Female police officers in UK will soon get access to crying rooms. Yes, you've read it right:
A POLICE force is opening up "crying rooms" for female officers going through the menopause.
Because women are equal to men in everything! And should be able to get equal pay for equal wo...Oh wait:
The plans have been introduced after former Chief Constable Sue Fish,
who retired last year, discovered women were leaving the force
after suffering menopausal symptoms.
She said: "It was just a waste of talent. Bringing in a policy was absolutely the right thing to do."
It adds: "Women going through the menopause may need to manage the
impact of symptoms, a private space to rest temporarily, cry or talk
with a colleague before they can return to their workspace."
I personally think they also should be provided with fainting couches.
Frontline officers may also be permitted to dispense with body armour if it proves uncomfortable.
When you have to choose between work safety and feels, always go for feels! Also body armour is obviously malecentric and women don't need it anyway. Their sheer awesomeness will protect them.
You can read more about new British Victorian police force over here.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Blue Collar Men + White Collar Women
A match made in Heaven? A new interesting video from the Quaint Housewife blog:
Friday, January 26, 2018
The One Who Pays, Decides
There are lots of resources on the internet devoted to criticising feminism and restoring "traditional society". Yet, the traditional society some of the authors envision, has never really existed, and sounds utopian at the very least. It's a society where women are expected to be traditional but at the same time, to support themselves and even to be financially responsible for their children.
The whole truth is that while in the past women were expected to be chaste and submissive, men were expected to provide for their needs, not only fathers and husbands and brothers, but among the upper classes, also male cousins and uncles since it was considered shameful to let your female relatives work. Don't believe me? Read books like Miss Silver novels I have mentioned previously. In one of them, an older single, never married lady is selling her furniture since her last male cousin was killed in action and there are no men in the family to take care of her any more.
Too many men nowadays want to have their cake and eat it, too. They expect the wives to be co-providers, but also sweet submissive Suzy homemakers. The truth is, earning a paycheck gives power, economic power. While I'm not generally a big fan of the Pearls, I found a recent post by Michael where he explains it very well:
In our modern world, the one whose name is on the paycheck is the head of all finances, the one to be thanked and appreciated. That person is the fountain of the family, possessing the right of veto over all spending, and controlling the direction of the family where it involves finances.
The one who comes home tired from a day’s work is entitled to the recliner until dinner is served. It is the one who says, “Why aren’t my socks in the drawer?” and “This house is a mess; what have you been doing all day?” The breadwinner decides what kind of bread to eat and whether or not spending is foolish or necessary.
I'm not denying the evil of divorce and, in fact, have written several posts about it, yet one of the reasons modern nuclear family is so fragile is the changed family dynamics which comes with women earning their own living:
A bread-winning woman is not vulnerable and finds it difficult to come home and be a submissive, servant wife. To be forced to do so breeds resentment and a feeling of being used...when a couple reverses roles because the wife is able to make more money, or when the man is lazy and incompetent, or when she just likes to work and he just likes to hang out at home, you can be certain that neither is going to find fulfilment in their relationship, and their marriage is likely to end in the woman divorcing the man.
Of course, he's talking about complete role-reversal over here, but the same is true to a lesser degree for any family where the wife earns a considerable income.
Men who are more honest admit that they appreciate feminism because it lets them off the hook concerning support of their wives and especially daughters and other female relatives. While I necessarily disagree with them, I value their honesty. Yet, there are others who keep complaining about the state of modern Western womanhood (which is, I agree, deplorable) while fully expecting women to be self-reliable financially.
Why aren't women keeping their virginity? Why do they chase exciting bad boys? Some men will claim it's because of "natural hypergamy" that women chase total losers unable to earn the living. Hypergamy actually means selecting the best. A gold-digger is hypergamous, a woman dating an unemployed alcoholic musician isn't. The reason women are doing it is because they don't depend on the men for support any more. They earn their own living and can afford sleeping with losers.
