Femininity vs. Feminism

Once upon a time women in this country were repressed. They were not just "the gentle sex" or "the fair sex" but also "the lesser sex." They were beaten and abused and in most cultures had few if any rights. Once upon a time suffragettes marched for the right to vote. Had I been alive, I would have been there right beside Cady Stanton, Susan B Anthony, and Amelia Bloomer, demanding that women be allowed to dress as they pleased and vote in elections.Once those rights were secured, women began pushing into other things that had previously been male-only domain. They demanded easier access to education, and the right to work. They instigated legislation to punish perpetrators of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual harassment. Were these fights still being fought I would be standing there beside the fighters.

With equal rights established however, the movement called 'feminism' began to push for other things. It began to focus on cultural acceptance and approval for crudeness in language and behavior. It fought for--and won--the right to abort babies without medical reason (where are the rights of the unborn women?!) It fought to teach women that they cannot be complete or fulfilled unless they have a career outside the home, and to preach the notion that keeping a home and raising children is inferior to having a career. In other words, the feminist movement began to undermine all the things that made women unique. In the quest for 'equality' feminism has pushed so far and so fast that it has gone far beyond the mark, so that now women are fighting, not for the right to be women, but for the right to be men; or, more accurately, to be more than men. By demanding sameness across the genders, women are forfeiting the things that make us special and unique. In order for masculinity to be valuable, it must be balanced by femininity! As the movement of feminism gains strength in the world, femininity is losing the ability to be a moderating force in the world, or to create balance between masculine and feminine. This is not empowering anyone; it is stifling everyone.

I am staunchly feminine, staunchly pro-woman. Therefore, I can only conclude that in this country, and at this stage in history, I must be anti-feminism.

There are fights worth fighting, even still. Women are being held down in places like Afghanistan and what support we can give is worth the fight. Women are victims of domestic abuse in our own country, and what we can do to support and help them here is of course worth our while. However the larger 'feminism' movement in this country has lost the nobility of purpose that once guided them. They have turned toward anger and vulgarity to accomplish their goals, and their goals are no longer positive or even things worth fighting for.
If you dare, you might check out the post "I HATED The Vagina Monologues and So Should You" (disclaimer: the play--and therefore the post--have sexual content including pedophilia, rape, lesbianism and prostitution).

I conclude with a link to two inspirational blog posts:

• The truth about Women that Feminists Don't Want You to Know, posted at Ladies Against Feminism: Promoting Beautiful Womanhood. I don't agree with everything written at that site, but I find that I agree with them more often than not. Their post talks about powerful historical women, and how they did not need feminism to be who they were and accomplish what they did. I found it inspiring to review examples of powerful women who gloried in womanhood, motherhood, and homemaking.
• Returning to Motherhood: One Solution for the Economic Crisis, posted by my friend at MotherLoverGoddess. I don't agree with everything she writes either, but I think this post makes excellent points about women in the home verses women in the workplace.

Beltane Bonfire

A local group put on a bonfire at the beach last night. Their intent was to raise awareness because April was "domestic violence and sexual assault awareness month." They spent a little while on that, but then much of the evening turned to drumming and roasting marshmallows and playing on the beach. I certainly support the group's cause (you can see in the photos some people with candles), but we also thought it was nice to spend a seasonally significant evening in nature with a bonfire. (The flames were not big for long, but it was putting out a lot of heat!)

Bear tossed a football with daddy,

and Hubby (and Wolf) got in touch with their Scottish heritage by throwing around some logs.

Medieval Meal

We've talked about doing this since before we were married, but somehow never actually did it until this year...

No electric lights, no forks, no spoons. Just a 'dagger' (steak knife) per person, some meat and veggies boiled in a pot, and a big blob of bread.

Corned beef, potatoes, carrots, all baked in a cast iron dutch oven (which I confess I put in the oven because I didn't feel like building a fire)

Honey Oatmeal bread, also baked in cast iron. We ripped off hunks rather than cutting it, and used it to sop up the juice from our meat. Mmmm, so yummy!

