(no subject)
I continue my reading of why my feminist perspective (and indeed my attitude to life) is fundementally false...From http://homeliving.blogspot.com/2008/03/living-beautifully-with-new-frugality.html
-Women at home do not need to drink,smoke, gamble, or go to parties. The amount of money spent on these things could buy things of lasting value: a new couch, a new rug, or fresh paint for the house.
Or, they can go out to work (this is part of an argument about why women should not go out to work), and be able to afford to buy the occasional drink. Plus, parties can be fun. Is the author suggesting that it is fine if men go to parties and drink?
-You don't need to go to the movies or an expensive vacation. You can improvise and substitute things that are free. You do not need to buy seasons tickets or any tickets to ball games and concerts. They are pleasures but not necessarily needs. There may be nothing wrong with having any of the above-listed items, but if you are cutting down on expenses so that you can secure your position as full-time homemaker, they are not necessary. The Victorian women were entertained by reading, writing, doing puppet shows for their children with socks and handmade dolls, and they knew how to make up stories. In those days it was quite common for families, even those not rich, to have a piano in their house. The young people enjoyed exchanging sheet music and playing new tunes while others gathered around and sang. Even without instruments, families learned to sing in harmony and entertain themselves. The hub of life was the home, and to be invited to someones house for the evening would be a memorable event consisting of happiness and warmth. People used to make up their own jokes and invent their own games. Every family can do this today.
And many Victorian women worked increadibly long hours and were lucky if they had the opportunity to learn to read and write, and the time (and light and money) to pursue the many occupations listed above. Wonderful for the nice middle- to upper middle-class women, not so good for the ordinary working class women from whom I am decended.
-Women at home do not need to drink,smoke, gamble, or go to parties. The amount of money spent on these things could buy things of lasting value: a new couch, a new rug, or fresh paint for the house.
Or, they can go out to work (this is part of an argument about why women should not go out to work), and be able to afford to buy the occasional drink. Plus, parties can be fun. Is the author suggesting that it is fine if men go to parties and drink?
-You don't need to go to the movies or an expensive vacation. You can improvise and substitute things that are free. You do not need to buy seasons tickets or any tickets to ball games and concerts. They are pleasures but not necessarily needs. There may be nothing wrong with having any of the above-listed items, but if you are cutting down on expenses so that you can secure your position as full-time homemaker, they are not necessary. The Victorian women were entertained by reading, writing, doing puppet shows for their children with socks and handmade dolls, and they knew how to make up stories. In those days it was quite common for families, even those not rich, to have a piano in their house. The young people enjoyed exchanging sheet music and playing new tunes while others gathered around and sang. Even without instruments, families learned to sing in harmony and entertain themselves. The hub of life was the home, and to be invited to someones house for the evening would be a memorable event consisting of happiness and warmth. People used to make up their own jokes and invent their own games. Every family can do this today.
And many Victorian women worked increadibly long hours and were lucky if they had the opportunity to learn to read and write, and the time (and light and money) to pursue the many occupations listed above. Wonderful for the nice middle- to upper middle-class women, not so good for the ordinary working class women from whom I am decended.