According to the Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture which I own, integrity is strength and firmness of character or principle; honesty, trustworthiness and also a state of being whole and undivided; completeness.
Integrity basically means not compromising your principles, not engaging in unholy alliances and practising what you preach. It is a quality of character solely missed nowadays, and unfortunately, not only by unbelievers.
The Bible warns Christians not be unequally yoked because there can be nothing in common between light and darkness. There can be no compromise between a Christian and a hedonistic, nihilistic post-modern world view and there can also be nothing in common between traditional Western Christianity and modern progressive ideology.
Progressives always speak in terms of oppressors and oppressed and advocate for equality, which for them never means equal dignity but rather the redistribution of power and material goods.
As applied to the relationship between the sexes, progressives seeks equality between men and women which for them basically means that both sexes must have the same rights and responsibilities. This system doesn't work and it won't work, no matter how the social engineers are trying to push it, simply because men and women are different.
While feminists undoubtedly started it, there is no use for certain men to lament that women don't want to support themselves and prefer cushy government jobs to labouring in some ardous field, or that they often miss the same dedication men will demonstrate in their profession. You also can't say you are an anti-feminist and then expect your wife to have a career and support herself.
Patriarchy doesn't really mean the man staying at home drinking beer while his wife (or even wives as some of those propagating the new doctrine seem to support polygamy) is out there slaying dragons and bringing home the bacon.
In all of the world history, starting with Ancient Rome and Greece, extra rights meant also additional responsibilities. For instance, voting rights were tied up to the army service, that's why female suffrage is utterly dishonest since women aren't required to register for draft or fight in wars. However, the solution to the problem is not pushing women to become soldiers, as both feminists and certain men's rights activists want, but the restriction of the female suffrage as it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell, that the majority of women won't make good soldiers.
In the same manner, when the law made the man the head of the family, he also had to financially support his wife (I've written about this on my blog before). In the times of the Vikings, the government even had established the minimum bride price the man had to pay if he wished to marry, the reasoning behind it being that if a man was too poor to pay the minimum amount of money required by law he obviously wouldn't be able to support a family and hence had no business to marry.
Nowadays, both men and women want to have all sorts of rights, but nobody seems to want to have any duties. I'm not sure how long we as society can go on in the same manner, but something tells me that not very long any more. As Christians, we are called to be better than this and to live according to God's Law which clearly states that there are distinctive roles for men and women within the family and society.
Morally speaking, both men and women are fallen human beings who can be redeemed by God's grace and neither sex is better than the other. Men and women have equal dignity in Christ, but separate duties and responsibilities. A man should be respected for being the leader, protector and provider, and the woman for being the wife, mother and homemaker. Both roles are important and essential for the good functioning of society. The sex differences are good, because God created them.
Let's try to live our life according to a higher standard and show a good example of what being complementarian really means.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Friday, June 27, 2014
Bewitched, A Review
Someone gave me Season 1 of the 1960-1970s TV series called Bewitched which is quite popular in the housewives' circles. I finished watching it today and decided to write a blog post about it.
My regular readers must have noticed that I'm often posting book and film reviews. The reason for it is that I'd like to promote some quality entertainment since what we typically have to deal with now, is often so trashy.
So what about Bewitched? Years ago I used to read a homemakers' forum where the women were swearing by it. This TV series is a story about a witch by the name of Samantha who marries an ordinary man working for a big advertising agency. Witches in the series are shown as some sort of supernatural beings with extremely long life, not as normal human beings who studied witchcraft. They normally don't intermarry with humans, thus the series makes all sorts of hints about mixed marriages (this being 1960s and all).
Samantha's family is not thrilled with her marrying Darren and her mother constantly pops in and plays all sorts of tricks on her unfortunate son-in-law, some of them pretty sadistic (there is, of course, a double meaning behind it, what man doesn't think at times his mother-in-law is a witch?)
Samantha, on the other hand, is determined to play the role of a typical suburban housewife, not relying on witchcraft, as she promised to her husband on her wedding day, the promise which she continually keeps breaking. That's the basic plot of the story.
On the plus side, the show positively depicts housewives and the woman's role in the family, it gives a glimpse into the 1960s society when people still were neighbourly, wives dressed up for dinner and the homemaker was still a respected career choice. Samantha withstands her mother's constant negative remarks about her choosing domestic drudgery as opposed to living a life of glamour, she is determined to create a peaceful, cosy domestic environment for her husband and demonstrates sympathetic understanding when he is late home for dinner because of the office troubles.
