Long Live The King!

After 123 years we finally got a King!!! Happy King's Day!!!

Anything Goes

By popular demand, I'm reposting this as a separate entry:


So now you all won't have to dig through the old posts to listen to it:)

Homemade Muesli

You will need per portion:
1c milk
9 tbsp rolled oats
1/2 tbsp sugar
1/2 tbsp shredded coconut
mixed dried fruit to taste, cut

Mix all the ingredients together, cover and let stand overight. When you wake up, breakfast is ready and it doesn't need cooking.

Homemaking Is A Matter Of Conviction, Part2

Seeing that my previous post on this topic has attracted a lot of attention, I decided to write a sequel. Since it's raining I can't use my coffee break to sit outside reading a trashy novel anyway, so I could just as well do something productive instead:)

In her book "Fascinating Womanhood" Helen Andelin has a chapter called "The Feminine Role vs. The Working Wife", in which she discusses a number of situations where the wife may be justified in working. Those situations include husbands being disabled and compelling financial emergencies. That's about how I see it, too.

A sudden loss of income due to unemployment or sickness/disability can happen to anyone, but that's not your typical, everyday situation for many two-income couples. A lot of wives who work do it "to ease the pinch", as Mrs Andelin puts it, or to afford luxuries. That's what she says on the issue: "You may not have enough money to cover expenses. There are too many things you need and can't afford...you seek employment, perhaps with your husband's approval. The problem with getting a job is that it's not worth the price you pay...Instead of going to work, cut expenses: Move to a less expensive home, sell one car...buy clothes at second-hand shops, and in other ways be thrifty." (p.284, Bantam Books, 1992).

Whatever your level of income is, if you don't manage your finances well, you still may end up in debt. I'm not talking about mortgages or students' loans, but about consumer/credit card debts. It's very easy to overspend, and it doesn't have to be a huge sum at first, but if you overdraw your account every month just for a small sum of money, by the end of the year you will be in a serious trouble.

Another reason so many women work is the desire for luxuries. To quote FW again: "You may work for...the latest household equipment, new furniture...a better house, or better clothes. Your husband may encourage you to work to satisfy his taste for luxuries - a boat, swimming pool, or cabin in the mountains. Or you may want greater advantages for your children...Justified as these desires may seem, the sacrifice is too great. It's better to trim the luxuries." (idem).

It's interesting that it's often people with high income who complain about life being so expensive that they both have to work. It seems that a bus driver can afford for his wife to stay home, but a surgeon can't.

The way to financial success is the good money management. To quote Helen Andelin again: "If  your husband's income is low, you can be the key figure in the financial success of your family, being in a position to make him or break him. Families with low incomes sometimes live in more comfort than those with more, due to the skill of money management." (F.W., p.146, Bantam Books, 1992).

I think that it sums it all up quite nicely. Women used to be proud of their ability to stretch their husbands'  paychecks as far as they could and men used to be proud to be the breadwinners. I'm sure that this way of life is still possible for most people if they only would give it a try.

Homemaking Is A Matter Of Conviction

Homemaking is a matter of conviction to me. Contrary to what some people imagine about housewives being lazy rich women, our family is not wealthy, we are just average. The few luxuries which we enjoy we can only afford by the strict control of our overall spending.

During our marriage we have experienced financial problems and we have been in debt. Last time it happened I became determined that I would never let it happen again and it didn't, due to strict budgeting which I started practicing.

We solved our financial problems without me having to search for work outside home, not even part-time. We just learned to become more responsible and not to try to keep up with the Joneses. That's what the problem is with the folks nowadays, they are going above their means to try and compete with the people way above their league.

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry when I read discussions on the net where in all seriousness people declare that it was OK for a factory worker in the year 1900 to let his wife stay home with his six kids, because life had been so much cheaper, while now an educated professional simply can't afford a stay-at-home wife. I can't comprehend that someone can really be so stupid as to believe that this factory worker of more than hundred years ago had it easier than we do now.

