Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Dress code

I am a bit sad about today's lack of dress code. Women used to wear such beautiful dresses and men would wear such suits and hats!

The dress code is so informal now that I feel very out of place if I am out wearing a dress. Now I know some people still dress up and I would never tell anyone what to wear. I just see that it is mostly older ladies who still dress very formal now.

Wearing something nice makes us feel good and it affects our whole demeanor and posture. I am not so keen on today's fashion though, which is made cheaply and is often times too sexy or too masculine for me.

Ideally though, for everyday living, a beautiful yet casual cotton dress is more practical than formal wear. Wearing an apron is also a fun reminder of the past, isn't it?

Monday, February 27, 2012

Just to clarify...

I have been getting a lot of comments about my opinion of the baby boomers' revolution and I just want to clarify a few things as sometimes the tone of the web makes it hard to understand someone! And the way I write as well! :)

You have to understand that I live in a very socialist place where over 80% of mothers work. Because subsidized daycare is $7 a day here, many men do not value their wives' contribution at home. I am seen as somebody who "doesn't contribute to society" = not paying taxes and I have been in the recent few weeks viciously insulted by working women.

People here are extremely bitter and negative toward marriage and so you see a huge amount of unmarried couples cohabiting with or without kids. The government here is very liberal. Feminists have whined and complained about men and work, and they still do as they never seem to be happy. It is never good enough for them. The child per family rate is about 1.6 here so it is below the replacement rate, enabling the government to want lots of immigrants to move here (which I don't mind of course as my own grandparents were immigrants! I am just tired of the anti-children vibe).

TV programs are far from being wholesome. They portray "free sex and love" as the values of the baby boomers that live here have invaded every media outlet. Children rarely grow up in a stable household. I am sure some of you who read my blog do not have the same experiences like me as you may live in a more conservative area! There are still nice families around, maybe more in the countryside as I live in suburbia land, but they are quiet and don't speak their minds much.

There are of course many problems in society and we cannot blame one group for everything. The problem is that instead of working toward better marriages, society has decided that marriage is wrong and that we should just be selfish, have a ton of boyfriends and not raise children (note: I saw how this attitude destroyed the lives of many women I know, so no, I don't believe this mentality is good for women. I don't have a problem with people who don't have children: it is the general attitude and the change of values!)

I grew up in the 80's here when it was a lot more conservative. Things have since changed for the worst in my opinion. Children are viewed as burdens and a lot of women have lost their compassionate, motherly side.

I refuse to follow the mainstream crowd as it is just not family friendly. I am perhaps one of the few who still believes in shows like "Father knows best" and "Leave it to Beaver". Despite its obvious flaws, I often times would rather live in the 50's.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Needs vs. wants

In the time of our grandparents, people did not have the amount of debt that we see now as credit cards did not yet exist.

What is it with the obsession of stuff? Of trying to look rich to impress other people?

How do we value success anymore? By the designer clothes we wear, by the type of car we drive, by the fancy restaurants we go to...All that unnecessary spending put on credit leads to much materialism and unhappiness.

We really need to set our priorities straight. Houses back in the 50's were small: they were often times less than 1000 SF, had three bedrooms and one bathroom. Today, too many families try to keep up with the Joneses when they cannot afford it.

We have to evaluate what our true needs are:

-Rent/mortgage you can afford
-Utilities
-Insurance
-Transportation
-Healthy food
-Basic clothing
-Furniture
-Appliances
-Toileteries
-Medical
-Savings

Today, we are so spoiled with conveniences, yet we still complain. I am of the opinion that less stuff = happiness because it enables us to focus on what is truly important in life besides having your needs met: love, family, friendship & kindness.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Beautiful womanhood

When I started this blog, I was firm about my position as a homemaker but still apologetic. One year later, after much thinking and maturing, I now feel that I need to grow into the lady I want to be regardless of the mainstream opinions and that means fully embracing my values.

It is hard for me to say "housewife" as my occupation because almost everyone I encounter starts a confrontation. I am timid and do not wish to offend anyone, but I realize that I just cannot control other people's reactions.

With the divorce rate so high, society has become bitter and cynical toward marriage. The push for women to be aggressive saddens me.

I see a lot of unhappy people and stress. Money cannot buy happiness. Happiness lies in us.

By changing so many laws, society has actually lost respect toward women by thinking that their worth is only measured by the amount of money they make. As a result, many men do not commit anymore and marriage is in turmoil.

