothes for something fancier! I mean it's the top of patriarchal oppression, comparable to Taliban and probably even worse.
These comments betray a rather nasty attitude on the part of too many modern women who can't be bothered to do anything for their husbands, it seems. No wonder men start MGTOW groups and refuse to marry. I realise that with a couple of small children it's not always possible to look your best and a tight budget is often an obstacle to wearing nice clothes every day, however, it's really the attitude which counts most.
If you try to please your husband in little things, he'll reciprocate! Here is what Mrs Andelin writes about greeting your husband when he comes home from work:
"Make it a pleasant time for him. Have all of the housework out of the way...Be attractively groomed and greet him with a smile. Don't let the children rush to him with their problems...Your thoughtful consideration for his welfare, will give him the impression that he is number one in your life." (Fascinating Womanhood, Bantam Books, 1992, pp. 95,96.).
Instead of trying to look your best for your girlfriends, why not trying to look your best for your husband?
UPDATE (Off topic): this has nothing to do with the subject above, but I didn't want to post it separately. I'm afraid someone's comment accidentally ended in SPAM and when I tried to publish it, disappeared (by commenter Julie). If you notice your comments disappearing, please contact me. Moderation is currently off, except for the posts older than 14 days, so all comments ought to be published.
I haven't watched it, neither am I planning to, as I generally dislike films presenting women as know-it-alls and men as doofuses, however I watched the trailer (can be viewed here). One thing I noticed though is that the lady in the film is dressed down while at home but puts on her best clothes for "a girl's night out" with her friends which makes the husband compliment her on her appearance.
Compare this modern attitude with the 1960s, when wives used to put on their best dresses for a dinner at home with their husbands (scroll to approximately 10.35 and watch till 12.35). I'm not a big fan of Bewitched due to the liberal attitudes, but this segment is funny on its own, as it shows a feminist mother upset that her daughter lowers herself by doing housework and trying to please her husband.
This educational video from the 1950s teaches girls to change for dinner and suggests having a date with your family. The commenters naturally mock the idea that the women of the family would want to look nice for their men. Imagine a wife doing something so simple for her husband as changing her work clothes for something fancier! I mean it's the top of patriarchal oppression, comparable to Taliban and probably even worse.
These comments betray a rather nasty attitude on the part of too many modern women who can't be bothered to do anything for their husbands, it seems. No wonder men start MGTOW groups and refuse to marry. I realise that with a couple of small children it's not always possible to look your best and a tight budget is often an obstacle to wearing nice clothes every day, however, it's really the attitude which counts most.
If you try to please your husband in little things, he'll reciprocate! Here is what Mrs Andelin writes about greeting your husband when he comes home from work:
"Make it a pleasant time for him. Have all of the housework out of the way...Be attractively groomed and greet him with a smile. Don't let the children rush to him with their problems...Your thoughtful consideration for his welfare, will give him the impression that he is number one in your life." (Fascinating Womanhood, Bantam Books, 1992, pp. 95,96.).
Instead of trying to look your best for your girlfriends, why not trying to look your best for your husband?
UPDATE (Off topic): this has nothing to do with the subject above, but I didn't want to post it separately. I'm afraid someone's comment accidentally ended in SPAM and when I tried to publish it, disappeared (by commenter Julie). If you notice your comments disappearing, please contact me. Moderation is currently off, except for the posts older than 14 days, so all comments ought to be published.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
A Good Wife And Mother Does Make A Difference!
Some time ago I wrote a post about Princess Wilhelmina:
Today I found more information about her by the same author. Wilhelmina came out of the House of Hohenzollers and she was born in 1751. Her mother didn't care much about her and left her at the mercy of a cruel governess who would often punish the child strictly and even beat her. Luckily when the little princess became older, she got a better governess who became her friend and later helped Wilhelmina to raise her own children.
The princess was a serious, strong-willed girl whose uncle Frederik The Great described her as a person of bright intelligence and soft manners, who is far from all the intrigues. At the age of 16 she was married to a man she had seen for the first time three days before and had to leave Germany for the Netherlands. Her first pregnancy evidently ended in miscarriage, but after three years she finally became a mother of a little girl whom she called Louise, and later gave birth to two sons, Willem and Frederik.