Of course, the said factory worker didn't aspire to live in a villa, he didn't borrow 40.000 by the bank to buy a new car whenever he felt like it, he didn't consider it a necessity to go on vacation abroad three times a year and above all, he didn't think that by sending his wife to work outside home for the minimum wage he would acquire equal social standing with the company director (because of his wife being now a career woman and stuff, you know).

Don't you all find it strange that in poor countries there are less women working outside home that in the much more prosperous Western countries? I do. You see, it all simply depends on your value system. For me, having a traditional family and obeying God's commands for women is more important than driving a Mercedes and going on ski vacation every year.

In this life we all have a choice and we should accept the consequences of our choices. Nobody can have it all together, outside of a small selected circle of the very rich. Something will always have to give. There is no point in complaining about the times we live in or even worse, waiting for the government to fix things. If you are convicted about something, try to live according to your convictions. Where is the will, there is way.

The Traditional Family Roles

One of my favourite posts by Lady Lydia is this: Women At Home Save Men's Lives. Whether you agree with her nutritional advice or not, is not the point - the post stresses the importance of women staying home to take care of their family. Purely from the practical point of view, the traditional division of labour makes sense, as it allows the family to operate in a more efficient way.

Small children and babies need a lot of attention, but even when there are no small children in the family, someone still has to do the necessary shopping, cook the meals, wash the dishes, do the laundry, vaccuumclean etc etc. It's not for nothing that the wealthy career women hire full-time housekeepers and live in maids, because someone still has to run the house. It doesn't magically run itself.

Helen Andelin has a chapter on masculine and feminine roles in her book "Fascinating Womanhood", where she points out that these roles are of divine origin and that the woman "must nurture her young and run the household, to free her husband to function as the provider." (p.100, Bantam Books, 1992). She also points out that the division of labour works better than equality.

Contrary to what some people will say, a housewife is neither her husband's slave nor his oppressor. Her role is equally important to that of her husband, but different. Working in her own household, for the benefit of her family, doesn't make her dumb, either. In fact, home is the place where she can develop her talents. If you have some spare time, after your housework is accomplished, there is so much to do! You can read books, learn foreign languages, play some musical instrument, draw, sew, knit and crochet and so on and so forth. I think it was Tasha Tudor, who made a remark that the housewife can read Shakespeare while stirring jam - or listen to some classical music:

Meal Planning

Today I want to write about meal planning. The tradition in my country is to cook only one meal a day, as opposed to,  for instance, Frenchwomen who usually eat warm twice a day. It hasn't always been like this, though, and I sometimes serve warm lunches instead of sandwiches, and make cereal for breakfast, though my main consideration is always what to cook for dinner.

Whether you serve your meals hot or cold, there are still certain guidelines for what constitutes a real meal. Cheryl Mendelson writes at length on the topic in her book "Home Comforts", which I would recommend to everyone who wants to learn more about housekeeping. That's what she says, among other things: "Walk into almost any home or restaurant in this or any other Western country and you will observe that, with surprisingly few exceptions, what people consider a real meal is a triad comprising - at a minimum - one "meat" or other protein food, one starchy food, and one or more fruits or vegetables, depending on which meal it is." (Home Comforts, ed. of 2005, p. 49.)

She later gives examples of what is protein food (that would be various sorts of meat, fish, eggs, milk and milk products); starchy foods (foods consisting of grains or potatoes); fruits and vegetables, and points out that some vegetables can be used as a meat substitute because they contain more protein, for instance beans.

A 1950s cookbook which I encountered somewhere on the net, gave the following suggestions for basic meals: a minimal breakfast would consist of fruit, cereal with milk and bread and butter, lunch would include the main dish, vegetables, bread and butter and some fruit, and for dinner one should serve meat and potatoes, green or yellow vegetables, raw vegetables in the form of salad, bread and butter, and fruit. For abundant meals you should add egg or meat for breakfast, some form of dessert for lunch, appetizer and/or soup + dessert for dinner.