Here naturally the question of welfare arises. I partly agree with the criticism of the current welfare model. Yet, individual men profit by it, too, since the ability of women to claim welfare frees them from financial responsibilities (and, by the way, men use it, too). The truth is, that some form of welfare for single mothers at least has always existed throughout the centuries, and the same is true for the infamous child support. Here are some extracts from a historical overview of child support laws in UK:
By an act of 1576 (18 Elizabeth C. 3), it was ordered that bastards should be supported by their putative fathers, though bastardy orders in the quarter sessions date from before this date. If the genitor could be found, then he was put under very great pressure to accept responsibility and to maintain the child"
"In 1732-3, a woman pregnant with a bastard was required to declare the fact and to name the father. In 1733, the putative father became responsible for maintaining his illegitimate child; failing to do so could result in gaol. The parish would then support the mother and child, until the father agreed to do so, whereupon he would reimburse the parish - although this rarely happened." Peter Higginbotham.
Also: "Any person after 24 June 1733 charged on oath with being the father of a bastard child shall be apprehended and committed to gaol until he gives security to indemnify the parish from expense".
In the 19th century fathers of illegitimate children were briefly let of the hook:
"The Commissioners thought that poor men were at the mercy of blackmail and perjury by unscrupulous women.... The bastardy clauses of the Act of 1834 were in line with the opinions of the Poor Law Commissioners. The laws which had enabled a mother to charge a putative father before the magistrates were repealed".
A Bastardy Clause Act made all illegitimate children the sole responsibility of their mothers until they were 16 years old. If mothers of bastard children were unable to support themselves and their offspring, they would have to enter the workhouse; the putative father became free of any legal responsibility for his illegitimate offspring. Not only did this remove the not infrequent problem of disputed fatherhood, but it was envisaged that the measure would discourage women from entering into profligate relationships.
Yet, the law was changed again after a mere 12 years:
If you read the whole document you'll find out that the 19th century divorce laws ensured that even guilty wives got some sort of a maintenance since women weren't supposed to have to support themselves.
For the record, in my country until the man is legally married/has a partnership contract he has to agree to fatherhood, otherwise he'll have neither rights nor obligations. The mother can then apply for welfare. Guess what, I heard men complaining that they pay taxes to support other men's bastards.
I'm also rather suspicious of the fact that so many folks who claim to be against divorce don't want easy divorce actually to be abolished but spend all their time attacking child support laws which makes me think they wouldn't mind easy divorce half as much if they had no obligations afterwards. The idea that most women marry with a nefarious plan to later divorce their husbands "for cash and prizes" is ludicrous in the extreme. You only get "cash and prizes" when you manage to marry a man with a much higher status than yourself, which isn't true for the majority of marriages.
I've witnessed many divorces and in some situations women were to blame, in others men, and sometimes both. The statistics about who files for divorce aren't helpful since filing for divorce doesn't equal being guilty of breaking the marriage contract. What if a man leaves but doesn't file? What is his wife supposed to do? The only way to actually fix the current situation is to return to fault based divorce + traditional sex roles. Any person who claims to be traditional but has no problem with no-fault divorce and female economic independence is either lying or delusional.
Because nobody can have it all.
The whole truth is that while in the past women were expected to be chaste and submissive, men were expected to provide for their needs, not only fathers and husbands and brothers, but among the upper classes, also male cousins and uncles since it was considered shameful to let your female relatives work. Don't believe me? Read books like Miss Silver novels I have mentioned previously. In one of them, an older single, never married lady is selling her furniture since her last male cousin was killed in action and there are no men in the family to take care of her any more.
Too many men nowadays want to have their cake and eat it, too. They expect the wives to be co-providers, but also sweet submissive Suzy homemakers. The truth is, earning a paycheck gives power, economic power. While I'm not generally a big fan of the Pearls, I found a recent post by Michael where he explains it very well:
In our modern world, the one whose name is on the paycheck is the head of all finances, the one to be thanked and appreciated. That person is the fountain of the family, possessing the right of veto over all spending, and controlling the direction of the family where it involves finances.
The one who comes home tired from a day’s work is entitled to the recliner until dinner is served. It is the one who says, “Why aren’t my socks in the drawer?” and “This house is a mess; what have you been doing all day?” The breadwinner decides what kind of bread to eat and whether or not spending is foolish or necessary.