The series stress the importance of mutual understanding between the spouses, keeping alive the romance and not taking each other for granted. The clothes and the interiors are beautiful and there is an element of the fairy tale in it all. On the other hand...
On the other hand, Samantha is a witch. All her family are witches and warlocks (which is actually a correct term for a male witch). Witches are shown as glamorous, sophisticated and cool, as opposed to mere mortals and actually, much better overall. Those humans who disagree are intolerant bigots who oppress minorities (that's when it all started). In one episode, Samantha and her three aunts even stage a protest against the hurtful stereotyping of a minority (i.e. witches).
Nearly all men in the show are horny as heck and Darren, despite being so much in love with his own wife, certainly is not an exception when it comes to showing attention to pretty girls. His boss who is several years his senior constantly keeps complaining about his wife getting too old and is shown at home reading a magazine with girls in bikinis.
Women are not portrayed much better, either. Nearly all single women are sexual predators who keep hunting after men, especially married men. Especially Samantha's husband. The topic of divorce is constantly discussed, with Samantha's mother Endora (I wonder if she was called after the Witch of Endor) doing everything possible to destroy her daughter's family. In one episode, she even brings Samantha's ex-boyfriend, a warlock with the looks of James Bond, to their house.
All men also drink. They drink at work and after work and at all hours and some of them get pretty drunk, too (which wasn't shown either in I Love Lucy or I Dream Of Jeannie). By the way, I wonder if the Mad Men was not a rip off of Bewitched, since there are certain similarities between the two.
Samantha is doing her best at home, but there is really no idea of a man being definitely in charge, like Ricky was in I Love Lucy. In the series about Jeannie, she actually called Tony Nelson her master and had to obey him. In Bewitched, it looks like Darren constantly needs to learn a lesson about how to behave towards his wife, and more often than not, he makes a fool out of himself.
However, what did it for me, was the episode when Samantha conjured the spirit of the dead to scare the neighbour lady. As a Christian, I couldn't in good conscience keep viewing it so I got rid of the DVD and I'm not planning to watch Season 2. So at first I wasn't sure whether to post a review but then decided to go on with it. I realise that your standards may be not the same as mine, but at least, you can now make an informed choice whether to watch it or not!
My regular readers must have noticed that I'm often posting book and film reviews. The reason for it is that I'd like to promote some quality entertainment since what we typically have to deal with now, is often so trashy.
So what about Bewitched? Years ago I used to read a homemakers' forum where the women were swearing by it. This TV series is a story about a witch by the name of Samantha who marries an ordinary man working for a big advertising agency. Witches in the series are shown as some sort of supernatural beings with extremely long life, not as normal human beings who studied witchcraft. They normally don't intermarry with humans, thus the series makes all sorts of hints about mixed marriages (this being 1960s and all).
Samantha's family is not thrilled with her marrying Darren and her mother constantly pops in and plays all sorts of tricks on her unfortunate son-in-law, some of them pretty sadistic (there is, of course, a double meaning behind it, what man doesn't think at times his mother-in-law is a witch?)
Samantha, on the other hand, is determined to play the role of a typical suburban housewife, not relying on witchcraft, as she promised to her husband on her wedding day, the promise which she continually keeps breaking. That's the basic plot of the story.
On the plus side, the show positively depicts housewives and the woman's role in the family, it gives a glimpse into the 1960s society when people still were neighbourly, wives dressed up for dinner and the homemaker was still a respected career choice. Samantha withstands her mother's constant negative remarks about her choosing domestic drudgery as opposed to living a life of glamour, she is determined to create a peaceful, cosy domestic environment for her husband and demonstrates sympathetic understanding when he is late home for dinner because of the office troubles.
The series stress the importance of mutual understanding between the spouses, keeping alive the romance and not taking each other for granted. The clothes and the interiors are beautiful and there is an element of the fairy tale in it all. On the other hand...
On the other hand, Samantha is a witch. All her family are witches and warlocks (which is actually a correct term for a male witch). Witches are shown as glamorous, sophisticated and cool, as opposed to mere mortals and actually, much better overall. Those humans who disagree are intolerant bigots who oppress minorities (that's when it all started). In one episode, Samantha and her three aunts even stage a protest against the hurtful stereotyping of a minority (i.e. witches).
Nearly all men in the show are horny as heck and Darren, despite being so much in love with his own wife, certainly is not an exception when it comes to showing attention to pretty girls. His boss who is several years his senior constantly keeps complaining about his wife getting too old and is shown at home reading a magazine with girls in bikinis.
