“Women firefighters actually raised concern about what they have
perceived as elevated rates of breast cancer among their cohort in San
Francisco,” said Jessica Trowbridge, a graduate student at UC Berkeley
and lead author of the paper. “As a team, we decided to conduct an
exposure study looking at chemicals that are potential breast
carcinogens.”...
San Francisco is ideal location for this investigation because it has
more women firefighters than any other urban fire department in the
country. Women make up approximately 15% of the San Francisco fire
force, compared to about 5% nationwide. This is due, in part, to 1980s litigation and a consent decree that encouraged the department to hire more women and people of color.
“Women firefighters have benefitted from these well-paid, very
honorable professions and now are facing similar concerns about the
impacts on their health that studies have demonstrated in men,”
Morello-Frosch said.
Women firefighters face high exposure to toxic ‘forever chemicals’
Someone somewhere compared modern Western society to a demented old relative constantly trying to hang himself. You stop him once, you stop him twice then you start thinking whether you should even bother...
Saturday, February 29, 2020
Thursday, February 27, 2020
A Decadent Chocolate Cake
As you can see, I got rid of the layers and the filling, cut on the sugar significantly and changed a couple of other things, too, so you could probably call it a healthier version, though it's still quite chocolatey, so to say:)
For the cake, I used:
3/4c soft butter
ab 1c sugar
2 eggs
1 1/2 tsp vanilla extract
3 squares dark chocolate (85% cacao)
1 1/2c spelt, 1/2 c wholewheat and 1c white flour
1 1/2 tsp baking soda
3/4 tsp salt
1c buttermilk + 1/2c water
For the frosting, you'll need:
1c whipping cream (30%)
7squares dark chocolate (see above)
1/4c butter, cubed
Cream butter and sugar, then beat in eggs and vanilla. Stir in melted chocolate. In another bowl, combine flour, baking soda and salt, add to the chocolate mixture alternatively with buttermilk and water. Pour into a baking pan, bake at ab. 175*C (350*F) for +/- 35 min or until done, cool.
While the cake is cooling, prepare frosting. Bring the cream to a boil, then remove from heat and dissolve chocolate and butter in it, stirring constantly. Transfer to a bowl and cool till spreading consistency (in the fridge for food safety), then frost the cake and let it set. Enjoy.
(Won't keep indefinitely and should always be refrigerated).
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
Spring Fashions
I simply had to share this cute little dress with you:
Here is the close-up of the collar:
And of the pattern:
Isn't it a darling?:)
Here is the close-up of the collar:
Isn't it a darling?:)
Saturday, February 22, 2020
Amazing Seniors
This is Britain, yes! in a positive sense: a 77 year old guy fights off a would-be robber:
The man pushes back the young lad, then throws up his fists and clocks him right in the jaw.
Be sure to watch the video, it's quite inspiring! It proves that you can be older and still in a decent shape.
The man pushes back the young lad, then throws up his fists and clocks him right in the jaw.
Be sure to watch the video, it's quite inspiring! It proves that you can be older and still in a decent shape.
Friday, February 21, 2020
Is This Why Modern Marriages Don't Work?
A rather interesting take:
Two income marriages aren't monogamous
To quote:
A woman with a job is provided for by the job, that is the husband. The man is the 2nd husband, it is not a monogamous marriage.
Two income marriages aren't monogamous
To quote:
A woman with a job is provided for by the job, that is the husband. The man is the 2nd husband, it is not a monogamous marriage.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Watching TV Gives You Cancer
And other things.
We truly have a cancer epidemic in the West. While it's difficult to pinpoint precise reasons why someone gets it, there are well-known risk factors, and any recent success in fighting this deadly disease could probably be contributed more to the awareness campaigns promoting healthier lifestyle than any ground-breaking treatments , as this article shows:
The rise and fall of cancer deaths track the rise and fall of smoking, with a lag of a couple of decades. Cigarette consumption in the U.S. more than doubled between 1930 and the early 1970s and has fallen steadily since then, according to the nonprofit site Our World in Data. Smoking raises the risk of many cancers but especially of lung cancer, which is by far the biggest killer, accounting for more deaths than colon, breast and prostate cancer combined.