I guess I will never understand the animosity toward homemakers, but as I write about these issues, I also stand firm in my beliefs that I do not wish to be of this world, but I wish to stay timeless and old fashioned.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Occupation: homemaker

My husband and I encountered an administrator yesterday who refused to put down homemaker as my occupation and said he would "figure something else". I am guessing, "unemployed"?

We live in a very liberal place where homeschooling is highly regulated as well. There are of course always necessary laws that are needed but I find it pretty unbelievable that the State thinks that children are better off without their parents.

I have been wanting to homeschool our future children for quite some time now and my husband is very thrilled by the idea. I think it is a wonderful way to give them strong morals and values that will prepare them for life. I really do want our children to grow up the old fashioned way and have good manners. In a sense, being a vintage homemaker has really prepared me more mentally for child rearing than when I was working as I have been reflecting and reconsidering a lot of modern ideas.

Plus, having been taught in public school, I have observed that many boys get tossed aside in the favor of girls. Christina Hoff Sommers talks about this issue in her book "The war against boys". It is a fact that more girls than boys graduate from college and a lot of school teachings are geared toward girls. Here, the government keeps changing the education system and even installed happy faces instead of grades!!

Another thing that annoys me is the push for perfection toward children. Good morals and values should come first, then education in a way that makes learning intriguing and fun. I see a trend of parents pushing their kids from one activity to another and pushing them to be the best in everything which I find stressful and sad. As a kid, I did do a lot of activities but they were always balanced between playing in the backyard with my siblings. I also did them out of love and not out of competition.

I long to live forever like a vintage housewife: taking care of my family and raising good citizens!

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

A simple, decluttered and beautiful home

Since our dishwasher broke, I am washing the dishes by hand until we receive our new one. It is such a simple and old fashioned thing to do and it reconnects me to a time when dishwashers didn't exist.

I love working with my hands in the home. Decluttering stuff we don't need or use anymore leaves room for the beautiful decorations we love.

I feel that in the modern world, we have lost that "home sweet home" feeling and a sense of belonging. Home for me is when good food is being cooked, the walls have colors we like, the furniture and the decor is lovely and we can feel free to relax.

There is a constant attack on the home as being boring or not a place to want to stay in for too long, but I think that taking care of a home is so much more than that! We women have a special touch and intuition for the home. When you're a homemaker, life is a lot less expensive to keep up with as we take the time to pay our bills on time, make homemade food, clean with natural cleaners and take care of our belongings. We don't need to spend lots of money to be happy: we value the most important things in life such as family, health, nature and good friends.

That is what I desire: a simple, decluttered and beautiful home!

Monday, February 20, 2012

A vintage heart

I have a vintage heart who longs to live like my grandmother: she and my grandfather survived World War II and raised their family first on a farm, then in the city and lastly in a ranch in the suburbs.

She was always warm and welcoming to me and my siblings, and was always dressed nicely. Her kitchen had a vintage green color and she had a wonderful set of China. Her living room had traditional couches that lasted for years. They had a 3 bedroom house with one full bathroom, an unfinished basement and a victory garden in her backyard that she was so proud of. She made the best pickles I have ever tasted and always served her simple homemade food with love.

What has happened since then? The children of the Greatest Generation, the generation that fought for our freedom, became so ungrateful toward their parents and the establishment that they rebelled and changed the whole system for the worst.

Thanks to no fault divorce, a lot of families are broken. The rebellion against the traditional setting had a result that we see in today's society: lack of manners & politeness, lack of classy clothing, overindulgence in consumerism, debt, lack of morals...I am not saying the 50's were perfect as they were not, but my grandparents were very happy together and put family first. There are plenty of other examples of long lasting marriages. Baby boomers went the extreme opposite way which was really not necessary. We need better communication and better marriages. We did not need for them to actually destroy marriage, men and the family setting.

The baby boomers form a big population of our society. A lot of baby boomers became extremely selfish: they did not take their wedding vows seriously, they became very materialistic after their peace and love phase, they created the term "latch key kids" and now: what do we see? We see people who are spiritually lost and confused. We see spoiled children. We see a 50's ranch that used to sell for $10 000 or less now being sold for $350 000, making it hard for mothers to stay home.

Baby boomers and feminists have done a great job in portraying their morals and beliefs in the government and in the media. They silence their critics: us, the less populated generation X. They took all the money, all the jobs and created more government programs that benefit them, maybe even leaving us without Social Security.