I'm not denying the evil of divorce and, in fact, have written several posts about it, yet one of the reasons modern nuclear family is so fragile is the changed family dynamics which comes with women earning their own living:
A bread-winning woman is not vulnerable and finds it difficult to come home and be a submissive, servant wife. To be forced to do so breeds resentment and a feeling of being used...when a couple reverses roles because the wife is able to make more money, or when the man is lazy and incompetent, or when she just likes to work and he just likes to hang out at home, you can be certain that neither is going to find fulfilment in their relationship, and their marriage is likely to end in the woman divorcing the man.
Of course, he's talking about complete role-reversal over here, but the same is true to a lesser degree for any family where the wife earns a considerable income.
Men who are more honest admit that they appreciate feminism because it lets them off the hook concerning support of their wives and especially daughters and other female relatives. While I necessarily disagree with them, I value their honesty. Yet, there are others who keep complaining about the state of modern Western womanhood (which is, I agree, deplorable) while fully expecting women to be self-reliable financially.
Why aren't women keeping their virginity? Why do they chase exciting bad boys? Some men will claim it's because of "natural hypergamy" that women chase total losers unable to earn the living. Hypergamy actually means selecting the best. A gold-digger is hypergamous, a woman dating an unemployed alcoholic musician isn't. The reason women are doing it is because they don't depend on the men for support any more. They earn their own living and can afford sleeping with losers.
Here naturally the question of welfare arises. I partly agree with the criticism of the current welfare model. Yet, individual men profit by it, too, since the ability of women to claim welfare frees them from financial responsibilities (and, by the way, men use it, too). The truth is, that some form of welfare for single mothers at least has always existed throughout the centuries, and the same is true for the infamous child support. Here are some extracts from a historical overview of child support laws in UK:
By an act of 1576 (18 Elizabeth C. 3), it was ordered that bastards should be supported by their putative fathers, though bastardy orders in the quarter sessions date from before this date. If the genitor could be found, then he was put under very great pressure to accept responsibility and to maintain the child"
"In 1732-3, a woman pregnant with a bastard was required to declare the fact and to name the father. In 1733, the putative father became responsible for maintaining his illegitimate child; failing to do so could result in gaol. The parish would then support the mother and child, until the father agreed to do so, whereupon he would reimburse the parish - although this rarely happened." Peter Higginbotham.
Also: "Any person after 24 June 1733 charged on oath with being the father of a bastard child shall be apprehended and committed to gaol until he gives security to indemnify the parish from expense".
In the 19th century fathers of illegitimate children were briefly let of the hook:
"The Commissioners thought that poor men were at the mercy of blackmail and perjury by unscrupulous women.... The bastardy clauses of the Act of 1834 were in line with the opinions of the Poor Law Commissioners. The laws which had enabled a mother to charge a putative father before the magistrates were repealed".
A Bastardy Clause Act made all illegitimate children the sole responsibility of their mothers until they were 16 years old. If mothers of bastard children were unable to support themselves and their offspring, they would have to enter the workhouse; the putative father became free of any legal responsibility for his illegitimate offspring. Not only did this remove the not infrequent problem of disputed fatherhood, but it was envisaged that the measure would discourage women from entering into profligate relationships.
Yet, the law was changed again after a mere 12 years:
| 1844 - 1845 | Poor Law Amendment Act 1844
Bastardy Act of 1845 (7&8 Vic. c.101) |
Took bastary procedings out of the poor law authorities and turned then into a civil matter between parents. Finer. Enabled an unmarried mother to apply to the Petty Sessions for an affiliation order against the father for maintenance of the mother and child, regardless of whether she was in receipt of poor relief. This was probably in recognition that the 1834 Act had not reduced illegitimacy (by making it harder for mothers to claim maintenance), but in fact increased it (by enabling men to avoid some of the responsibility for their actions). |
If you read the whole document you'll find out that the 19th century divorce laws ensured that even guilty wives got some sort of a maintenance since women weren't supposed to have to support themselves.
For the record, in my country until the man is legally married/has a partnership contract he has to agree to fatherhood, otherwise he'll have neither rights nor obligations. The mother can then apply for welfare. Guess what, I heard men complaining that they pay taxes to support other men's bastards.