Yes, it's not only about lung cancer, either:
Smoking causes cancers of the lung, esophagus, larynx, mouth, throat, kidney, bladder, liver, pancreas, stomach, cervix, colon, and rectum, as well as acute myeloid leukemia (1–3).
The risks are higher if smoking is combined with alcohol consumption, but alcohol has quite a reputation of its own:
Alcohol use has been linked with cancers of the:
Alcohol may also increase the risk of cancers of the pancreas and stomach.
There appears to be the link to prostate cancer, too, and to melanoma, the deadliest of skin cancers. Still think it's cool to be a wine aunt or wine mom? What about alcohol and heart health? Grape juice appears to provide many of the same benefits:
Red wine is often praised in the media for its purported health benefits. But turns out, you don't necessarily have to drink alcohol to benefit from the health-boosting properties of red wine polyphenols: Grape juice made from red, purple, or other dark-skinned grapes contains those very same polyphenols!
The next huge risk factor is being obese and overweight. Big may be beautiful to some people, but healthy it is not:
here is consistent evidence that higher amounts of body fat are associated with increased risks of a number of cancers (6), including:
Most impressive, don't you think so?
Kinda makes you want to hit this treadmill, doesn't it? But wait, exercise alone won't help, if you are generally sedentary, as sedentary lifestyle is another risk factor (with watching TV being the unhealthiest activity of them all):
Sedentary behavior was associated with a 24% greater risk of developing colon cancer, a 32% higher risk of endometrial cancer, and a 21% increased risk of lung cancer. When the researchers delved deeper into different types of sedentary habits, they found that watching TV was linked to a 54% higher risk of colon cancer and a 66% greater risk of endometrial cancer. For every additional two hours that participants spent sitting during the day, their risk of colon cancer rose by 8%, and their risk of endometrial cancer went up by 10%. They didn’t find a link between sedentary behavior and other types of cancer, including breast, prostate, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
It also increases the risk of kidney and bladder cancer.
Contrary to some paleo claims, sugar on its own doesn't cause cancer, while processed meat does increase the risk modestly (according to a European study, I think it was Oxford EPIC study, the risk appears to raise when you consume more than 20g processed or 160g of red meat a day, with no risks attached to fish and poultry but I don't have the link any more), however, there is some link between sugar and cancer:
Consuming too many sugar calories can lead to obesity and high insulin levels, which would contribute to your increased cancer risk. Cut back on sugar-loaded foods such as candy, baked goods, sugary cereals, and sodas to reduce your cancer risk. Balance your diet with plant foods, fish, and whole grains—parts of a healthy diet that have been linked to a lower risk of cancer.
There appears to be no one magic ingredient in your food which you just have to exclude not to get sick (outside alcohol, that it), it's more about overall healthy eating patterns and staying lean and fit.
And the last but not least, promiscuity:
Experts found older women who had ten or more lifetime lovers were 91 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with the disease, compared to those who only had one.
Men aren't off the hook, either:
And promiscuous men saw their chances of a tumour rocket by 69 per cent.
So to sum it up, the current research highlights 4 major risk factors for getting most types of cancer: smoking, drinking, being overweight/obese and sedentary lifestyle. Promiscuity and unhealthy diet contribute, too. There are of course, many more like stress, exposure to dangerous chemicals, in some cases family history, but most of those things are outside our control, unlike those factors listed above. Taking good care of your and your family's health is a good priority for everyone, so I hope this helps!
P.S. Here is the link highlighting the dangers of second-hand smoke. Among other things, it's linked to some cancers in children, like brain cancer. I seriously don't get it that some people still keep doing it...
We truly have a cancer epidemic in the West. While it's difficult to pinpoint precise reasons why someone gets it, there are well-known risk factors, and any recent success in fighting this deadly disease could probably be contributed more to the awareness campaigns promoting healthier lifestyle than any ground-breaking treatments , as this article shows:
The rise and fall of cancer deaths track the rise and fall of smoking, with a lag of a couple of decades. Cigarette consumption in the U.S. more than doubled between 1930 and the early 1970s and has fallen steadily since then, according to the nonprofit site Our World in Data. Smoking raises the risk of many cancers but especially of lung cancer, which is by far the biggest killer, accounting for more deaths than colon, breast and prostate cancer combined.