Top Ten...

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a boy in possession of a long skinny thing anything, will make of it a sword weapon.

And then he will run around the house slashing/shooting at everything and everyone.
Even though mom has tried to encourage a peaceful home environment by not allowing 'violent' toys or games...

Top ten 'swords' or 'guns' in our house

1. Mom's knitting needles, even the short DPNs
2. pieces of wooden train track
3. sticks
   
4. plastic hotwheels track
5. rulers
6. duplos & legos
7. marble run segments
8. lincoln logs
9. vacuum attachments
   
10. his own hands

There is no escape.

Accept the inevitable.

Wolf, age 4

Parenting Positively

In Finding Nemo, Dory and Marlin find themselves in the middle of a school of jellyfish. Marlin decides that the best way to get ditzy Dory out safely is to make a game. "You can only touch the tops," he explains. "Not the tentacles." "Something about tentacles, gotit, let's go!" shrieks Dory as Marlin laments "not 'something about tentacles,' it's all about the tentacles!"


I have frequently noticed that children tend to hear what we say, but only the key words. So "please don't jump on the bed" comes though as "[wa wa wa wa wa] jump on the bed."
Even when they know that you'd rather they didn't, the idea is so firmly in their mind--and in a parental voice even--that the behavior is nearly irresistible.
When we stop and think about it, it's not hard to realize that focusing on "dos" is liable to be far more productive than focusing on "don'ts."
So rather than saying "please don't jump on the bed" try saying "please come walk on the floor." They may not be excited about doing it, but mentally it's easier to process, and less distracting.

At the risk of over-explaining, I'll share a couple other examples:

Poor: Stop splashing water out of the tub, it's all over the floor.
Better: Let's keep the water IN the tub!

Poor: Don't get out of bed again
Better: Stay in bed and go to sleep
Best: Please stay in your bed and lay still, I'll put on this quiet music/audio story for you

Poor: Stop poking your brother
Better: Be gentle with your brother
Better: Why don't you go [away from your brother] and do ___
Better: What have you done today to show your brother that you love him?

Say what you mean

Another installment in my parenting philosophy series...

I sincerely believe in just saying what I mean, rather than dropping hints or expecting people to pick up subtext or (gasp!) guess what I'm thinking. I wrote some time ago about how we have applied that policy to our marriage, but I also apply it to my parenting.
So when my son hops out of the shower, grabs his towel, and bolts up the hall (with the towel swinging in the air, and droplets of water flying every-which-way) I say "please get dry in the bathroom before you run up the hall" rather than "hey, you're getting everything wet." After all, he's 9, I'm pretty sure he knows he's getting everything wet, (he does it almost every day). What he doesn't know--or doesn't remember--is what would be a better alternative.
When the boys are going to bed, I rarely tell them "just go to sleep now." After all, the average 3 year old isn't really sure how to "go to sleep." But if I tell him to lay still, close his eyes, and breathe softly, he can probably do those things. We may end up going through his body parts one by one "make your head be still, make your eyes be closed, make your arms be still, make your bottom stay down on the bed..." and so on, but he can do those things, and they feel much more doable than "go to sleep." Sometimes my sons tell me that they can't fall asleep, or that they won't. I smile and tell them that I don't care if they go to sleep, they are welcome to stay awake all night long if they want...so long as they stay in their beds and lay still and keep quiet. To date none of them has ever managed to pull an all-nighter.☺



That is one side of saying what I mean, and it is a great help in getting kids to know what you want and to do what you ask. The other side of 'saying what you mean' is a little more serious.