I'm also rather suspicious of the fact that so many folks who claim to be against divorce don't want easy divorce actually to be abolished but spend all their time attacking child support laws which makes me think they wouldn't mind easy divorce half as much if they had no obligations afterwards. The idea that most women marry with a nefarious plan to later divorce their husbands "for cash and prizes" is ludicrous in the extreme. You only get "cash and prizes" when you manage to marry a man with a much higher status than yourself, which isn't true for the majority of marriages.
I've witnessed many divorces and in some situations women were to blame, in others men, and sometimes both. The statistics about who files for divorce aren't helpful since filing for divorce doesn't equal being guilty of breaking the marriage contract. What if a man leaves but doesn't file? What is his wife supposed to do? The only way to actually fix the current situation is to return to fault based divorce + traditional sex roles. Any person who claims to be traditional but has no problem with no-fault divorce and female economic independence is either lying or delusional.
Because nobody can have it all.
Thursday, January 25, 2018
Sweden Strikes Again
I think I'm going to create a Sweden label to keep up with all the wonderful things happening in that feminist paradise. Here is the latest from Daily Mail:
An Afghan migrant who
molested a 12-year-old Swedish girl was initially not reported to police
- because her mother was dating him.
Abdul Dostmohammadi, 18, was living with his 45-year-old girlfriend in Sölvesborg, southern Sweden, when he sexually molested the 12-year-old.
When the girl told her what had happened, the mother refused to report him to police as she feared he would be sent back to Afghanistan, court documents reveal.
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Happy Housewives
A book review.
Happy Housewives is a 2005 book by Darla Shine, who is married to a TV producer Bill Shine and used to be a producer herself but quit her job to take care of her children. As of now, she runs a website called Happy Housewives Club (I linked to it several times), and as far as I know, she hosts a radio program for housewives and mothers, too (or, at least, she used to several years ago).
Darla wrote her book as a reaction to the Desperate Housewives show, which in her opinion, promoted a very distorted image of women who chose to stay home, alongside with immorality such as adultery. She even calls the characters of the show "whining, spoilt rotten bitches" (H.H., Regan 2006, p.11). In fact, Darla is rather blunt in her language, the fact which caused some women to give her negative reviews on Amazon.
The book claims to transform you from a miserable to happy housewife in 10 easy steps, and Darla uses her own story as an example. When she first stayed home, she used to be miserable all the time, spending her day going to salons and beauty shops while the housekeeper cleaned and the babysitter babysat, but after being told off by her mother, she got rid of hired help, and found happiness in mastering the art of homemaking and child-rearing.
I think you've guessed by now that Darla's book won't teach you how to live on 50$ a week or save money on electricity. In fact, it could be properly subtitled How to be a good upper middle class wife. Some women, again, criticised this aspect. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with it, but her own social position has probably influenced her thinking to a certain degree, as she had a specific group of women in mind while writing it.
Happy Housewives is not a comprehensive guide on housekeeping but gives some good, solid advice for beginners, yet, I'm rather ambivalent about some of it. I'll start with things I liked. Darla is not afraid to speak her mind. She plainly states on p. 19 that any mother who could afford it should be home with her babies: "You brought these little people into the world, so go home and raise them. It's not your mother's responsibility." (emphasis mine). She criticises feminist movement: "Most of the feminists out there promoting working, career, having it all, being a superwoman they're full of it. You cannot have it all. They know it but won't admit it." (p.25).
She encourages women who chose to stay home to start taking good care of themselves, exercising and eating right and not believe everything the conventional medical care practitioners say. She tells the wives to invest in their marriages, to look good for their husbands, not to nag and not to deprive them of sex. She promotes homemaking, gives an example of a practical schedule with chores divided into daily, weekly, etc, and even says that you shouldn't expect your husband to clean since "it's your job anyway" (p.86).
There is a whole chapter devoted to cooking with tips, ideas and recipes. There is a section on entertaining and another one on gardening. Darla's style is spunky and engaging, and the book is incredibly easy to read. It's like talking to a good girlfriend, plus her enthusiasm about being a good housewife and mother is really catching. Yet, there are some things which I found dubious.