Yes, it's not only about lung cancer, either:
Smoking causes cancers of the lung, esophagus, larynx, mouth, throat, kidney, bladder, liver, pancreas, stomach, cervix, colon, and rectum, as well as acute myeloid leukemia (1–3).
The risks are higher if smoking is combined with alcohol consumption, but alcohol has quite a reputation of its own:
Alcohol use has been linked with cancers of the:
Alcohol may also increase the risk of cancers of the pancreas and stomach.
There appears to be the link to prostate cancer, too, and to melanoma, the deadliest of skin cancers. Still think it's cool to be a wine aunt or wine mom? What about alcohol and heart health? Grape juice appears to provide many of the same benefits:
Red wine is often praised in the media for its purported health benefits. But turns out, you don't necessarily have to drink alcohol to benefit from the health-boosting properties of red wine polyphenols: Grape juice made from red, purple, or other dark-skinned grapes contains those very same polyphenols!
The next huge risk factor is being obese and overweight. Big may be beautiful to some people, but healthy it is not:
here is consistent evidence that higher amounts of body fat are associated with increased risks of a number of cancers (6), including:
- Endometrial cancer
- Esophageal adenocarcinoma
- Gastric cardia cancer
- Liver cancer
- Kidney cancer
- Multiple myeloma
- Meningioma( brain tumor)
- Pancreatic cancer.
- Colorectal cancer
- Gallbladder cancer
- Breast cancer
- Thyroid cancer
Most impressive, don't you think so?
Kinda makes you want to hit this treadmill, doesn't it? But wait, exercise alone won't help, if you are generally sedentary, as sedentary lifestyle is another risk factor (with watching TV being the unhealthiest activity of them all):
Sedentary behavior was associated with a 24% greater risk of developing colon cancer, a 32% higher risk of endometrial cancer, and a 21% increased risk of lung cancer. When the researchers delved deeper into different types of sedentary habits, they found that watching TV was linked to a 54% higher risk of colon cancer and a 66% greater risk of endometrial cancer. For every additional two hours that participants spent sitting during the day, their risk of colon cancer rose by 8%, and their risk of endometrial cancer went up by 10%. They didn’t find a link between sedentary behavior and other types of cancer, including breast, prostate, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
It also increases the risk of kidney and bladder cancer.
Contrary to some paleo claims, sugar on its own doesn't cause cancer, while processed meat does increase the risk modestly (according to a European study, I think it was Oxford EPIC study, the risk appears to raise when you consume more than 20g processed or 160g of red meat a day, with no risks attached to fish and poultry but I don't have the link any more), however, there is some link between sugar and cancer:
Consuming too many sugar calories can lead to obesity and high insulin levels, which would contribute to your increased cancer risk. Cut back on sugar-loaded foods such as candy, baked goods, sugary cereals, and sodas to reduce your cancer risk. Balance your diet with plant foods, fish, and whole grains—parts of a healthy diet that have been linked to a lower risk of cancer.
There appears to be no one magic ingredient in your food which you just have to exclude not to get sick (outside alcohol, that it), it's more about overall healthy eating patterns and staying lean and fit.
And the last but not least, promiscuity:
Experts found older women who had ten or more lifetime lovers were 91 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with the disease, compared to those who only had one.
Men aren't off the hook, either:
And promiscuous men saw their chances of a tumour rocket by 69 per cent.
So to sum it up, the current research highlights 4 major risk factors for getting most types of cancer: smoking, drinking, being overweight/obese and sedentary lifestyle. Promiscuity and unhealthy diet contribute, too. There are of course, many more like stress, exposure to dangerous chemicals, in some cases family history, but most of those things are outside our control, unlike those factors listed above. Taking good care of your and your family's health is a good priority for everyone, so I hope this helps!
P.S. Here is the link highlighting the dangers of second-hand smoke. Among other things, it's linked to some cancers in children, like brain cancer. I seriously don't get it that some people still keep doing it...