Women are not portrayed much better, either. Nearly all single women are sexual predators who keep hunting after men, especially married men. Especially Samantha's husband. The topic of divorce is constantly discussed, with Samantha's mother Endora (I wonder if she was called after the Witch of Endor) doing everything possible to destroy her daughter's family. In one episode, she even brings Samantha's ex-boyfriend, a warlock with the looks of James Bond, to their house.
All men also drink. They drink at work and after work and at all hours and some of them get pretty drunk, too (which wasn't shown either in I Love Lucy or I Dream Of Jeannie). By the way, I wonder if the Mad Men was not a rip off of Bewitched, since there are certain similarities between the two.
Samantha is doing her best at home, but there is really no idea of a man being definitely in charge, like Ricky was in I Love Lucy. In the series about Jeannie, she actually called Tony Nelson her master and had to obey him. In Bewitched, it looks like Darren constantly needs to learn a lesson about how to behave towards his wife, and more often than not, he makes a fool out of himself.
However, what did it for me, was the episode when Samantha conjured the spirit of the dead to scare the neighbour lady. As a Christian, I couldn't in good conscience keep viewing it so I got rid of the DVD and I'm not planning to watch Season 2. So at first I wasn't sure whether to post a review but then decided to go on with it. I realise that your standards may be not the same as mine, but at least, you can now make an informed choice whether to watch it or not!
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Stress Avoidance For Homemakers
How not to lose your sanity to avoid stress at home.
There are several simple rules.
Rule number one: declutter. You don't need that much stuff. You don't need all these clothes, and children could do with less toys. It's a good idea to regularly go through your closets, cupboards, storage places and house in general and remove things/clothes/gadgets/old magazines and the like which are out of date/broken/not used within a year. If they are still functional, you can give them to your family or friends or donate to the charity store, otherwise just throw them away. The less stuff you have, the easier it is to take care of it.
However, decluttering is not only about material possessions, it's totally possible to clutter your schedule and your life with too many hobbies or activities, so that there will be no time for the necessary things around the house to be done. Streamline your schedule and don't try to do everything at once. Choose one or two hobbies which you particularly like and let the rest go.
Rule number two. Don't let things pile up. My stress level became considerably lower after I adopted a very simple rule of always washing up the dishes right after a meal or any activity in the kitchen such as baking a pie. You may shove dirty clothes or things which need ironing out of sight temporarily, but in your subconscious you'll know they are lying there waiting for you and it will absolutely stress you out. Teach the children to clean after themselves right away, too.
Rule number three: prioritise. Every household will have its own priorities.If you've just had a baby, taking care of him will be your priority. If you are a homeschooling mother, than your children's education will be your priority which means that you probably won't be able to do some things other ladies are doing. It's OK, as a homemaker you have to attend to the needs of your family which are/may be different from others.
Those three rules above are the very basics of stress reduction, but there are several other things to keep in mind while trying to reduce stress around the house.
Don't try to be someone else. It becomes especially tempting with the abundance of homemaking blogs out there which have the tendency for some women to substitute day time TV and the reality shows. You may follow the blog of that lady who is an experienced cook/gardener/homeschooling mother of 14 children/fitness freak/fill in the blank and try to be like her, but you will never succeed. One man's meat is another man's poison, they say.
You may have a busy family and no time to engage in gourmet cooking. You may have no green thumb. Your health and your husband's income probably won't allow you to have 14 kids and so long and so forth. Realise that on the net people more often than not show only one side of themselves: the best. The lady who spends 5 hours in the gym every day and has great figure may very well have a very messy house, but you won't know because she'll never tell you. The one who spends hours in the garden and wins competitions has a maid who does her housekeeping etc etc. Adjust your life according to your social position/income/health and the like.
Don't live a lifestyle trying to reenact the past in your own home. It's OK to be inspired by Victorians/Edwardians/Little House On The Prairie/I Love Lucy and whatever makes you happy in general, and you can certainly learn good things and moral values, but realise that we live in the 21st century. Some things stayed the same (both I and Lucy use vacuum cleaners), but some things changed for better or worse. Take clothes, for instance. It's still possible to look modest, dignified and feminine with styles available on the market, you don't have to recreate vintage garments or wear girdles.
The same goes about other homemaking aspects. You are not less of a homemaker if you don't grind your own flour or don't make your own washing powder. It's not that it's wrong, but you may have no time for it at this point in your life. It's not wrong to use modern conveniences when necessary.