If my son is acting up at the store and I tell him that "one more time" will result in marching out the door and going straight home, well, if he does it one more time we'd better start marching immediately. We have left playdates and other fun things because of situations like that. If I'm not willing to leave (if I have to finish my shopping, or I want to keep chatting with my friends) then I had better not deliver that kind of ultimatum. If I threaten to ground him for a month, or throw away all his legos, well, I'd better be willing to follow through. And not just follow through partway, but really follow through. Kids know if you are bluffing, and although they will call your bluff, they would rather be able to just trust you.
On the up side, if I promise that this weekend we can make popcorn and watch a movie, I'd better have a movie and make popcorn. There is no excuse for lying to your kids. Ever. On the rare occasion that something is beyond my control (someone gets sick and we're unable to go to ____) then explain it all truthfully as soon as you know that you won't be able to do what you promised. If you're not sure whether you'll be able to follow through, then don't make the promise. (Sometimes I say "I'm trying to work it out so that we can ___" but I don't promise unless I know I can follow through.) Kids need to be able to trust their parents. Always.

WFMW: Pre-pulling 'leftovers'

I do what I call "multi-meal planning," which means that I plan sequential meals that will utilize the same ingredients. For example, on one day I will cook a pot roast, and a couple of days later I'll use the leftover beef for stroganoff or stew (or both). A roast chicken leads to pot pie, soup, or chicken casserole. The problem with planning this way was that sometimes there was not as much leftover meat as I needed to make the other meal(s). Especially if we ate a leisurely dinner, people would have just a little bit more, and just another nibble, until the meat I was counting on was gone.
Here's the thing, people will fill up on whatever is in front of them...they don't necessarily want certain amounts of any particular food, they just want to be filled.
A friend of mine told me that she serves portion sizes up onto all the plates and then puts the leftovers into the fridge before they even begin the meal. It ensures that everyone eats proper portion sizes. I took her idea and adapted it to my multi-meal planning.
Now, when I cook a roast, I cut the thing in half and put half in the fridge before I even bring it to the table. We don't need very much meat in our diets, and I always serve a meat dish with plenty of vegetables on the sides so nobody is left hungry. (Did you know that tests show that potato is actually the food that leaves you feeling the most full?! So just serve mashed or roasted potatoes and people will nibble on them instead of the meat, and they'll get full faster anyway!) Meanwhile, I have enough left over meat for my other meals!
Before I started doing this I could usually make one more meal from the leftovers of a "big meat" meal, now I can usually make two. It's friendly to my budget and our health!

For more "works for me wednesdays" click here.

Morals

Please note: This post contains both politics and religion. And some very strong opinions.
I won't be offended if you just walk away, but I've just been thinking about this lately and wanted to write about it... ☺


There is a lot of debate in political and social circles about how certain 'religious values' should not be forced upon people who are not part of the religion.

On the other hand, there are certain 'values' (shared by religion) that are apparently just universal and everybody agrees on them whether they are 'religious' or not.

So here is my question: Where does one draw the line between 'religious values' and 'universal values'?

We all agree that it's not ok to kill people, don't we? Or take stuff that isn't yours, right? But since both of those are from the Ten Commandments then they were religious values before they were universal ones. So if we all agree about the killing and the stealing, why do we debate the applicability of others of the Big Ten like adultery or honoring parents? Have morals become an a la carte commodity?!

Of course it gets more intricate. We all seem to agree that it's not normally ok to kill someone, but what if that someone was attacking you and it was self defense? What if that someone was old and sick and dying anyway? What if that person was an unborn baby who "wasn't a person yet"? What if that person was a murderer himself? What if that person wanted to die? What if that person is being slowly yet surely (yet passively) killed because they cannot afford the medical treatment to recover and their fellow citizens voted against extending care to them? If we believe that "thou shalt not kill" then how come some situations are 'universal' or 'obviously wrong' but others are not?

When psychological studies [*link 1, **link2] say that the ideal developmental situation for a child is within a nuclear family with one father and one mother, am I "pushing religious fundamentalism" to vote to preserve the legal monopoly of that type of marriage? When I suggest that I think that "single parenting is not the ideal" am I "insulting those who choose differently" from myself? Or am I just responding logically in accordance with scientific fact? (which would therefore make it universally right, rather than just my opinion).