Monday, February 17, 2020
Is This The Real Reason They Push Stay-At-Home Dads?
What is behind the falling testosterone levels of Western men? The linked article cites pollution and plastics, but could it be something else? Like (what previously was considered) unmanly behaviour?
There is data showing that new fathers exhibit testosterone drop, which gets worse if they spend too much time caring for the children:
The study also revealed that testosterone levels were lowest in men who reported spending the greatest amount of time spent caring for their children.
Remember all these complaints we heard several years ago from women who said their husbands were turning into kitchen *itches from doing too much housework? Well, here you have scientific proof that it's true. Modern women too often want to have their cake and eat it, too. First, they want a hot guy who will commit, and what do we find out: The researchers found that men with the highest levels of testosterone were more likely to become committed partners and fathers...
Yet, if after the child is born, the man exhibits the behaviour which was normal only a couple of decades ago, that is, not rushing to change the diapers, he may expect scandals and eventual divorce: Other studies have found that men with high testosterone levels are more likely to have marital problems and get divorced.
While, on the other hand, if he "does his fair share" or even worse, takes time off work to help, his testosterone levels drop, he becomes unattractive, s*x dries up, and the result is, well, you guessed it, a divorce. D*mned if you and d*mned if you don't sort of a situation.
Another gem from the article:
In one experiment, men with higher testosterone levels felt less sympathy and less need to respond to the sound of a crying baby.
Well, guess what, may be it's because a normal man isn't programmed by God/nature to take care of a baby? The researchers, though, being modern Americans, have come to another conclusion:
"There's a growing awareness among anthropologists that raising human children is a group activity and that fathers are biologically wired to help out."
It takes a village, and all that:
the finding upends the classic view that men evolved solely to be hunters and providers
Because I'm sure that when a baby was born in the hunter-gatherer communities, the father just took several months' leave of all his hunting activities and simply stayed home helping nurse the baby, and all this time they were eating what exactly? Or was the rest of the tribe feeding them? And we have examples of a successful civilisation functioning this way where exactly?
As Christians, we know that the pattern for the family is very clear from the Scriptures, but since secular folks love their science and comparing humans to animals, here comes: a male of the species is often territorial. Tomcats, for instance, will fight for their territory and their right to breed with a female. However, a neutered male cat will have less urge to fight, that's why neutering is recommended.
Human males are or used to be territorial, too, and would fight to death defending their women and children from another tribe. Modern low testosterone men couldn't care less, as we all can plainly see with our own eyes. In nature, the lion who wins over another lion, will kill his cubs and breed with his female, so that his blood line will survive. Guess what's going to happen to Western males if they don't wake up?
Elites which promote these things aren't on your side, guys.
There is data showing that new fathers exhibit testosterone drop, which gets worse if they spend too much time caring for the children:
The study also revealed that testosterone levels were lowest in men who reported spending the greatest amount of time spent caring for their children.
Remember all these complaints we heard several years ago from women who said their husbands were turning into kitchen *itches from doing too much housework? Well, here you have scientific proof that it's true. Modern women too often want to have their cake and eat it, too. First, they want a hot guy who will commit, and what do we find out: The researchers found that men with the highest levels of testosterone were more likely to become committed partners and fathers...
Yet, if after the child is born, the man exhibits the behaviour which was normal only a couple of decades ago, that is, not rushing to change the diapers, he may expect scandals and eventual divorce: Other studies have found that men with high testosterone levels are more likely to have marital problems and get divorced.
While, on the other hand, if he "does his fair share" or even worse, takes time off work to help, his testosterone levels drop, he becomes unattractive, s*x dries up, and the result is, well, you guessed it, a divorce. D*mned if you and d*mned if you don't sort of a situation.
Another gem from the article:
In one experiment, men with higher testosterone levels felt less sympathy and less need to respond to the sound of a crying baby.
Well, guess what, may be it's because a normal man isn't programmed by God/nature to take care of a baby? The researchers, though, being modern Americans, have come to another conclusion:
"There's a growing awareness among anthropologists that raising human children is a group activity and that fathers are biologically wired to help out."