Plan the beginning and the end of your work around the house. As you get older, you'll need more time to relax and recuperate. I read somewhere that a man can only do 6 hours of really productive labour every day, before he loses his concentration and his drive. That's why it's so important to prioritise and to plan your day accordingly. There should be an hour between the day time activities and the dinner when you call it quits and just relax and sit down with a book/crayons/needlework and enjoy life. Home is not a factory, you can always move some things to the next day.
Delegate the tasks around the house/use help. You should not boss your husband about (think of the infamous honey-to-do lists), but you can and should teach your children to help around the house. If you can afford a housekeeper and you really have a lot of housework, than hire her and don't let anyone make you feel ashamed.
Finally, simplify and minimise. Don't plan elaborate 5-course dinners, unless it's your hobby, of course. Don't overschedule to the point that you are exhausted, overwhelmed and have no time to enjoy life. Remember, life at home should bring joy, not stress.
There are several simple rules.
Rule number one: declutter. You don't need that much stuff. You don't need all these clothes, and children could do with less toys. It's a good idea to regularly go through your closets, cupboards, storage places and house in general and remove things/clothes/gadgets/old magazines and the like which are out of date/broken/not used within a year. If they are still functional, you can give them to your family or friends or donate to the charity store, otherwise just throw them away. The less stuff you have, the easier it is to take care of it.
However, decluttering is not only about material possessions, it's totally possible to clutter your schedule and your life with too many hobbies or activities, so that there will be no time for the necessary things around the house to be done. Streamline your schedule and don't try to do everything at once. Choose one or two hobbies which you particularly like and let the rest go.
Rule number two. Don't let things pile up. My stress level became considerably lower after I adopted a very simple rule of always washing up the dishes right after a meal or any activity in the kitchen such as baking a pie. You may shove dirty clothes or things which need ironing out of sight temporarily, but in your subconscious you'll know they are lying there waiting for you and it will absolutely stress you out. Teach the children to clean after themselves right away, too.
Rule number three: prioritise. Every household will have its own priorities.If you've just had a baby, taking care of him will be your priority. If you are a homeschooling mother, than your children's education will be your priority which means that you probably won't be able to do some things other ladies are doing. It's OK, as a homemaker you have to attend to the needs of your family which are/may be different from others.
Those three rules above are the very basics of stress reduction, but there are several other things to keep in mind while trying to reduce stress around the house.
Don't try to be someone else. It becomes especially tempting with the abundance of homemaking blogs out there which have the tendency for some women to substitute day time TV and the reality shows. You may follow the blog of that lady who is an experienced cook/gardener/homeschooling mother of 14 children/fitness freak/fill in the blank and try to be like her, but you will never succeed. One man's meat is another man's poison, they say.
You may have a busy family and no time to engage in gourmet cooking. You may have no green thumb. Your health and your husband's income probably won't allow you to have 14 kids and so long and so forth. Realise that on the net people more often than not show only one side of themselves: the best. The lady who spends 5 hours in the gym every day and has great figure may very well have a very messy house, but you won't know because she'll never tell you. The one who spends hours in the garden and wins competitions has a maid who does her housekeeping etc etc. Adjust your life according to your social position/income/health and the like.
Don't live a lifestyle trying to reenact the past in your own home. It's OK to be inspired by Victorians/Edwardians/Little House On The Prairie/I Love Lucy and whatever makes you happy in general, and you can certainly learn good things and moral values, but realise that we live in the 21st century. Some things stayed the same (both I and Lucy use vacuum cleaners), but some things changed for better or worse. Take clothes, for instance. It's still possible to look modest, dignified and feminine with styles available on the market, you don't have to recreate vintage garments or wear girdles.
The same goes about other homemaking aspects. You are not less of a homemaker if you don't grind your own flour or don't make your own washing powder. It's not that it's wrong, but you may have no time for it at this point in your life. It's not wrong to use modern conveniences when necessary.
Plan the beginning and the end of your work around the house. As you get older, you'll need more time to relax and recuperate. I read somewhere that a man can only do 6 hours of really productive labour every day, before he loses his concentration and his drive. That's why it's so important to prioritise and to plan your day accordingly. There should be an hour between the day time activities and the dinner when you call it quits and just relax and sit down with a book/crayons/needlework and enjoy life. Home is not a factory, you can always move some things to the next day.
Delegate the tasks around the house/use help. You should not boss your husband about (think of the infamous honey-to-do lists), but you can and should teach your children to help around the house. If you can afford a housekeeper and you really have a lot of housework, than hire her and don't let anyone make you feel ashamed.