Some of these things are rather minor, like her advice on always wearing makeup or her insinuations that health care system is somehow unfair to women in particular. Others sound manipulative, like the story of Darla's friend who made her husband "open his wallet" by paying attention to him or the idea that "husbands are for sex, girlfriends are for communication." Many a traditional homeschooling mother will probably disagree with the suggestion that mommy needs a break from her kids and should go out with her girlfriends for a drink or two.
What I personally dislike is the way she treats the relationship between the husband and wife, especially things she says in Ch.7. I get the point of having a circle of friends, and an identity besides just wife and mother. Friends and relatives are important though nowadays we often tend to forget it. However, Darla appears to go beyond this when she states that you should rely more on your girlfriends than on your husband because it's them who will be there for you in the end.
I get this whole divorce thing and that your husband could die and you should have some support system in place, yet I disagree strongly with the idea that I should rely more on other women (and not even those related by blood) than my own husband. That is the book's biggest flaw in my opinion. I think husband and wife are a team and should always present a united front to the outside world. May be I'm wrong, I don't know, and I'd love to hear the opinions of others.
In the end, I think the positive advice in the book outweighs its real or perceived drawbacks but if you are offended by all things mentioned above, than this book is probably not for you.
Thursday, January 18, 2018
How To Be Content At Home
The problem of our time is availability of information. Now, of course, it can be a good thing, but it has a negative side, too. We are constantly presented with an image of perfection, whether through TV ads, glossy magazines or Internet personalities. As a result, we want it all and we want it now. We feel entitled to all the joys of life and none of its troubles, so to say. And we constantly keep comparing ourselves to others.
Have you met this ideal family? They both are young-looking and healthy, they both have dream jobs but manage to keep a clean house, eat nutritious meals and spend quality time with their children. Their kids are ideal kids, too; they love daycare, they do well at school and they never get sick or misbehave. This ideal family lives in a dream house in a nice neighbourhood without any crime or pollution, they often go on luxurious vacations, they have a busy and fulfilling social life, they engage in hobbies and sports, keep pets, drive expensive cars and live to be a 100 each while their kids go on to prosper in life and have ideal families of their own.
So have you ever met this family? Because I haven't. What I see around me are far-from-ideal people with all sorts of problems, trying to make the best of it. I don't know one person who has it all, since whatever situation they are in, it will always include trade-offs. In the times past, people understood the realities of every day life much better than we do now and were thankful if they had food, clothes, shelter and at least one of their children lived to adulthood. They also were taught that coveting is a sin and that they shouldn't be too proud of their worldly possessions because they could lose them at any time. Being too prideful was considered tempting God/fate.
It's very easy to grow discontent if you start comparing yourself to others. For a woman who stays home it could be even worse since if she ever complains of lacking something she'll invariably hear that she has to go to work in order for her family to afford buying more stuff. She keeps comparing herself to working women and wonders whether she or her children miss something essential. The truth is, however, that no one's life is ideal and the working mother may in her turn, be envious of the lady who stays home because of her freedom and her leisure.
Grass always looks greener on the other side, but seldom really is:)
Have you met this ideal family? They both are young-looking and healthy, they both have dream jobs but manage to keep a clean house, eat nutritious meals and spend quality time with their children. Their kids are ideal kids, too; they love daycare, they do well at school and they never get sick or misbehave. This ideal family lives in a dream house in a nice neighbourhood without any crime or pollution, they often go on luxurious vacations, they have a busy and fulfilling social life, they engage in hobbies and sports, keep pets, drive expensive cars and live to be a 100 each while their kids go on to prosper in life and have ideal families of their own.
So have you ever met this family? Because I haven't. What I see around me are far-from-ideal people with all sorts of problems, trying to make the best of it. I don't know one person who has it all, since whatever situation they are in, it will always include trade-offs. In the times past, people understood the realities of every day life much better than we do now and were thankful if they had food, clothes, shelter and at least one of their children lived to adulthood. They also were taught that coveting is a sin and that they shouldn't be too proud of their worldly possessions because they could lose them at any time. Being too prideful was considered tempting God/fate.
It's very easy to grow discontent if you start comparing yourself to others. For a woman who stays home it could be even worse since if she ever complains of lacking something she'll invariably hear that she has to go to work in order for her family to afford buying more stuff. She keeps comparing herself to working women and wonders whether she or her children miss something essential. The truth is, however, that no one's life is ideal and the working mother may in her turn, be envious of the lady who stays home because of her freedom and her leisure.