We old fashioned ladies get laughed at and we are told to "get with the times". Well I refuse too. We are a minority because we think more like our grandmothers, who had no debt and were actually happy to have children and raise them. The more voice we have, perhaps the better things will change.

I long to see the world our grandparents fought for: a world of peace, freedom, family, morals and community.

Friday, February 17, 2012

A throwback to the 50's?

I don't understand why being a housewife is considered to be so oppressive nowadays. I have more freedom than if I worked a job and I married a true gentleman!

Just what is the definition of success anyway? Lots of money? Big house? Being aggressive like a man?

It often feels to me like I am living in the past and that everyone around me is puzzled. This won't stop me from being happy though!

As women, we have choices now: more choices of employment than ever, but even though society puts us down for being old fashioned, being home is legal and is not a lesser choice than working.

I feel like the value of womanhood has gone way downhill as it seems like all that matters now is career, money, competition and aggressivity.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Brave new world

Last weekend, hubby and I watched the 1998 TV movie "Brave new world" based on the 1932 novel by Aldous Huxley.

It was quite fascinating! I recommend this movie! It showed a society that promotes promiscuity and in which children are born in tubes and raised by the State. The people that live in nature and raise their own children are called savages and no one knows what love is.

It is indeed fascinating because our society is becoming this way! In the movie, people scoffed at the "servants" and didn't know what a mother was. In 1932, the author predicted the future would become like this. We are of course not as extreme as the movie portrays, but it is a fact that society has changed tremendously away from nature and family life. Food for thought!

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Eating wholesome food

I think the greatest benefit of having me home is the cooking I do! I really love to cook with good and natural ingredients. It is expensive to eat out and to buy ready made foods! It is also not as good for you.

Margarine replaced butter, high fructose corn syrup replaced sugar, trans fat replaced natural oils...There is a return to natural foods but it still has a long way to go!

It is much healthier in the long run to cook at home. I hope you have fun experimenting in the kitchen!

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

The simple life = uncool?

I have always been an introvert and I drum by my own beat. I like classic styles and don't care much for the latest trends!

I prefer to have a close circle of friends instead of many acquaintances. I have never cared about being famous or popular. I prefer to build a life together with hubby instead of separate from him. I love nature and good homemade food.

I love music and I love playing it. I love children and the elderly. I long for a beautiful vintage home in the country and many kids playing in the backyard!

I wonder: when did the simple life become uncool? Why does society fixate on looks, age and material things?

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Simple ways to save money

There is always something to save at home! Instead of feeling discouraged about money, take the opportunity to learn about frugality and have fun!

All that matters to me in life is to create a home sweet home for my husband, my cat and I. Cleaning and cooking is often looked at as degrading, but it is not! It takes responsibility and maturity to handle a household. I feel more prepared to handle the arrival of children as well now that I know how to keep a home.

To go back to frugality, here are a few simple ways to save money at home:

-Check your electricity usage and cut back everything you can, such as unplugging cords when unused (microwave, lamps, TV, etc.), closing the lights when you leave a room, cooking with a Crock pot more often, changing your light bulbs to energy efficient ones;
-Get rid of disposables as much as you can. I still use Lysol wipes and paper towels when there are for example meat messes to clean up, but use regular towels for everything else with a bottle of half white vinegar, half water;
-Cut cable if you can't afford it. Find your favorite TV shows for free to watch online.
-Clean with natural products such as baking soda! There are so many uses for it and it is cheap!
-Cook more with beans, peas and lentils;
-Cancel your gym suscription and exercise at home instead;
-If you don't need it, don't buy it. Think through each and every single purchase you make;
-Move to a cheaper but safe area. Stressing over a rent or mortgage payment isn't worth it;
-Cancel magazine suscriptions and read them at your library or online: same for books, DVDs and CDs;
-If you really need to read a book and your library won't order it for you, think of buying an ebook. It is cheaper and cuts down on paper;
-It is a no brainer but don't go out to eat unless your finances are in order. Freeze meals for sick days;
-Buy a used car and keep it for as long as possible. New cars lose appreciation as soon as they leave the car lot;
-Take care of your belongings so you don't need to replace them;
-Transfer money automatically to a savings account so you don't touch it;
-Make your own laundry soap;
-Cook from scratch;
-Use your car less often: do all shopping in one trip;
-Don't buy clothes if you don't need them;
-Shop insurance companies for the best price;
-Use energy efficient appliances;
-Buy cheaper home decorations;
-Shop sales for things you really need;
-Avoid shops and going out: find free activities to do in your town;
-Barter for goods;
-Buy used;
-DIY!