Finally, simplify and minimise. Don't plan elaborate 5-course dinners, unless it's your hobby, of course. Don't overschedule to the point that you are exhausted, overwhelmed and have no time to enjoy life. Remember, life at home should bring joy, not stress.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Summer Budget Cooking: Cranberry Cake
Yes, I still have some in the freezer. I bought them on sale after Christmas:)
You really can make this cake with any berries. If the berries are sweet, like strawberries, you will probably want to reduce the amount of sugar used. The original recipe (from The Taste Of Home) called for the rhubarb.
With cooking, you can be flexible and substitute the ingredients, though it probably won't always be a success:) I had my share of failures but still support experimenting in the kitchen.
So to make this cake, you will need:
4c frozen cranberries
1 1/2c sugar, divided
2tbsp vegetable oil + 2 tbsp butter
1 egg
1/2 tsp vanilla extract
1c flour
2tsp baking powder
1/4 tsp salt
1/2c milk
Combine cranberries, 1c sugar and 1/4 to 1/2 c of water, cook and stir until thickened.
Cream butter and the remaining sugar, add vegetable oil, beat in egg and vanilla. Add the flour, baking powder and salt to the mixture, alternately with milk. Beat until combined, pour into a greased square baking dish (ab 9"). Pour the cranberries mixture over the batter. Bake at 175*C (350F) for about 30 to 35 minutes. Serve as a dessert.
With cooking, you can be flexible and substitute the ingredients, though it probably won't always be a success:) I had my share of failures but still support experimenting in the kitchen.
So to make this cake, you will need:
4c frozen cranberries
1 1/2c sugar, divided
2tbsp vegetable oil + 2 tbsp butter
1 egg
1/2 tsp vanilla extract
1c flour
2tsp baking powder
1/4 tsp salt
1/2c milk
Combine cranberries, 1c sugar and 1/4 to 1/2 c of water, cook and stir until thickened.
Cream butter and the remaining sugar, add vegetable oil, beat in egg and vanilla. Add the flour, baking powder and salt to the mixture, alternately with milk. Beat until combined, pour into a greased square baking dish (ab 9"). Pour the cranberries mixture over the batter. Bake at 175*C (350F) for about 30 to 35 minutes. Serve as a dessert.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Rules For Commenting On This Blog
Since I'm now having more visitors and thus more (potential) commenters I thought it would be a good idea to write this post.
I really dislike deleting comments and I have only done it once so far for advocating an illegal activity, and I really hope I won't have to use my moderator powers too often.
So here it comes:
I expect my commenters to adhere to some standard of decency, which means:
1. No profanity. If you post a link to an article containing profanity, add a warning.
2. No explicit sexual discussions of any kind. I'm not interested in what you are doing in the bedroom with your husband and neither are my readers.
3. No advocating of any illegal activity (this one should go without saying, actually).
4. While commenting, be polite to others and avoid personal insults and ad hominem attacks.
5. This is a Christian blog, so deal with it, which means no comments insulting my religion or advocating different religions or atheism. There are plenty of other blogs to discuss this kind of things.
6. Don't post anything racist or antisemitic, this is not Stormfront and I have readers from many countries (pointing the differences between various ethnic/cultural groups is OK, just don't insult others on their ethnicity).
The comments violating any of the above rules will be summarily deleted.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the attention!
I really dislike deleting comments and I have only done it once so far for advocating an illegal activity, and I really hope I won't have to use my moderator powers too often.
So here it comes:
I expect my commenters to adhere to some standard of decency, which means:
1. No profanity. If you post a link to an article containing profanity, add a warning.
2. No explicit sexual discussions of any kind. I'm not interested in what you are doing in the bedroom with your husband and neither are my readers.
3. No advocating of any illegal activity (this one should go without saying, actually).
4. While commenting, be polite to others and avoid personal insults and ad hominem attacks.
5. This is a Christian blog, so deal with it, which means no comments insulting my religion or advocating different religions or atheism. There are plenty of other blogs to discuss this kind of things.
6. Don't post anything racist or antisemitic, this is not Stormfront and I have readers from many countries (pointing the differences between various ethnic/cultural groups is OK, just don't insult others on their ethnicity).
The comments violating any of the above rules will be summarily deleted.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the attention!