Grass always looks greener on the other side, but seldom really is:)
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Does It Even Matter?
Here is something to consider when making a choice whether to be a two income family or not. In a modern Western society, does it even matter?
Let me illustrate my point by examples. I know a couple of people who by different reasons live in subsidised housing. One is sick and couldn't work any more. The house looks quite decent. She has time to cook nutritious meals and she has housekeeping help from the government. The neighbourhood she lives in isn't really bad. There is a huge beautiful park right behind her house. People in this situation won't have money for luxuries and expensive vacations, but they still can afford clothes, shoes and even going out sometimes. If by health or money reasons they can't drive, we have a good system of public transportation.
On the other hand, some (young) families I know went for a 2 income lifestyle. Some took a huge amount in debt to live in a similar 3-bedroom house, in a slightly better neighbourhood. Of course, there IS a difference, I know there is. The point I'm trying to make is that the said difference isn't big enough, at least in the country I live in, to justify the debt and children being raised by strangers, imo. Unless you are a surgeon or a lawyer but live from two lower middle class/working class salaries, there won't be any huge rise in your standard of living compared to a one-income family, and if you are a surgeon, you can afford for your wife to stay home full time and there still will be the difference between you and a truck driver, so to say.
So what's the point?
Let me illustrate my point by examples. I know a couple of people who by different reasons live in subsidised housing. One is sick and couldn't work any more. The house looks quite decent. She has time to cook nutritious meals and she has housekeeping help from the government. The neighbourhood she lives in isn't really bad. There is a huge beautiful park right behind her house. People in this situation won't have money for luxuries and expensive vacations, but they still can afford clothes, shoes and even going out sometimes. If by health or money reasons they can't drive, we have a good system of public transportation.
On the other hand, some (young) families I know went for a 2 income lifestyle. Some took a huge amount in debt to live in a similar 3-bedroom house, in a slightly better neighbourhood. Of course, there IS a difference, I know there is. The point I'm trying to make is that the said difference isn't big enough, at least in the country I live in, to justify the debt and children being raised by strangers, imo. Unless you are a surgeon or a lawyer but live from two lower middle class/working class salaries, there won't be any huge rise in your standard of living compared to a one-income family, and if you are a surgeon, you can afford for your wife to stay home full time and there still will be the difference between you and a truck driver, so to say.
So what's the point?
Saturday, January 13, 2018
Dear Mother, Your Child Doesn't Care About Your Rights
I found this interesting article on HubPages. In it, a young mother explains her choice to stay home with her child(ren). It's a lengthy article which is best read in its total, yet I wanted to highlight some parts. The author has really great insights in the whole career mommy debate. She points out that even though the perception of the mother's role has changed in the eyes of society, her children's needs haven't:
Not all things are fair. A mother is not the same as a father in the children's eyes. There is meant to be a different connection there that begins in the womb for the child. They know nothing about feminism or hidden political agendas to their benefit. they have simple desires and needs. Most include their mothers time and attention. They don't care about mommy having the right to work, they just know mommy goes to work and leaves them. If it is hard for many empty nesters to let their kids go at18 think about how hard it is for a child to let their parent go to work. We can have a child and go back to work to resume the life we led before kids. It is a right. But can somebody inform the kids that society has changed in the last 50+ years so in turn a child must change their needs as well? Even though women's wants and needs changed throughout these progressive years, children still have the same needs and wants.
Another issue she raises is whether very small children are traumatised by daycare setting. The lady herself went back to work after her daughter turned 10 weeks but quit when the child turned 6 mos. Yet, a very strange thing happened many moths later:
I'll never forget it when my daughter was 3 yrs old, she told me out of the blue she didn't like going to daycare and began crying as if it was something recent, saying she missed me when she was there. Let me remind you, she was 6 months old when I took her out of daycare.
The comments are also worth reading, and some ladies were pointing out that very young children can't even complain if anyone hurt them during the day away from home. It's really encouraging that younger generations are discovering the joys of traditional motherhood.