It takes a village, and all that:
the finding upends the classic view that men evolved solely to be hunters and providers
Because I'm sure that when a baby was born in the hunter-gatherer communities, the father just took several months' leave of all his hunting activities and simply stayed home helping nurse the baby, and all this time they were eating what exactly? Or was the rest of the tribe feeding them? And we have examples of a successful civilisation functioning this way where exactly?
As Christians, we know that the pattern for the family is very clear from the Scriptures, but since secular folks love their science and comparing humans to animals, here comes: a male of the species is often territorial. Tomcats, for instance, will fight for their territory and their right to breed with a female. However, a neutered male cat will have less urge to fight, that's why neutering is recommended.
Human males are or used to be territorial, too, and would fight to death defending their women and children from another tribe. Modern low testosterone men couldn't care less, as we all can plainly see with our own eyes. In nature, the lion who wins over another lion, will kill his cubs and breed with his female, so that his blood line will survive. Guess what's going to happen to Western males if they don't wake up?
Elites which promote these things aren't on your side, guys.
Friday, February 14, 2020
Happy Valentine's Day
Happy Anniversary to me (and my dear husband) and a very happy Valentine's Day to all of my readers!!!
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Veganism Is Dangerous For Your Health
A testimony from an ex-vegan plus a great discussion/resources:
My break-up with veganism
Vegans remind me of the kind of people who in the Middle Ages would flog themselves as a punishment for their sins. (For the record, I find "carnivore diet" fans as in "eat nothing but meat 3 times a day equallyretarded weird). You could probably have a more or less balanced vegetarian diet (as in lacto-ovo or eating fish occasionally) but most of us need some animal proteins from meat to function properly.
A healthy diet is a balanced one and would include veggies/fruit, some dairy, eggs, meat, fish and healthy carbs (not a fan of low carbs, either). Just avoid processed food as much as possible and especially sugary drinks and bakery items and be physically active, and you should be OK.
My break-up with veganism
Vegans remind me of the kind of people who in the Middle Ages would flog themselves as a punishment for their sins. (For the record, I find "carnivore diet" fans as in "eat nothing but meat 3 times a day equally
A healthy diet is a balanced one and would include veggies/fruit, some dairy, eggs, meat, fish and healthy carbs (not a fan of low carbs, either). Just avoid processed food as much as possible and especially sugary drinks and bakery items and be physically active, and you should be OK.
Monday, February 10, 2020
Eating Organic For 20$ A Week
Another great video from my favourite housewife:
It's truly amazing how she keeps coming up with these menus and recipes which are budget and still quite balanced and nutritious. So inspiring!
It's truly amazing how she keeps coming up with these menus and recipes which are budget and still quite balanced and nutritious. So inspiring!
Saturday, February 8, 2020
Thug Life
is the name of lots of videos featuring cats, like this one. (Warning: some swearing in the end) Yesterday I witnessed my own version of it, starring Finn
(foto: Finnje in nature)
vs another cat. When I looked outside the window they were in the middle of the quarrel, snarling at each other. The strange cat decided he'd had enough and walked away. Finn waited for some time, then ran after him, jumped on his back, hit him and quickly ran away before his rival could retaliate, taking cover behind a car.
Well, I guess all is fair in love and war:)
vs another cat. When I looked outside the window they were in the middle of the quarrel, snarling at each other. The strange cat decided he'd had enough and walked away. Finn waited for some time, then ran after him, jumped on his back, hit him and quickly ran away before his rival could retaliate, taking cover behind a car.
Well, I guess all is fair in love and war:)
Friday, February 7, 2020
Why I Am Not Triggered By Greta
Lots of right-wingers appear to be really upset with the latest progressive prodigy and her antics and take them quite seriously, yet it's my opinion that those who support the traditional way of life (not necessarily "conservatives" if you know what I mean) have no dog in this fight.
While I don't really buy into CO2 driven climate change doctrine (climate changes all the time, we don't really know what causes it), I also don't think that the environmental issues are the domain of the left. All decent folks should be worried about the pollution of our oceans with plastic, deforestation, disappearance of insects, poisonous chemicals used in agriculture etc etc. Yes, "climate plan" sounds rather ridiculous, but if it means planting more trees, I don't mind.