As Wilhelmina herself had been very unhappy in her childhood years, she wanted to be the best mother possible and spent a lot of time with her children. She encouraged friendship between them so that they wouldn't suffer from loneliness. Wilhelmina was determined to raise her children herself, unlike many other women of her social position in those times. She found the education of Louise just as important as that of her brothers, so that they had most of their lessons together.
However, the princess also had her wifely duties to see to. Wilhelmina married with an idea that happiness in marriage depended on the behaviour of the wife. One of her responsibilities was to entertain guests among whom were foreign ambassadors and she gained a reputation of a brilliant hostess. The house she and her husband had to live in, was much smaller than the palace where she had grown up, in fact, they only had 5 rooms. Yet the princess decorated her apartment with much taste and she and her ladies-in-waiting spent hours embroidering the curtains for the reception hall.
Wilhemina's husband, Willem V, had a character too soft for a politician, especially in those times. He was afraid to hurt the feeling of others, while on the other hand, he could be very stubborn about his own privileges, which led to the discontent among those he ruled. The princess saw it all and tried to help her husband with her advice, which led to the necessity for her to learn more about the affairs of the state and that, in its turn, prevented her from spending as much time with her children as she wished to.
Wilhelmina had high criteria for the education of her sons and she gave detailed instructions to their tutors on their moral development. The crown prince, for instance, had to learn to distinguish between good and evil in every situation. He had to learn to distrust himself and to supress his emotions. He had to be modest and to beware of those who lavished him with compliments. He had to always speak the truth and to avoid political lies as much as possible.
Wilhelmina didn't allow her children to be idle and taught them to use their time wisely, but on the other hand, she was always kind to her children and her daughter Louise when she grew older, wrote that few princesses were so happy in the childhood as herself.
It's noteworthy, that according to the article, some of the principles Wilhelmina taught to her children, were against the fashion of that age, which dictated that people would make a show of their feelings in public, and even her husband could weep loudly when the ocasion demanded it, yet the princess abhorred such sentimentality and tried to teach both her sons and her daughter self-control. When the children became older, Wilhelmina found them suitable marriage partners.
The lady who wrote the original series of articles, pointed out that Princess Wilhelmina excercised a lot of influence on the lives of her husband and children and even the affairs of the country, yet as we see, this influence was rather indirect and chiefly consisted of her being a good wife, who was always ready to share in her husband's concerns and give him a good advice, and even more so, a good mother "whose life and actions were determined by her care of the future of her children."
In every time and age, a good wife and mother can make a lot of difference!
The princess was a serious, strong-willed girl whose uncle Frederik The Great described her as a person of bright intelligence and soft manners, who is far from all the intrigues. At the age of 16 she was married to a man she had seen for the first time three days before and had to leave Germany for the Netherlands. Her first pregnancy evidently ended in miscarriage, but after three years she finally became a mother of a little girl whom she called Louise, and later gave birth to two sons, Willem and Frederik.
As Wilhelmina herself had been very unhappy in her childhood years, she wanted to be the best mother possible and spent a lot of time with her children. She encouraged friendship between them so that they wouldn't suffer from loneliness. Wilhelmina was determined to raise her children herself, unlike many other women of her social position in those times. She found the education of Louise just as important as that of her brothers, so that they had most of their lessons together.
However, the princess also had her wifely duties to see to. Wilhelmina married with an idea that happiness in marriage depended on the behaviour of the wife. One of her responsibilities was to entertain guests among whom were foreign ambassadors and she gained a reputation of a brilliant hostess. The house she and her husband had to live in, was much smaller than the palace where she had grown up, in fact, they only had 5 rooms. Yet the princess decorated her apartment with much taste and she and her ladies-in-waiting spent hours embroidering the curtains for the reception hall.
Wilhemina's husband, Willem V, had a character too soft for a politician, especially in those times. He was afraid to hurt the feeling of others, while on the other hand, he could be very stubborn about his own privileges, which led to the discontent among those he ruled. The princess saw it all and tried to help her husband with her advice, which led to the necessity for her to learn more about the affairs of the state and that, in its turn, prevented her from spending as much time with her children as she wished to.