Not all things are fair. A mother is not the same as a father in the children's eyes. There is meant to be a different connection there that begins in the womb for the child. They know nothing about feminism or hidden political agendas to their benefit. they have simple desires and needs. Most include their mothers time and attention. They don't care about mommy having the right to work, they just know mommy goes to work and leaves them. If it is hard for many empty nesters to let their kids go at18 think about how hard it is for a child to let their parent go to work. We can have a child and go back to work to resume the life we led before kids. It is a right. But can somebody inform the kids that society has changed in the last 50+ years so in turn a child must change their needs as well? Even though women's wants and needs changed throughout these progressive years, children still have the same needs and wants.
Another issue she raises is whether very small children are traumatised by daycare setting. The lady herself went back to work after her daughter turned 10 weeks but quit when the child turned 6 mos. Yet, a very strange thing happened many moths later:
I'll never forget it when my daughter was 3 yrs old, she told me out of the blue she didn't like going to daycare and began crying as if it was something recent, saying she missed me when she was there. Let me remind you, she was 6 months old when I took her out of daycare.
The comments are also worth reading, and some ladies were pointing out that very young children can't even complain if anyone hurt them during the day away from home. It's really encouraging that younger generations are discovering the joys of traditional motherhood.
Thursday, January 11, 2018
An Unintended Consequence Of Promiscuity?
One more reason why promiscuity is not such a great idea - microchimerism:
Microchimerism is the presence of a small number of cells that originate from another individual and are therefore genetically distinct from the cells of the host individual. This phenomenon may be related to certain types of autoimmune diseases; however, the mechanisms responsible for this relationship are unclear.
While the Wiki article goes on and on about maternal microchimerism, it does mention at the end of the section that
It is hypothesized that unprotected intercourse with ejaculation may be another source of microchimerism.
Something to think about?
Microchimerism is the presence of a small number of cells that originate from another individual and are therefore genetically distinct from the cells of the host individual. This phenomenon may be related to certain types of autoimmune diseases; however, the mechanisms responsible for this relationship are unclear.
While the Wiki article goes on and on about maternal microchimerism, it does mention at the end of the section that
It is hypothesized that unprotected intercourse with ejaculation may be another source of microchimerism.
Something to think about?
Monday, January 8, 2018
New Year Muffins
Baked them for Epiphany and we already ate them all! Recipe adapted from an old Taste Of Home magazine from 2006.
1/3c soft butter
ab. 1/2c (or less) brown sugar
2 eggs
1c flour + ab. 1/2 c rye flour
1 1/2 tsp baking powder
1 tsp cinnamon
1/3c milk
For filling, you'll need:
200g cream cheese
3-4 tbsp brown sugar
1 egg
ab. 1c raisins
For topping, you'll need:
4 tbsp flour
1-2 tbsp brown sugar
cinnamon to taste
1 tbsp cold butter
For the dough, cream butter and sugar, add eggs and mix thoroughly. Add flour+baking powder+cinnamon alternately with milk. Fill greased or paper lined muffin cups. A word of warning: I used paper lining and had difficulty with separating it from baked muffins as the dough was very sticky. Also, according to the magazine, you should get about 18 muffins. My oven is small and I really didn't care for baking twice so I managed to fit the dough + filling into a standard muffin pan for 12, but the cups were full.
For filling, beat cream cheese, sugar and egg, add the raisins and with a spoon, drop filling on top of each muffin. For topping, combine dry ingredients, cut in cold butter and crumble the mixture by hand, sprinkle on top.
Bake at 375F/190*C for ab. 30 min, or until ready (use a toothpick to test). Eat warm or cold. Enjoy:)
Sunday, January 7, 2018
Saturday, January 6, 2018
Epiphany
It's Epiphany today so don't forget to get rid of the Christmas tree, if you haven't done it already! Though officially, Christmas period lasts till 2 February. And if you put on weight during celebrations, I have bad news for you - Epiphany is not a time for dieting:) Celebrate it with lots of cake!
Friday, January 5, 2018
The Pill And Cleaning
Hormonal contraception remains rather controversial, because of its documented side effects, for instance, hypertension, heart attack and blood clots; tripling the risk of suicide; and bumping breast cancer risk by 20%. (Here I just wonder why isn't WHO worried, like they were in the cause of bacon?). It's apparently bad for the environment as well.