There is an Eastern proverb which says, "let the infidel school the unbeliever" and that's how I feel about this whole controversy. It's difficult for me to sympathise with the other side of the debate, the one which fuels modern consumerism. As a housewife, for years I have been doing many of the things which progressives insist are so good for the environment. I last took a flight 8 years ago and it was inside Europe (1 hour). We never go on overseas vacations in some exotic lands.
I walk, bicycle or use public transportation since my husband takes our family car to work every day. My thermostat is set to 18*C during the day (used to be 17 and would go down again if the prices rise significantly) and 15*C at night and only goes to 19*C during the weekends and after 5 p.m. and though we own a small portable air conditioner it's only turned on when the temperature downstairs raises higher than 26*C. It's always turned out at night and we don't have air conditioning in the bedrooms. Our house is old but well isolated, I try to save water, I have a community garden, you name it.
My friends who are housewives live in a similar manner. Collectively, we have been looked down upon and mocked by the people who consider it a necessity of life to own a 7 bedroom home for a family of 4 where they proceed to pave the garden with tiles because they have no time to maintain it, where the mother goes to work so that they can park 5 cars outside (and we have an awful problem with parking lots in the cities), by those who take luxury vacations 4 times a year flying to far away destinations and so on and so forth.
Along comes Greta and starts scolding them for their environment-unfriendly ways. Am I supposed to feel pity for them? It's now my turn to virtue-signal, as I'm doing my best to live a "sustainable lifestyle". I don't contribute to traffic jams and air pollution by driving to work every day , and to deforestation by insisting on owning a villa in what used to be a nature reserve. I don't use tons of natgas to warm my mansion. I recycle by buying second hand clothes and reusing things I get from my friends.
So whatever, let them fight it out between themselves. I couldn't care less and so should you.
While I don't really buy into CO2 driven climate change doctrine (climate changes all the time, we don't really know what causes it), I also don't think that the environmental issues are the domain of the left. All decent folks should be worried about the pollution of our oceans with plastic, deforestation, disappearance of insects, poisonous chemicals used in agriculture etc etc. Yes, "climate plan" sounds rather ridiculous, but if it means planting more trees, I don't mind.
There is an Eastern proverb which says, "let the infidel school the unbeliever" and that's how I feel about this whole controversy. It's difficult for me to sympathise with the other side of the debate, the one which fuels modern consumerism. As a housewife, for years I have been doing many of the things which progressives insist are so good for the environment. I last took a flight 8 years ago and it was inside Europe (1 hour). We never go on overseas vacations in some exotic lands.
I walk, bicycle or use public transportation since my husband takes our family car to work every day. My thermostat is set to 18*C during the day (used to be 17 and would go down again if the prices rise significantly) and 15*C at night and only goes to 19*C during the weekends and after 5 p.m. and though we own a small portable air conditioner it's only turned on when the temperature downstairs raises higher than 26*C. It's always turned out at night and we don't have air conditioning in the bedrooms. Our house is old but well isolated, I try to save water, I have a community garden, you name it.
My friends who are housewives live in a similar manner. Collectively, we have been looked down upon and mocked by the people who consider it a necessity of life to own a 7 bedroom home for a family of 4 where they proceed to pave the garden with tiles because they have no time to maintain it, where the mother goes to work so that they can park 5 cars outside (and we have an awful problem with parking lots in the cities), by those who take luxury vacations 4 times a year flying to far away destinations and so on and so forth.
Along comes Greta and starts scolding them for their environment-unfriendly ways. Am I supposed to feel pity for them? It's now my turn to virtue-signal, as I'm doing my best to live a "sustainable lifestyle". I don't contribute to traffic jams and air pollution by driving to work every day , and to deforestation by insisting on owning a villa in what used to be a nature reserve. I don't use tons of natgas to warm my mansion. I recycle by buying second hand clothes and reusing things I get from my friends.
So whatever, let them fight it out between themselves. I couldn't care less and so should you.