Wilhelmina had high criteria for the education of her sons and she gave detailed instructions to their tutors on their moral development. The crown prince, for instance, had to learn to distinguish between good and evil in every situation. He had to learn to distrust himself and to supress his emotions. He had to be modest and to beware of those who lavished him with compliments. He had to always speak the truth and to avoid political lies as much as possible.
Wilhelmina didn't allow her children to be idle and taught them to use their time wisely, but on the other hand, she was always kind to her children and her daughter Louise when she grew older, wrote that few princesses were so happy in the childhood as herself.
It's noteworthy, that according to the article, some of the principles Wilhelmina taught to her children, were against the fashion of that age, which dictated that people would make a show of their feelings in public, and even her husband could weep loudly when the ocasion demanded it, yet the princess abhorred such sentimentality and tried to teach both her sons and her daughter self-control. When the children became older, Wilhelmina found them suitable marriage partners.
The lady who wrote the original series of articles, pointed out that Princess Wilhelmina excercised a lot of influence on the lives of her husband and children and even the affairs of the country, yet as we see, this influence was rather indirect and chiefly consisted of her being a good wife, who was always ready to share in her husband's concerns and give him a good advice, and even more so, a good mother "whose life and actions were determined by her care of the future of her children."
In every time and age, a good wife and mother can make a lot of difference!
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Dried Fruit Ring
The idea comes from this magazine:
.jpg)
However, I adjusted the recipe to make it more economical. That's what I got:
.jpg)
It's actually very easy to make. For the dough, you will need:
2.5 c flour
salt to taste
1pkg (7g) dried yeast
ab. 50g butter, softened
135 ml (lukewarm) milk
1 egg, whisked
In a bowl, mix flour, salt and yeast, add the rest of the ingredients, mix till the soft dough forms and then knead it on a floured surface for +/- 7 min. Put into a greased bowl, turning once to grease top.Cover and let rise until double (+/- 2 hrs), in the meanwhile prepare the filling.
For the filling, you will need:
1/2 pkg dried mixed fruit (ab. 150g) soaked in water (start soaking the night before)
1 1/2 tbsp butter, softened
1 1/2 tbsp sugar
1 1/2 tbsp flour
Drain the fruit, add butter creamed with sugar and flour, mix. On the floured surface, roll the dough out into a rectangle and spread the filling, roll it up, seal the seam and cut it in two, leaving one of the ends uncut, like a pair of legs. Twist them together and form a ring. Place on a greased baking sheet, cover and let rise for ab. 1 hour.
Bake at 200*C for +/- 25 min. Glaze with powder sugar + milk icing. Dried fruit ring tastes nice with a cup of coffie after dinner. Enjoy:
.jpg)
2.5 c flour
salt to taste
1pkg (7g) dried yeast
ab. 50g butter, softened
135 ml (lukewarm) milk
1 egg, whisked
In a bowl, mix flour, salt and yeast, add the rest of the ingredients, mix till the soft dough forms and then knead it on a floured surface for +/- 7 min. Put into a greased bowl, turning once to grease top.Cover and let rise until double (+/- 2 hrs), in the meanwhile prepare the filling.
For the filling, you will need:
1/2 pkg dried mixed fruit (ab. 150g) soaked in water (start soaking the night before)
1 1/2 tbsp butter, softened
1 1/2 tbsp sugar
1 1/2 tbsp flour
Drain the fruit, add butter creamed with sugar and flour, mix. On the floured surface, roll the dough out into a rectangle and spread the filling, roll it up, seal the seam and cut it in two, leaving one of the ends uncut, like a pair of legs. Twist them together and form a ring. Place on a greased baking sheet, cover and let rise for ab. 1 hour.