I do not believe in the notion of moral 'grey area.' Right and wrong exist and no sum of loudly-spoken or cleverly-worded opinions can change them. Some moral laws are easier to follow than others, and I appreciate that. Most of us find it easy enough to pay for our items at the store rather than stealing them, but struggle somewhat more to keep the sabbath day holy or to eschew covetousness or lust.
I certainly respect that everyone has their own opinion about things, but when it comes to 'moral' issues (which I think includes all social issues), it's worth keeping in mind that those 'universal values' started as 'religious values.' Maybe those who are so offended by 'religious values' need to remember that the very concept of 'values' comes from religion. Maybe when a movement comes into conflict with religious values, it's not because religion is outdated, maybe it's because there's something actually (universally) wrong with the movement itself.



*The article at link1 was written specifically in regard to children being raised by heterosexual couples verses homosexual couples. The first portion covers studies indicating the health of children raised with heterosexual parenting arrangements. The second portion covers studies indicating problems resulting from being raised in homosexual parenting arrangements. Both are heavily cited and all references are included at the end of the article. All the studies are within the last 20 or so years, so the information is not 'outdated' or 'biased by the times.'
**link2 is a blog post which cites several studies discussing dual parenting verses single parenting, specifically in cases of divorce or never-married parents. The conclusions there are also irrefutably in favor of a child being raised by both parents.

Count Your Blessings

I have had a long and trying last month or so. There have been emotional, financial, scholastic, social, and health issues in our family; none of them small, but most of them of such a nature that privacy is warranted and thus I've had them pent up inside and they have been eating away at me. This last weekend my husband was gone for two days (and two nights) for a conference he had to go to, and as I was doing the single parent thing yet again I had a bit of a breakdown. I ran out of coping skills. I got tired of being strong all the time.
Thankfully some sweet friends buoyed me with encouraging words and even brought me dinner and ice cream. I am grateful to them for supporting me when I needed it, and realize that in spite of all the struggles we face right now I need to be better about taking the time to count my blessings.
I am grateful for a husband who works hard to provide for our family, who supports my staying home with our kids, and who supports me in my other ambitions as well (like the book I'm writing).
I am grateful for a mother who is always there to talk to, and who has unlimited long distance calling (which I don't) and frequently answers the phone with "shall I call you right back so we can talk for a while?"
I am grateful for my physical health, and the health of my spouse and kids.
I am grateful to have a functional computer again.
I am grateful for the fellowship and support I have with friends online.
I am grateful for the 'big picture' worldview that the gospel of Christ brings me.
I am grateful for the peace brought by prayer.
I am grateful for my sight.
I am grateful for my mobility.
I am grateful to live in a beautiful place.
I am grateful for the friends and neighbors I have here.
I am grateful that the weather is warming (a little) and that I'm able to turn down the heaters and reduce the bills.
I am grateful to not be in Pelican!

Idealism

I admit it, I'm an idealist.
I know we don't live in an ideal world, but I don't think that means that I have to be content with the status quo, or that I shouldn't want something else (or strive to make changes to bring certain of those ideals into reality). I'm not willing to be passive about things that matter to me, and I don't think that's a negative trait.
My opinions, my ideals, are based on thought and study and testimony, not on ignorance or prejudice (though those words have been directed at me recently). I am not ashamed of them, nor do I feel the need to keep them to myself. I'm not trying to 'push' them when I share them, and I'm not trying to insult or offend people who don't agree or fit in with them. I do not expect everyone to agree with me and, in fact, I usually enjoy a healthy debate--so long as everybody is nice to each other and keeps the discussion on the topic rather than making it personal.

As I said, I realize that the world is not ideal. Many of my ideals are not or even cannot be realities here or now. That doesn't mean that they are bad ideals, or that I should stop believing in them, talking about them, or doing what I can to bring change to my world.