I'm not sure if people really used to eat like this in the 1950s but it seems rather excessive to me. For breakfast, we always eat fruit, but it would be either cereal with milk; or bread with butter and jam and a glass of milk. Lunch usually consists of sandwiches with cheese, meat, or egg and some raw vegetables. For dinner I practically always omit soup or appetizer, though on weekends we have some sort of the cocktail hour, and though I nearly always try to serve some sort of dessert, we seldom eat bread and butter at dinner.

I'd like to point out that a healthy diet is one with much variation in it, and that even with an eye on economising one shouldn't try to substitute protein foods with starchy ones. We need proteins, especially of the animal variety as they contain more essential amino acids than plant variety proteins, except for soy beans, which may present health problems of their own . A well-balanced diet will contain both plant and animal protein.  (Please keep in mind that I'm not a nutritionist and am just trying to provide some basic information. If you'd like to know more about which foods are healthier for you, please conduct your own research.)

Cheryl Mendelson further suggests learning to cook without using cookbooks which means that one has to learn some basic cooking techniques, and I second that. It's surely fun to try some new and complicated recipes now and then, but there are few housewives who can afford to spend the whole day experimenting in the kitchen, as they will have other things to attend to during the day besides cooking.

Mrs Mendelson's other advice is to be prepared to cook meals "off the shelf" if necessary and she gives an approximate list of foods which can be stored at home. It's interesting that just yesterday a commenter posted the link to a blog by the lady who due to her husband's loss of income, had for several months to feed her family using her pantry supplies (she has also menu suggestions on her site).

I, too have some foods stored at home, though by no means so much as the lady mentioned above (but then we don't have a garage to keep our supplies in:)), and will use it when we run out of something and there is no time to go to the store. It's also convenient when the money on your food budget is low for this week, or when you fall sick. There were days when I was unable to do my daily shopping due to illness and we survived on eating our supplies for a couple of days:)

The last thing I'd like to mention is that if you want to save money it makes sense to build your menues around foods which come on sale. Every time I get flyers from the major supermarkets I look what's on sale this week and plan my menu for the week accordingly. Though I like experimenting in the kitchen, I usually leave exotic recipes with expensive ingredients for special occasions. Well, I hope the above was helpful. Have a nice Lord's Day!

On Chivalry

Chivalry seems to be a hot topic nowadays, since it's being discussed on blog after blog. People tend to get quite agitated, and the discussions often deteriorate in a sort of a flame war with (mostly) women accusing men of not living up to a chivalrous ideal, while men defend themselves by saying that (most) modern women don't deserve any special consideration at all.

 Further, a lot of commenters seem to be confused about what exactly does the word "chivalry" mean. When asked to give an example of chivalrous behaviour, they will usually point to Titanic with men surrendering their seats in life boats to the ladies, or start talking about opening the doors for women and the like.

Obviously, it's impossible to discuss something without first agreeing on the definition so I again turned to my 1992 Longman and that's what it said: chivalry 1 (in the Middle Ages) the beliefs or practices of noble soldiers (knights) as a group 2 the qualities (such as bravery, honour, generosity, and kindness to the weak and poor) which this system aimed at developing

Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of 1996 defines chivalry in the following way: 1. the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor and dexterity in arms. 2. the rules and customs of medieval knighthood. 3. the medieval system or institution of knighthood. 4. a group of knights. 5. gallant warriors or gentlemen: fair ladies and noble chivalry. 

The first thing which we can deduct from these definitions is that chivalry is something which pertains to men (warriors and gentlemen) so while it's possible for a woman to perform a noble deed, it would be wrong to call her behaviour chivalrous.