Bake at 200*C for +/- 25 min. Glaze with powder sugar + milk icing. Dried fruit ring tastes nice with a cup of coffie after dinner. Enjoy:
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Sunday, May 11, 2014
.jpg)
Friday, May 9, 2014
Childless Women And Homemaking
I was asked to write a post about childless women, so here it comes:
If you do a simple Google search, you'll find out that nearly 1 in 5 couples experience difficulties with conception. That is consistent with historical data which shows that as far back as 1870 20.3 % of women had no children at all (according to this article), though some of them were probably not married.
Childless women (and couples) are often viewed as "God's second best" by too many Christians (the same goes for singles, but it's the topic for another article). Dealing with infertility is difficult on its own, without the remarks and nosy inquiries of others, however well-meant they are. Strange enough, a secular feminist woman may experience less stigma among her peers for being childless and will even be lauded for her contributions to society, while conservative Christians will often look down upon those struggling with conception.
That makes it all the more difficult for a childless homemaker. If housewives in general are frowned upon, a childless housewife is often attacked from left and right. It's not for nothing, that the modern word of choice to describe a traditional woman's role is SAHM which presupposes that the woman must have children to stay home, instead of a more neutral term housewife/homemaker.
Of course, historically (and what is more important, biblically) speaking, they have no leg to stand on. As Jesse Powell points out in his article I linked to above, the traditional role of the wife as being provided for by her husband and being under the authority of her husband was always maintained regardless of whether the woman had any children or whether the children were young or had already grown into adults. The role of the woman under patriarchy is not dependent upon her having children first, it is simply an attribute of her characteristics and role as a woman; motherhood being just one of the many ways a woman could contribute her feminine strengths as a woman to others.
Jesse Powell is an atheist and yet he is closer to the truth that many professing Christians who will attack a childless woman for choosing to stay home and "leech off her husband". As the lady I linked to some time ago, states in her article on the woman as a homemaker:
"A good Old Testament example of a homemaker is found in Genesis 18:9-And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. Abraham didn’t wonder where his wife was, and he didn’t have to go check. He answered quickly, “Behold in the tent.”Abraham and Sarah had no children as yet at this time, but her place was still “in the tent” a homemaker."
Even feminists seem to agree, that the role of a woman at home is much more that only taking care of children. It's really funny how they are trying to push the return of a homemaker as a new form of feminism, which means that the society has gone the full circle now. (H/t to The Retro Homemaker for the link).
There are lots of things for a childless homemaker to occupy herself with, and as she has more time, she can use it for community service, practising hospitality and helping her family. If you have no children of your own, you may help raise your nephews and nieces. I remember how I always loved visiting my auntie, who was an empty-nester. She always had something nice to eat and was very hospitable. Unfortunately, many children nowadays miss this experience growing up.
An old proverb says that if you are given a lemon, try to make lemonade out of it. A childless lady will have more time to develop her talents, learn to play musical instruments, read and practise crafts. I would also like to point out, that luckily, modern medicine has progressed to the point that a lot of couple struggling with infertility can be helped. There are also natural remedies for infertility sufferers, such as acupuncture. Prayer helps a lot, too.
It could also be so that a couple have come to terms with their inability to conceive and have decided to leave the matter in God's hands. It's their decision and should be respected by others. Unfortunately, nowadays Christians are often pushed to adopt. While I'm not against adoption, it's a personal decision, it costs a lot of money, and can cause all sorts of problems in the future. There is no Christian duty for infertile couples to adopt and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Adoption, just as fertility treatments, is the matter between you and your husband, not between you, your husband, the church and the local busybodies.
In conclusion I'd like to recommend this article by a lady who herself struggled with infertility:
Eleven Things To Remember During Infertility
If you do a simple Google search, you'll find out that nearly 1 in 5 couples experience difficulties with conception. That is consistent with historical data which shows that as far back as 1870 20.3 % of women had no children at all (according to this article), though some of them were probably not married.
Childless women (and couples) are often viewed as "God's second best" by too many Christians (the same goes for singles, but it's the topic for another article). Dealing with infertility is difficult on its own, without the remarks and nosy inquiries of others, however well-meant they are. Strange enough, a secular feminist woman may experience less stigma among her peers for being childless and will even be lauded for her contributions to society, while conservative Christians will often look down upon those struggling with conception.