Friday, June 20, 2014
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
The Stress Of Modern Life
Some time ago we visited a Roman fair, which I mentioned on the blog and posted some pictures. By some reason, I find these historical reenactment groups fascinating, probably because they present a lifestyle much simpler to the one we lead now and thus appeal to a hippy in me:)
Seriously though, while life of a common man in Rome was hard, it was also in many ways far less complicated that what we have to deal with today. People often forget it when they are trying to make comparisons between the good old days and now.
A year ago, I wrote a blog post called Things Ma Ingalls Didn't Do where I listed some of the things modern homemakes have to deal with which were nonexistent in the times past. Our ancestors had to endure a lot of physical hardships which made them tough, but I sometimes wonder if they had to live under the same mental strain so many people live now.
A part of it is certainly due to the influence of mass media, including the Internet. I doubt Ma Ingalls ever was upset about an earthquake or war in some distant country, and she was probably not overtly worried about economical crisis or what stock exchange was doing as long as there was enough food on the table. Most people were not that interested in politics, didn't follow the world news and were mostly absorbed in the problems of the daily life.
I get irritated all the time someone starts attacking present days housewives for being lazy good-for-nothings because they use vaccuum cleaners, while their heroic female ancestors were ploughing the fields while simultaneously caring for 20 children and making homespun clothes. Most of these stories are exaggerated anyway. I won't go as far as the 19th century, but I'll give you an example of how lower middle class people used to live in the 1950s.
A relative of mine comes out of the family with 6 children, and her Mother never worked. The eldest two children had to do all the washing for which purposes they rented a washing machine. The children washed the clothes at 5 a.m. on Monday mornings before going to school. Vacations were only 4 weeks in summer and half of the Saturday was spent at school, too. A lot of tradesmen brought the goods home so there was no need for daily shopping.
Clothes were custom made by a professional seamstress. My relative had to knit stockings for younger children and her sister had to make breakfast and feed everybody. Do you get the picture? A lot of tasks nowadays normaly performed by the housewife were done by children in the past. Nowadays if you make your child wake up at 5 a.m and wash family clothes, you will be accused of child abuse. Food was quite simple and often cooked in advance for a couple of days, and then just reheated.
The elaborate dinner menues you see in old magazines were chiefly for the use of the upper classes and the meaning of spring cleaning was to get the whole house in order at least once in a year.
Everybody who could afford it would hire a girl to help with cleaning and household manuals had advice on how to manage servants. That is not to say that the mid-century homemakers didn't work hard, of course, they did, but they were not some superwomen they are sometimes portrayed.
Every age brings its own challenges and our generation has its own share of problems.This is also true for homemakers who often have to raise children and take care of the household without any help from extended family and struggle with negative stereotypes and hurtful remarks, even from their own parents. There is also social isolation and other things to deal with. I think all in all it's unfair to say that modern housewives don't work as hard as before.
Seriously though, while life of a common man in Rome was hard, it was also in many ways far less complicated that what we have to deal with today. People often forget it when they are trying to make comparisons between the good old days and now.
A year ago, I wrote a blog post called Things Ma Ingalls Didn't Do where I listed some of the things modern homemakes have to deal with which were nonexistent in the times past. Our ancestors had to endure a lot of physical hardships which made them tough, but I sometimes wonder if they had to live under the same mental strain so many people live now.
A part of it is certainly due to the influence of mass media, including the Internet. I doubt Ma Ingalls ever was upset about an earthquake or war in some distant country, and she was probably not overtly worried about economical crisis or what stock exchange was doing as long as there was enough food on the table. Most people were not that interested in politics, didn't follow the world news and were mostly absorbed in the problems of the daily life.
I get irritated all the time someone starts attacking present days housewives for being lazy good-for-nothings because they use vaccuum cleaners, while their heroic female ancestors were ploughing the fields while simultaneously caring for 20 children and making homespun clothes. Most of these stories are exaggerated anyway. I won't go as far as the 19th century, but I'll give you an example of how lower middle class people used to live in the 1950s.
A relative of mine comes out of the family with 6 children, and her Mother never worked. The eldest two children had to do all the washing for which purposes they rented a washing machine. The children washed the clothes at 5 a.m. on Monday mornings before going to school. Vacations were only 4 weeks in summer and half of the Saturday was spent at school, too. A lot of tradesmen brought the goods home so there was no need for daily shopping.
Clothes were custom made by a professional seamstress. My relative had to knit stockings for younger children and her sister had to make breakfast and feed everybody. Do you get the picture? A lot of tasks nowadays normaly performed by the housewife were done by children in the past. Nowadays if you make your child wake up at 5 a.m and wash family clothes, you will be accused of child abuse. Food was quite simple and often cooked in advance for a couple of days, and then just reheated.