The second point is that chivalry as such was an honour code which was not specifically about women, but rather about how a warrior should behave. In one of my previous posts  I touched on this topic by linking to the Knights' Code Of Chivalry , which I now want to quote in full:

To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
To protect the weak and defenceless
To give succour to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honour and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honour of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honour of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe

As you can see, women are only specifically mentioned once. The chivalrous ideal was not about opening doors for ladies, but about behaving honourably and doing your duty to God and Fatherland. Since it was an ideal enforced by upper class men on upper class men, it's logical that not everybody subscribed to it, and that  every epoch had its fair amount of cowards, cheats and scoundrels.

This takes me to my next point. When a certain ideal is upheld in society it doesn't mean that 100% of the population will subscribe to it and live according to it. The ideal for women in the 1950s was a domestic goddess and yet many married women worked. The modern ideal is an empowered career woman and yet I know plenty of housewives. It doesn't mean, however, that we should have no ideals or standards at all, only that we should be realistic in our expectations of our fellow men.

 As society became more democratic in Victorian times, the chivalrous ideal spread through the middle and lower classes which probably led to the Titanic phenomenon. Medieval times are too far removed from us anyway to try and copy them, so when people talk about chivalry they mostly mean the Victorian ideal of it, hence the Titanic reference. However, is it realistic to expect that this ideal of men voluntarily sacrificing their lives for women could be upheld in our society?

To answer it we should first decide why men were expected to sacrifice for women. Is it because women were considered to be more deserving or more valuable? No, it was because women by law, custom and tradition were considered weaker and the original knight code mentioned protecting the weak and defenceless. Some conservatives seem to have forgotten it, but feminists never do hence their incessant shrieking about benevolent sexism.

Nowadays we live in the times when the law and custom say that women are equals of men. They have equal political rights. If they marry they are not considered legally to be under their husband's authority. They can join the army. Movie after movie portrays them besting the men at every endeavour. They are more often shown with a machine gun in their hands than with a baby. It's obvious for everyone that in such  moral climate it's utterly nonsensical to expect men as a whole to subscribe to the idea of sacrificing their lives for random women.

We can't have it both ways. Either women are equal to men, or they are fragile beings in need of male protection in which case they should surrender their political rights and equality before the law. This said, since I personally don't believe in equality I think that the chivalrous ideal is a noble one and individual men could still subscribe to it, but it is unrealistic to expect that an egalitarian society as a whole will.

The last point which I'd like to make is that chivalry was/is a moral code specifically for men and it was enforced by men. Women can't force men to become chivalrous, but they can inspire them. That's what Helen Andelin says about it in Fascinating Womanhood: "Men only feel a sense of duty to protect women who need their masculine care and protection...To awaken chivalry we must return to femininity. We must stop doing the masculine things and become the gentle, tender, dependent women we were designed to be, women who need masculine care and protection. When we do, men will delight in offering their chivalry." (P. 133, Bantam Books, 1992.)

I say amen to that.

...And Something To Wear

Last week I finally finished my skirt. Here is how it looks on me:

It's the first time in my life that I made a skirt or any item of clothing with a zipper, my previous attempts at sewing all included back ties and elastic waists. The success made me rather ambitious, so that I'm planning to try this one for my next project:

I have already found some nice fabric at the market and hope to start working at it next week.

I'd also like to draw your attention to a very interesting site called Hearth And Home which has lots of great Victorian recipes adjusted for modern times (thanks, Shaolin!). It also has links to old housekeeping books.

In other news, I finally read all articles in Delicious and chose the recipes I'm going to try. The magazine had a hilarious article about some Danish guys who experiment with eating insects, wood chips and pine tree needles. They have been trying to promote the wholesomeness of such diet (containing only local ingredients!) to the broad Danish public, but rather unsuccessfully, though I'm told you can order desserts with live ants on them in the most expensive restaurant of Denmark (a mental note: never to go there!).

On the other hand, if the economic crisis continues, may be we all finally discover the health benefits of eating pine needles, who knows!!!