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
What Marital Submission Is
and what it isn't. I think she did a really good job defending the traditional marriage:
UPDATE
For my American readers: The video is apparently property of a British TV company and unfortunately, they chose to restrict it. I couldn't find a transcript of it anywhere on the lady's site, but here is the link to an article where she basically explains her position, with a bit more detail:
If you don't care reading the whole of it (it's long) here is a highlight:
Our laundry is always done, the fridge is always full, dinner is always on the table - and each of us know where we stand. He ‘submits’ the decisions concerning the finer details to me, and trusts that I will complete them to the best of my ability.
Equally, I submit to him the larger details which concern the decisions which impact our family on a larger scale. We always discuss things together of course, and my voice is heard - I’m not a dimwit. Sometimes the decision we reach is one ‘decided’ by me, but I submit to the fact that my husband is always in the immediate firing line for anything that happens to our family. The buck stops with him at the end of the day, and I’m happy for the “rescue” from some of life’s tougher things (if you want to put it into Disney speak).
I'm proud to be a traditional housewife
I'll just add a couple of my own thoughts: there are some strange new submission theories floating around which make the wife a slave of her husband. That's not how the things used to work when most marriages were "traditional". Wifely submission and obedience was always tied to the husband's responsibility as a breadwinner. For instance, he could have to move for his job and the law compelled the wife to follow him, she had to submit in this case because otherwise he could lose his income and not be able to feed his family, etc etc.
This model simply won't work in the situation when the wife is a primary breadwinner or works full time or very close to it and earns a similar amount of money. Sorry, but the husband can't just choose one day to stay home for no reason at all, send his wife into the workforce full time and then expect her to be a sweet obedient little Suzy Homemaker when she comes home.
Marital obedience also doesn't mean that the wife has no right to express her opinion or that the husband has to micromanage her daily life or that she can't take any decisions on her own. When you run the household and take care of the kids, you'll have to take decisions every day and you can't always bother your husband about every little thing.
Yet, exactly as she explains it in her video, you won't take any major financial decision without your husband's permission since he is the one responsible for the well-being of his family. Yet, since he delegates the finer details of keeping the house to his wife, he will have, for instance, to "submit" to her choices what to eat for dinner tonight, though, of course, a good wife will listen to his preferences. Etc etc. That's how it supposed to work in a normal family.
UPDATE
For my American readers: The video is apparently property of a British TV company and unfortunately, they chose to restrict it. I couldn't find a transcript of it anywhere on the lady's site, but here is the link to an article where she basically explains her position, with a bit more detail:
If you don't care reading the whole of it (it's long) here is a highlight:
Our laundry is always done, the fridge is always full, dinner is always on the table - and each of us know where we stand. He ‘submits’ the decisions concerning the finer details to me, and trusts that I will complete them to the best of my ability.
Equally, I submit to him the larger details which concern the decisions which impact our family on a larger scale. We always discuss things together of course, and my voice is heard - I’m not a dimwit. Sometimes the decision we reach is one ‘decided’ by me, but I submit to the fact that my husband is always in the immediate firing line for anything that happens to our family. The buck stops with him at the end of the day, and I’m happy for the “rescue” from some of life’s tougher things (if you want to put it into Disney speak).
I'm proud to be a traditional housewife
I'll just add a couple of my own thoughts: there are some strange new submission theories floating around which make the wife a slave of her husband. That's not how the things used to work when most marriages were "traditional". Wifely submission and obedience was always tied to the husband's responsibility as a breadwinner. For instance, he could have to move for his job and the law compelled the wife to follow him, she had to submit in this case because otherwise he could lose his income and not be able to feed his family, etc etc.
This model simply won't work in the situation when the wife is a primary breadwinner or works full time or very close to it and earns a similar amount of money. Sorry, but the husband can't just choose one day to stay home for no reason at all, send his wife into the workforce full time and then expect her to be a sweet obedient little Suzy Homemaker when she comes home.
Marital obedience also doesn't mean that the wife has no right to express her opinion or that the husband has to micromanage her daily life or that she can't take any decisions on her own. When you run the household and take care of the kids, you'll have to take decisions every day and you can't always bother your husband about every little thing.