The elaborate dinner menues you see in old magazines were chiefly for the use of the upper classes and the meaning of spring cleaning was to get the whole house in order at least once in a year.
Everybody who could afford it would hire a girl to help with cleaning and household manuals had advice on how to manage servants. That is not to say that the mid-century homemakers didn't work hard, of course, they did, but they were not some superwomen they are sometimes portrayed.
Every age brings its own challenges and our generation has its own share of problems.This is also true for homemakers who often have to raise children and take care of the household without any help from extended family and struggle with negative stereotypes and hurtful remarks, even from their own parents. There is also social isolation and other things to deal with. I think all in all it's unfair to say that modern housewives don't work as hard as before.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Men Behind Divorce Reform
People of the West should know their heroes. Or "heroes".
Divorce is a hot topic constantly discussed on antifeminist blogs. Usually the discussion goes along the lines of accusing women of divorcing perfectly good husbands on a whim and stealing their possessions through divorce courts. I won't dispute that it may be the case in the USA as I don't live there, though I would say that divorced women I personally know certainly haven't become wealthier after their divorces, and it wasn't always their fault, however, that isn't the point.
People divorce on a whim because modern laws alow them to divorce on a whim. When it was more difficult to obtain a divorce and being divorced carried a stigma, people also divorced less. This is an undisputable fact. Divorce laws started changing in the middle of the XIXth century, and the movement was ever leftward.
Let's look closer at those changes. In 1857 the parliament of Great Britain reformed the divorce law, taking the divorce proceedings from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts thus making it a civil matter. This year marks the beginning of the direct governmental involvement in marriage which has worked so very well up till now.
Marriage officially became a contract instead of a sacrament, and the parliamentary Act made divorce cheaper, easier and thus more "affordable". It also widened the grounds for divorce. The authors of this bill were Lord Aberdeen, Lord Campbell, Lord Palmerston (all men) and it was supported by the Bishop of Exeter and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lord Palmerston did everything possible to drag the bill through the Parliament despite the opposition. The new law also abolished adultery as a criminal offence.
The result of this law was that the year it was implemented, there were 300 petitions for divorce as opposed to only 3 the year before. This divorce reform was supervised by one Sir Creswell Creswell who achieved a degree of fame and respect for his work and was considered the representative of all the married women in Britain. (Read the whole story at Wiki).
The new law, however, was not gender-neutral, and thus described as "highly unjust" by some. The husband only had to prove the wife's adultery, while the wife had also additionally to prove abuse, rape, desertion and the like. All this according to the Bible, which describes adultery as the married woman having sexual relationship with a man other than her husband (the man who commits adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress should be surely put to death).
Traditionally speaking, as long as the husband treated his wife more or less decently and kept supporting her financially, his sexual shenanigans didn't matter much and were certainly not considered grounds for divorce, as opposed to the wife's infidelity. (man's honour is courage, woman's honour is chastity). It's obvious that feminists of that time weren't satisfied with such a law and campaigned for reform.
Among the campaigners there were some prominent figures whom we all know; for instance, Arthur Conan Doyle. Most people have heard about his Sherlock Holmes stories, but that wasn't the only thing he wrote. He also penned Divorce Law Reform, championing equal rights for women in divorce law .
As usual with most reformers, he had personal reasons to wish for easier divorce. Conan Doyle married a woman he didn't particularly love, and later, when she became sick with tuberculosis, promptly traded her for a younger, prettier and healthier model. Despite supposedly strict Victorian morals, he managed to parade her in society claiming that it was fine and dandy, because their relationship was supposedly platonic. Still, Sir Arthur couldn't divorce his wife and had to wait until she died to marry his mistress.
To quote this article: "This explains why he took up the cause of divorce law reform...he had great sympathy with people trapped in loveless marriages, saying that an unmarried woman, with her freedom, was much happier than a woman hitched to the wrong man, the worst of it being that "the poor things can never tell till they have married the chap!"
While Conan Doyle had so much sympathy for the poor women trapped in their marriages whom he never met, he had none for his own children from the first marriage: "Mary and Kingsley, his children by Louise, were unceremoniously cut out of his life while he indulged his uxoriousness and fathered a second family. "I can't think why my father is so hard," Mary complained to her brother. "I have not had one gentle word, or sign of love from him during the whole two years since Mother died." (idem).
To put things more into the perspective, he was a freemason, too. So much for "female imperative."