These risks are well-documented and can be more or less objectively measured, but could there be other, less obvious side effects of being on the pill?
As we all know, the pill prevents ovulation, which is probably the most important part of a typical female cycle. I found a very interesting article which explains how your cycle influences your mind and body. It's a bit New Agey, but still well worth reading.
By suppressing ovulation, hormonal contraceptives interfere with female sexuality, which is acknowledged by Wikipedia. Typically some women on the pill report a lower libido, and don't we all know how men often complain that women aren't into it? (Another reason for lack of female desire is stress, as in work stress, but that's a topic for another discussion).
Yet somehow somewhere I heard of a theory which attributes modern bad housekeeping to using hormonal contraception. Apparently, the urge to clean house is connected to the natural female cycle as well. I agree that it may seem rather far-fetched, however, I found another article which at least partly validates this claim:
Before your period, your progesterone levels also drop, which combines the impulse to clean with an instinct to "nest." We see this tendency manifest itself more dramatically in pregnant women, who in their later months of pregnancy have low progesterone levels — which often lead them to go into a frenzy of cleaning house and nesting in order to prepare for the baby.
The PMS-related drop in progesterone is a less-intense version of the same phenomenon. In her fascinating book, Moody Bitches , Dr. Julie Holland explains why this happens: "Every month, when your body prepares for a possible embryo implantation, progesterone levels are building and causing a smaller form of nesting," she writes. "Toward the end of the cycle, a woman might become dissatisfied with her environment and obsessive about making changes in order to make sure the setting is appropriate next month for the burrowing of the embryo into the uterine lining."
(emphasis mine).
Well, what do you think? All in all, it looks like the pill makes women generally less feminine which is probably one of the reasons it's so popular in modern society.
These risks are well-documented and can be more or less objectively measured, but could there be other, less obvious side effects of being on the pill?
As we all know, the pill prevents ovulation, which is probably the most important part of a typical female cycle. I found a very interesting article which explains how your cycle influences your mind and body. It's a bit New Agey, but still well worth reading.
By suppressing ovulation, hormonal contraceptives interfere with female sexuality, which is acknowledged by Wikipedia. Typically some women on the pill report a lower libido, and don't we all know how men often complain that women aren't into it? (Another reason for lack of female desire is stress, as in work stress, but that's a topic for another discussion).
Yet somehow somewhere I heard of a theory which attributes modern bad housekeeping to using hormonal contraception. Apparently, the urge to clean house is connected to the natural female cycle as well. I agree that it may seem rather far-fetched, however, I found another article which at least partly validates this claim:
Before your period, your progesterone levels also drop, which combines the impulse to clean with an instinct to "nest." We see this tendency manifest itself more dramatically in pregnant women, who in their later months of pregnancy have low progesterone levels — which often lead them to go into a frenzy of cleaning house and nesting in order to prepare for the baby.
The PMS-related drop in progesterone is a less-intense version of the same phenomenon. In her fascinating book, Moody Bitches , Dr. Julie Holland explains why this happens: "Every month, when your body prepares for a possible embryo implantation, progesterone levels are building and causing a smaller form of nesting," she writes. "Toward the end of the cycle, a woman might become dissatisfied with her environment and obsessive about making changes in order to make sure the setting is appropriate next month for the burrowing of the embryo into the uterine lining."
"When estrogen levels drop before our periods, that veil is lifted ... It's time to clean house."Of course, these changes are much more pronounced (and potentially only noticeable) when you're not on hormonal birth control, so don't expect to see these shifts in mood and behavior if you're taking it.
(emphasis mine).
Well, what do you think? All in all, it looks like the pill makes women generally less feminine which is probably one of the reasons it's so popular in modern society.
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
New Year Resolutions Are Good For You!
Here are some suggestions. A bit too much career-oriented, and n17 should be reserved for married couples only, but some ideas are really good. Certainly those about getting healthier, exercising, cooking, hobbies, organising your home and meeting new people. What are your thoughts on New Year resolutions? Do you ever make and keep them, or at least, try to? Feel free to share your experiences!
Monday, January 1, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)