I hope these tips help! Gas went up 20% here and sales taxes increased again. I am hoping that the economy recovers as well as it has been tough on everyone!

Friday, February 10, 2012

5 reasons one parent should stay home

This is a good article explaining the benefits of having one parent at home:

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/5-reasons-one-parent-stay-home-164400797.html

I really think in today's hectic pace of life that children strongly benefit from having one parent at home and eventually, should there be the need or want, to work part time from home.

"The benefits of a single-income household.

If you total every expense from child care and health care to groceries and recreation, the first 18 years of a child's life can cost a small fortune -- $190,528 to be exact. Child care alone can cost around $4,300 a year for one child, according to Bankrate.com.

So, let's say you have two kids. If one parent stays home instead of working, you could save close to $10,000 a year.

For most couples, deciding who works and who stays home comes down to plain economics. Some parents would love to be able to stay home with their child, but they simply can't afford it. Others love their kids but also love to work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than half of American children live in two-income households.

Still, a family can benefit by sticking to the one-income model. Here are five practical reasons why one parent should stay at home:

1. Money
Wait… what?! Isn't it kind of a no-brainer that having both parents work means much more money and fewer financial stresses? Not exactly.

Don't get me wrong, it can be more financially viable for both parents to work, but not always. The child care costs I mentioned before are just one piece of the puzzle.

Let's say you make $30,000 per year. That is $2,500 per month gross, and around $1,500 after taxes, including social security and medicare withholding.

The cost to commute to and from work, including gas, insurance, an occasional $5 coffee and lunch out, can add up to more than $300 a month.

Work clothes can be another expense for many working Americans that can cost around $100 per month. And what about food? When both parents are working, there is less time to cook, meaning more money spent at restaurants.

[InvestingAnswers Feature: "Save Hundreds of Dollars on Groceries (And Other Expenses)."]


2. Time
Parenting is a full-time job. If both parents work full-time jobs, they will have less time to spend with their children. Most full-time employees don't work 40 hours a week. According to the United Nations, more than 85% of men and 65% of women work more than 40 hours. Needless to say, in most professional jobs, you will spend more than 40 hours a week working. Add in at least an hourly commute every day and you are pushing at least 50 hours a week.

Obviously, work isn't the only thing that will keep you from spending time with your child. Taking care of the house and running errands drains the time spent with children, but that can be minimized if one parent stays at home.


3. Energy
Families where both parents work full-time have less time to spend with their child, and the time they do have to spend is typically their "bad hours," or times when you aren't at your best.

Anytime you are tired, hungry, distracted and need alone time to unwind means it is tough to be attentive. With one parent at home during the day, the child can experience the best hours, with the most energy, of that parent. If the working parent can spend extra time with the children on the weekends, the parent who stays home can use that time to relax a little.

4. Bonding
By staying at home, a parent has the chance to see all of their child's firsts, and act as a positive influence during the formative years. Of course, you can absolutely find caring environments in a day care or with the right babysitter, but you have to consider frequent turnover and high student-to-teacher ratios in some programs.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, regardless of quality, children with a higher quantity of non-parental care exhibited increased behavioral problems.

While the job can be thankless at times, it can also be the most rewarding job on the planet. You might want to pull your hair out when your kid decides to eat the dog food, but does anything compare to her hug? During tough times in the office, a hug from Terry in accounting is just not the same.

How many people do you know who get to the end of their life and wish they had spent more time working and less time with their families? You can't pin a dollar sign on the value of spending time with your children.

5. Stress
No, I'm not saying parenting is a stress-free occupation, but it can certainly beat juggling a full-time career at the same time. Striking a satisfactory balance between work and family is a constant struggle, and some parents decide that juggling is just not worth it. By staying at home with a child, a parent doesn't feel pressure to squeeze activities and moments into their day simply because they have time.

Striking a Balance
Now, I'm not advocating a time warp to the 1950s where women had few choices but to stay at home. While the majority of stay-at-home parents today are still women, there are about 158,000 stay-at-home dads, according to the 2010 Census. That number is growing, considering many fathers are working from home, but still act as the primary caregiver.