Divorce is a hot topic constantly discussed on antifeminist blogs. Usually the discussion goes along the lines of accusing women of divorcing perfectly good husbands on a whim and stealing their possessions through divorce courts. I won't dispute that it may be the case in the USA as I don't live there, though I would say that divorced women I personally know certainly haven't become wealthier after their divorces, and it wasn't always their fault, however, that isn't the point.
People divorce on a whim because modern laws alow them to divorce on a whim. When it was more difficult to obtain a divorce and being divorced carried a stigma, people also divorced less. This is an undisputable fact. Divorce laws started changing in the middle of the XIXth century, and the movement was ever leftward.
Let's look closer at those changes. In 1857 the parliament of Great Britain reformed the divorce law, taking the divorce proceedings from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts thus making it a civil matter. This year marks the beginning of the direct governmental involvement in marriage which has worked so very well up till now.
Marriage officially became a contract instead of a sacrament, and the parliamentary Act made divorce cheaper, easier and thus more "affordable". It also widened the grounds for divorce. The authors of this bill were Lord Aberdeen, Lord Campbell, Lord Palmerston (all men) and it was supported by the Bishop of Exeter and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lord Palmerston did everything possible to drag the bill through the Parliament despite the opposition. The new law also abolished adultery as a criminal offence.
The result of this law was that the year it was implemented, there were 300 petitions for divorce as opposed to only 3 the year before. This divorce reform was supervised by one Sir Creswell Creswell who achieved a degree of fame and respect for his work and was considered the representative of all the married women in Britain. (Read the whole story at Wiki).
The new law, however, was not gender-neutral, and thus described as "highly unjust" by some. The husband only had to prove the wife's adultery, while the wife had also additionally to prove abuse, rape, desertion and the like. All this according to the Bible, which describes adultery as the married woman having sexual relationship with a man other than her husband (the man who commits adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress should be surely put to death).
Traditionally speaking, as long as the husband treated his wife more or less decently and kept supporting her financially, his sexual shenanigans didn't matter much and were certainly not considered grounds for divorce, as opposed to the wife's infidelity. (man's honour is courage, woman's honour is chastity). It's obvious that feminists of that time weren't satisfied with such a law and campaigned for reform.
Among the campaigners there were some prominent figures whom we all know; for instance, Arthur Conan Doyle. Most people have heard about his Sherlock Holmes stories, but that wasn't the only thing he wrote. He also penned Divorce Law Reform, championing equal rights for women in divorce law .
As usual with most reformers, he had personal reasons to wish for easier divorce. Conan Doyle married a woman he didn't particularly love, and later, when she became sick with tuberculosis, promptly traded her for a younger, prettier and healthier model. Despite supposedly strict Victorian morals, he managed to parade her in society claiming that it was fine and dandy, because their relationship was supposedly platonic. Still, Sir Arthur couldn't divorce his wife and had to wait until she died to marry his mistress.
To quote this article: "This explains why he took up the cause of divorce law reform...he had great sympathy with people trapped in loveless marriages, saying that an unmarried woman, with her freedom, was much happier than a woman hitched to the wrong man, the worst of it being that "the poor things can never tell till they have married the chap!"
While Conan Doyle had so much sympathy for the poor women trapped in their marriages whom he never met, he had none for his own children from the first marriage: "Mary and Kingsley, his children by Louise, were unceremoniously cut out of his life while he indulged his uxoriousness and fathered a second family. "I can't think why my father is so hard," Mary complained to her brother. "I have not had one gentle word, or sign of love from him during the whole two years since Mother died." (idem).
To put things more into the perspective, he was a freemason, too. So much for "female imperative."
Sunday, June 15, 2014
When Men Were In Charge
.jpg)
The man in the picture above looks stern and projects an image of authority. There is nothing childish or frivolous about him. He looks in front of himself without smiling and produces an impression that he always means business.His dark suit is contrasted to the white dress of the lady and the soft lines of her face and hair. While she represents feminine softness, he is an image of masculine firmness. He looks in charge and his body language adds to it.
Nowadays we have grandfathers looking like toddlers. Much has been said on the topic of immodest and unfeminine clothes women are wearing nowadays, but practically no attention is given to grown up men wearing capri pants, baggy shorts, oversized t-shirts in all colours of the spectrum including pink with childish slogans (or even worse, wife beaters) and this hideous fashion of men wearing flip flops.
Outside of the business world, there is little dignity left in the way men dress. A grown up man is an authority figure, or as they used to say, a lord of creation, and he should look as such if he wants to be taken seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)