That makes it all the more difficult for a childless homemaker. If housewives in general are frowned upon, a childless housewife is often attacked from left and right. It's not for nothing, that the modern word of choice to describe a traditional woman's role is SAHM which presupposes that the woman must have children to stay home, instead of a more neutral term housewife/homemaker.
Of course, historically (and what is more important, biblically) speaking, they have no leg to stand on. As Jesse Powell points out in his article I linked to above, the traditional role of the wife as being provided for by her husband and being under the authority of her husband was always maintained regardless of whether the woman had any children or whether the children were young or had already grown into adults. The role of the woman under patriarchy is not dependent upon her having children first, it is simply an attribute of her characteristics and role as a woman; motherhood being just one of the many ways a woman could contribute her feminine strengths as a woman to others.
Jesse Powell is an atheist and yet he is closer to the truth that many professing Christians who will attack a childless woman for choosing to stay home and "leech off her husband". As the lady I linked to some time ago, states in her article on the woman as a homemaker:
"A good Old Testament example of a homemaker is found in Genesis 18:9-And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. Abraham didn’t wonder where his wife was, and he didn’t have to go check. He answered quickly, “Behold in the tent.”Abraham and Sarah had no children as yet at this time, but her place was still “in the tent” a homemaker."
Even feminists seem to agree, that the role of a woman at home is much more that only taking care of children. It's really funny how they are trying to push the return of a homemaker as a new form of feminism, which means that the society has gone the full circle now. (H/t to The Retro Homemaker for the link).
There are lots of things for a childless homemaker to occupy herself with, and as she has more time, she can use it for community service, practising hospitality and helping her family. If you have no children of your own, you may help raise your nephews and nieces. I remember how I always loved visiting my auntie, who was an empty-nester. She always had something nice to eat and was very hospitable. Unfortunately, many children nowadays miss this experience growing up.
An old proverb says that if you are given a lemon, try to make lemonade out of it. A childless lady will have more time to develop her talents, learn to play musical instruments, read and practise crafts. I would also like to point out, that luckily, modern medicine has progressed to the point that a lot of couple struggling with infertility can be helped. There are also natural remedies for infertility sufferers, such as acupuncture. Prayer helps a lot, too.
It could also be so that a couple have come to terms with their inability to conceive and have decided to leave the matter in God's hands. It's their decision and should be respected by others. Unfortunately, nowadays Christians are often pushed to adopt. While I'm not against adoption, it's a personal decision, it costs a lot of money, and can cause all sorts of problems in the future. There is no Christian duty for infertile couples to adopt and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Adoption, just as fertility treatments, is the matter between you and your husband, not between you, your husband, the church and the local busybodies.
In conclusion I'd like to recommend this article by a lady who herself struggled with infertility:
Eleven Things To Remember During Infertility
Thursday, May 8, 2014
In Honour Of The V-Day
There are two old war comedies we watched recently.
The first one is a British film called The Square Peg. It tells a story of an indomitable Mr Pitkin (played by Norman Wisdom), a road worker for the city government, who finds himself in the army together with his boss, Mr Grimsdale. Through a series of blunders, they end up in France behind the enemy lines, where Pitkin realises he looks like a German general's twin, which leads to all sorts of adventures.
Here is a trailer:
The Square Peg, UK Trailer
Here is the whole movie on YouTube:
The Square Peg
The second is a French 1966 movie called La Grande Vadrouille, starring Bourvil and Louis De Funes. A british bomber plane is shot down over Paris, three pilots are trying to escape, with the help of two Frenchmen, a beautiful girl and nuns. The film has its own risky moments, but they are very tame comparing to what we see in the movies now. Since it is a comedy, nobody dies. I could only find this trailer in French on YouTube:
La Grande Vadrouille
Hope you'll enjoy them!
The first one is a British film called The Square Peg. It tells a story of an indomitable Mr Pitkin (played by Norman Wisdom), a road worker for the city government, who finds himself in the army together with his boss, Mr Grimsdale. Through a series of blunders, they end up in France behind the enemy lines, where Pitkin realises he looks like a German general's twin, which leads to all sorts of adventures.