Yet, exactly as she explains it in her video, you won't take any major financial decision without your husband's permission since he is the one responsible for the well-being of his family. Yet, since he delegates the finer details of keeping the house to his wife, he will have, for instance, to "submit" to her choices what to eat for dinner tonight, though, of course, a good wife will listen to his preferences. Etc etc. That's how it supposed to work in a normal family.
Saturday, February 1, 2020
Should We Let Our Children Follow Their Dreams?
There is a theory going around that parents (or grandparents) should just let their children do whatever and never criticise their decisions even when they are convinced that these decisions are wrong, because "you must let your children follow their dreams".
Some of the more ardent proponents of this theory would tell you, for instance, that you can't forbid a kid of say 13 drink alcohol, or have s8x even though the law (!) still says it's forbidden and the parents or legal guardians are supposed to enforce it.
The majority wouldn't probably go that far but they fully agree that when your child becomes a legal adult you should just shut up and never try to correct his behaviour in any way. That's simply ridiculous. Your child (or even a grandchild) is your flesh and blood, the product of the generations of ancestors and you as parents have sacrificed a lot and have a huge investment in his spiritual, emotional and material well-being.
When they just hit 18, they mostly still live at home (at least, over here) and are unable to support themselves, and as long as they are subsidised by their parents, those parents absolutely have a right to interfere into their life.
Of course, when your child is say, 30, and lives separately, you aren't responsible for his actions any more and your influence is very limited, but still if he or she chooses a wrong path, isn't it your Christian duty to at least try and talk to him? I mean, people would go out and preach to drug addicts or pr*stitutes, who are total strangers, isn't it only logical to do the same for your own child?
Those who tell you that you should just cut your children loose and always support their choices even when you find them morally repugnant, don't have either yours or your children's best interests in mind.
P.S. I am very well aware that while some parents are too permissive, others would go so far as to even try to ruin their children's marriages for petty reasons. I don't mean to say it's OK, but if you see your grown up child falling into sin isn't it only natural and logical to try and warn him? Even if he doesn't listen, you can comfort yourself with the thought that you've done what you could.
As for marriages, it's my opinion that the parents should absolutely voice their thoughts about their children's choice of the spouse but once married, even if you disagree with the choice, you should leave them alone since divorce is a really really huge sin. You don't want to have THAT on your conscience.
Some of the more ardent proponents of this theory would tell you, for instance, that you can't forbid a kid of say 13 drink alcohol, or have s8x even though the law (!) still says it's forbidden and the parents or legal guardians are supposed to enforce it.
The majority wouldn't probably go that far but they fully agree that when your child becomes a legal adult you should just shut up and never try to correct his behaviour in any way. That's simply ridiculous. Your child (or even a grandchild) is your flesh and blood, the product of the generations of ancestors and you as parents have sacrificed a lot and have a huge investment in his spiritual, emotional and material well-being.
When they just hit 18, they mostly still live at home (at least, over here) and are unable to support themselves, and as long as they are subsidised by their parents, those parents absolutely have a right to interfere into their life.
Of course, when your child is say, 30, and lives separately, you aren't responsible for his actions any more and your influence is very limited, but still if he or she chooses a wrong path, isn't it your Christian duty to at least try and talk to him? I mean, people would go out and preach to drug addicts or pr*stitutes, who are total strangers, isn't it only logical to do the same for your own child?
Those who tell you that you should just cut your children loose and always support their choices even when you find them morally repugnant, don't have either yours or your children's best interests in mind.
P.S. I am very well aware that while some parents are too permissive, others would go so far as to even try to ruin their children's marriages for petty reasons. I don't mean to say it's OK, but if you see your grown up child falling into sin isn't it only natural and logical to try and warn him? Even if he doesn't listen, you can comfort yourself with the thought that you've done what you could.
As for marriages, it's my opinion that the parents should absolutely voice their thoughts about their children's choice of the spouse but once married, even if you disagree with the choice, you should leave them alone since divorce is a really really huge sin. You don't want to have THAT on your conscience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)