A happy medium is for the parent that stays home with the child to work part-time. It is no easy task to juggle raising a child full-time with an added part-time job on the side, but it could offer the best of both worlds. With an increasing number of workers requesting the flexibility of working from home, part-time work is easier now than ever.

The Investing Answer: Having one parent stay at home with the children can be cost-effective and a great investment in the emotional well being of your entire family. Having a parent stay home and work a part-time job, while still caring for a child, gives a family the best of both worlds. But this might not be an option in every case. Every family has to look at their situation and weigh the costs and benefits of every child care option."

[For more family and money advice, check out "How to Teach Your Kids the Financial Facts of Life."]

By Brian Reed, www.investinganswers.com

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Christina Hoff Sommers wins feminist debate

Back in December 2011, Christina Hoff Sommers debated against the motion that all women should work. I am so glad that she won!

Here are the links to it:

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/790
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/791/CommentKey:1166981
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/792/print

In this article, she writes about the results:

http://www.american.com/archive/2011/december/is-a-womans-place-at-work/

Antipathy towards stay-at-home mothers goes back to the early days of feminism.

This house believes that a woman’s place is at work. That is the motion The Economist’s editors invited me to oppose in a ten-day, online, Oxford-style debate. A friend urged me to decline. The motion is silly, she said. No one can seriously defend the view that women must be in the workplace. You will be left attacking a strawman. Don’t do it.

Well, I did do it. I have spent years studying the organized women’s movement, and I knew the motion would not lack for serious defenders. Antipathy towards stay-at-home mothers goes back to the early days of modern feminism. In her classic, The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan called the traditional suburban home a “comfortable concentration camp” and described housewives as “walking corpses.” But Friedan was a moderate compared to feminist pioneer Simone de Beauvoir. Beauvoir once said, “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children … Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

The prescription that a woman’s place is the workplace is as objectionable, I concluded, as the traditional prescription that her place is in the home. My debate opponent, Linda Basch, president of the National Council for Research on Women, was less harsh but no less censorious. Right out of the gate, she asserted: “Women belong in the workplace. It is right for families, communities, the economy, and, most importantly, for women so that they can live to their full potential as productive and self-reliant individuals.”

My view throughout was that modern women do not have a single “place”—in a free society it is up to them to determine how to live their lives. The prescription that a woman’s place is the workplace is as objectionable, I concluded, as the traditional prescription that her place is in the home. A majority of Economist readers (including many tolerant feminists who respect women’s choices) supported my side and I won the debate.  But defending motherhood was not as easy as it might seem.

The moderator, Barbara Beck, a long-time Economist writer, was gracious throughout, but she was clearly unhappy when it appeared I might be winning. Midway through the proceedings she tried to revise the motion, explaining to readers that it was proposed “ironically.” Said Beck, “It was not intended to be taken literally, but to suggest that times had changed and that for most women being part of the workforce has become the norm—and a good thing too.” She alerted readers that my side—now re-defined as people who think it a bad thing that so many women are in the workforce—was in the lead and encouraged people with “strong views” to join the debate and “tip the balance.” Next, a Greek chorus of two “featured guest experts” turned up to offer their expertise—both of them strong allies of Basch. Do they do this at Oxford?

After announcing that I had won, she quickly added, ‘But it is hard to be sure what our participants meant by voting as they did.’ To be fair, I was well aware of Beck’s views before I entered the fray. A few weeks before the debate, The Economist had published her extensive “Special Report” on the wage gap. (Beck thanks Basch in the acknowledgments and cites the two guest experts in the text.) On the surface, the report was a typical Economist production—quality journalism replete with “studies show” references to the latest academic research. But to anyone in the know, it was tendentious in the extreme—suffused with feminist talking points and a women-are-victims narrative. For instance, the report laments that “In Japan women are awarded only 11 percent of all degrees in engineering, manufacturing, and construction; in Indonesia their share is exactly half.” Beck cites “ingrained gendering” as the likely source for Japan’s poor showing. But the figures from Japan and Indonesia fit perfectly with the findings of Susan Pinker and others, nowhere mentioned in the report, that occupational differentiation between men and women increases as societies become wealthier and freer. Why? Because women have more choices. I doubt The Economist would be so intellectually oblivious in its reporting on business and finance. One reason I entered the debate was that I hoped that I could correct the record.