Here is a trailer:
The Square Peg, UK Trailer
Here is the whole movie on YouTube:
The Square Peg
The second is a French 1966 movie called La Grande Vadrouille, starring Bourvil and Louis De Funes. A british bomber plane is shot down over Paris, three pilots are trying to escape, with the help of two Frenchmen, a beautiful girl and nuns. The film has its own risky moments, but they are very tame comparing to what we see in the movies now. Since it is a comedy, nobody dies. I could only find this trailer in French on YouTube:
La Grande Vadrouille
Hope you'll enjoy them!
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Two Things Which Always Get Me
I'm not doing it that often but today I really feel like ranting so please bear with me:)
There are two things which always get me, one is the idea that there is not enough to do at home for a woman thus she should seek employment elsewhere; the other is the idea that it's possible to have a traditional family without traditional sex roles.
On my blog I avoid telling personal stories because I detest gossiping and don't want to point fingers to people I know in real life, but one thing I will say: the women who told me that there was nothing to do at home usually also did nothing. Their homes were the messiest I've ever seen, they couldn't cook and mostly left the children to their own devices.
There can be different reasons why married women choose to work: financial difficulties, the desire for a more luxurious lifestyle, feminism, the husband insisting his wife works etc. Why not being honest about it, instead of stating that there is nothing to do at home? Look, we are a small family and yet I still have a lot to do. In fact, I haven't been writing much on the blog because I have been trying to put my house back in order and it costs time and energy which I can't then use to research and write articles.
The only reason women claim there is nothing to do at home, is because our modern standards of housekeeping and personal care are atrociously low. Some Christians even suggested serving food on paper plates which could be thrown away so that not to waste any time washing the dishes (it should be used for home business as the only thing which matters is money, apparently). I won't point fingers but those who read the book I mean will remember that part.
There were also articles teaching women to cook once a month and freeze the meals because cooking isn't important any more. You know, there is something really distressing in the idea that we put money-making activities atop of manners, traditions, and even family health (how healthy it is to eat meals out of the freezer every day of one's life?)
I have been watching some old films and one thing struck me: in the 1940s and 1950s most people were quite poor by our modern standards: they couldn't afford a car or a vacation abroad or even a TV set but they were on average better dressed and groomed and ate their meals at the table with their family, using real dishes instead of paper ones. Nowadays people buy all sorts of electronic junk but choose to dress like they live under the bridge and often don't even cook dinner. Kinda shows what our society holds as important things in life.
Our civilisation is going down the gutter fast taking with it things which made it so unique and beautiful: our classical music, our art, our distinctly Western style of dress (before it became fashionable to wear overalls day in day out), our cooking habits and even our table manners. Some time ago I wrote a review about an old film called Prisoner Of Zenda .Well, I got a lot of hits on this article, all coming from India and Arabian countries.
It appears that in those countries they study the novel which was the basis of it at school. Prisoner Of Zenda is a story about always doing your duty even at the cost of your personal feelings. This is how we used to raise our children in the West. Now people in non-Western countries teach their children these important lessons as part of the school curriculum while we are teaching ours that feeling good and not being offended is everything that matters. Oh, how the mighty have fallen...
Well, you will ask me what does it all have to do with housewives? Simply this: a housewife at home, even without children or the one whose children are grown up, is still performing an important function of keeping the home fires burning. By refusing to learn the traditional feminine arts such as cooking, by not cleaning the house, by failing to teach her children good manners and read good books to them, a woman contributes to the ongoing destruction of the Western society.
I wish we all collectively stopped worshipping the almighty dollar (or euro or whatever) and realised that there are things which can't be bought for money. If you choose to become a homemaker, as a woman, you probably won't have material luxury, but you will have time to preserve the culture, customs and traditions of your people. Culture doesn't begin at the concert hall or in the art gallery. It begins at home. It begins with you setting the table and using napkins and teaching your children to do the same.
As a housewife, this task of preserving the culture and transmitting it to the next generation belongs to you. Don't underestimate its importance!
There are two things which always get me, one is the idea that there is not enough to do at home for a woman thus she should seek employment elsewhere; the other is the idea that it's possible to have a traditional family without traditional sex roles.
On my blog I avoid telling personal stories because I detest gossiping and don't want to point fingers to people I know in real life, but one thing I will say: the women who told me that there was nothing to do at home usually also did nothing. Their homes were the messiest I've ever seen, they couldn't cook and mostly left the children to their own devices.
There can be different reasons why married women choose to work: financial difficulties, the desire for a more luxurious lifestyle, feminism, the husband insisting his wife works etc. Why not being honest about it, instead of stating that there is nothing to do at home? Look, we are a small family and yet I still have a lot to do. In fact, I haven't been writing much on the blog because I have been trying to put my house back in order and it costs time and energy which I can't then use to research and write articles.
The only reason women claim there is nothing to do at home, is because our modern standards of housekeeping and personal care are atrociously low. Some Christians even suggested serving food on paper plates which could be thrown away so that not to waste any time washing the dishes (it should be used for home business as the only thing which matters is money, apparently). I won't point fingers but those who read the book I mean will remember that part.
There were also articles teaching women to cook once a month and freeze the meals because cooking isn't important any more. You know, there is something really distressing in the idea that we put money-making activities atop of manners, traditions, and even family health (how healthy it is to eat meals out of the freezer every day of one's life?)
I have been watching some old films and one thing struck me: in the 1940s and 1950s most people were quite poor by our modern standards: they couldn't afford a car or a vacation abroad or even a TV set but they were on average better dressed and groomed and ate their meals at the table with their family, using real dishes instead of paper ones. Nowadays people buy all sorts of electronic junk but choose to dress like they live under the bridge and often don't even cook dinner. Kinda shows what our society holds as important things in life.
Our civilisation is going down the gutter fast taking with it things which made it so unique and beautiful: our classical music, our art, our distinctly Western style of dress (before it became fashionable to wear overalls day in day out), our cooking habits and even our table manners. Some time ago I wrote a review about an old film called Prisoner Of Zenda .Well, I got a lot of hits on this article, all coming from India and Arabian countries.
It appears that in those countries they study the novel which was the basis of it at school. Prisoner Of Zenda is a story about always doing your duty even at the cost of your personal feelings. This is how we used to raise our children in the West. Now people in non-Western countries teach their children these important lessons as part of the school curriculum while we are teaching ours that feeling good and not being offended is everything that matters. Oh, how the mighty have fallen...
Well, you will ask me what does it all have to do with housewives? Simply this: a housewife at home, even without children or the one whose children are grown up, is still performing an important function of keeping the home fires burning. By refusing to learn the traditional feminine arts such as cooking, by not cleaning the house, by failing to teach her children good manners and read good books to them, a woman contributes to the ongoing destruction of the Western society.
I wish we all collectively stopped worshipping the almighty dollar (or euro or whatever) and realised that there are things which can't be bought for money. If you choose to become a homemaker, as a woman, you probably won't have material luxury, but you will have time to preserve the culture, customs and traditions of your people. Culture doesn't begin at the concert hall or in the art gallery. It begins at home. It begins with you setting the table and using napkins and teaching your children to do the same.
As a housewife, this task of preserving the culture and transmitting it to the next generation belongs to you. Don't underestimate its importance!
Saturday, May 3, 2014
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Thursday, May 1, 2014
May Day Links
Will S. on renewing your marriage vows:
Why renew your marriage vows if you weren't separated or divorced?
What's Wrong With Equal Rights on the problems modern housewives face:
The Isolation of Housewives
Lady Lydia on the Victorian style in clothes:
Victorian Style houses and clothing
and a follow-up article:
Dressing Grown-Up
Daily Mail on antibiotic-resistant bugs:
WHO warns that antibiotics resistance crisis could be worse than AIDS
and the unusual positive effects of drinking wine:
Wine helps women to conceive
Bruce Charlton on whether "sexy" is a compliment:
What do men actually mean when they say a woman is sexy?
Ladies and gentlemen, that was all for today!
Till the next time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)