As I said, Beck was cordial throughout, and when the debate ended she thanked me for my “sturdy” arguments. Still, she was clearly disheartened by the results. After announcing that I had won, she quickly added, “But it is hard to be sure what our participants meant by voting as they did.”

Here is what I think they meant. With few exceptions, participants celebrated women’s progress and opportunity. They were rejecting a rigid, gender-quota feminism of the sort featured in the “Special Report”— and captured in the phrase “A woman’s place is at work.”

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Homemaking without children

I strongly believe that being a homemaker is a valid position to take even when one is without children. For younger women like me, for women who don't want children or can't have them, for empty nesters and for women with school aged children.

Being a homemaker has been extremely devalued in today's society and I think it shouldn't be this way. I am educated and truly chose Mr. Right as my husband. There is constantly something to do in the home: dishes, laundry, errands, appointments, bill paying...I am never bored and I take the time to rest if I am ill.

As I have once heard before: I can read Shakespeare while stirring up the jam! I don't need to have a job in order to use my brain and I am happy living a life with my husband. I don't claim to do as much as another homemaker who has children does (although I do want them!), but it doesn't mean either that I am worthless. What matters is what my husband thinks, not anyone else! We are happy and that's all there is to that. Homemaking is a ton of fun if you make it that way! I feel that in my life, I've "been there done that". I accomplished a lot when I was single and don't feel the need to prove myself any longer. I am not saying I will never work for money again and if I do, it would only be part time from home, but I feel that there is more than enough to do at home while continuing our education that I don't need to explain in a materialistic kind of way why I am at home to anyone who will not listen with an open mind.

Just remember that it is your choice and your choice alone to make!

Friday, February 3, 2012

A productive home life

Most people have a modern concept of home life being one of crashing after work or school. With more and more people in the workforce, the art of homemaking has been lost. People undervalue the money saving work of the homemaker.

Who can work full time, clean and declutter everything in the home, take the time to compare prices in stores, cook from scratch, decorate, pay bills, learn more about homemaking, take care of kids and pets at the same time? Well not me. It would stress me out to have to do all that on top of working. I also get that we need to be prepared for hard times so it is smart in a sense to have a small home business that could grow in times of need, but not necessary.

North America is full of materialism and consumerism that has resulted in families spending way above their means. It costs a lot of money to work: second car, gas, insurance, restaurants, dry cleaner, work clothes on top of education. My husband and I have always calculated that it would not be worth it for me to work overall. There is a lot of drudgery, politics and monotony involved in jobs as well, and very few people can earn lots of money doing what they do.

Living a productive and simple home life means that we find creative ways to cut corners and that we value the basics of life, such as an affordable shelter, electricity, water, healthy food, health, basic clothing, bills being paid on time and affordable decor. We also have a home phone, Internet and a computer. We don't need entertainment all of the time! Having a nice conversation with a cup of tea is sometimes all the pleasure I need! :)

There are ways to cut corners in everything we do that will not reduce our quality of life. As I recently found out, washing hair with baking soda and water works much better than shampoo, I now only use regular toothpaste and mouthwash in the morning and use baking soda and salt afterwards which has actually whitened my teeth, I am about to make laundry soap using borax, washing soda & a laundry soap bar, plus there are so many homemaking skills I have yet to learn!! Cutting electricity, cooking from scratch, stockpiling, buying in bulk...I am learning every day how to better my skills and trim the budget. With rising living costs, it is more important than ever to be prepared and to adjust our priorities.

We create our homes which we love!

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Virtues and morals

I have been pondering lately: if people keep associating a person's worth in terms of money, what else is there?

The feminists of the 60's and 70's came from wealthy environments, were intellectuals and pretty elitist. They didn't speak for all women and they still don't. There is more to life than climbing the corporate ladder and making lots of money.

I truly believe that society has gone against nature: it started with the Industrial Revolution, then the rise of suburbia and the technology advances. None of this is bad in itself, but I believe that it radically changed the way we view life today.

And I must say: for the so-called "open minded" people, they are quite close minded to my lifestyle it seems!

I don't judge a person by what they do: I become friends with kind people of character. Maturity, kindness, hospitality, manners and the view that we all have worth as human beings regardless of age, gender, class or race. I believe that there was a lot of old fashioned goodness and common sense from past generations that are now disappearing...

Sorry if this is kind of a heavy post: when you are bombarded with questions almost every day like me, it really does take a big amount of strength and maturity to go on!