“Tips to look after your husband” – hints and suggestions from the 1950s

Tips to look after your husband – 1950

This came across my newsfeed today, to the usual mix of ironic laughter and disparaging comments. I’ve seen it a number of times, and it is invariably greeted by either outrage or guffaws.

But the thing that is lost in both reactions is the fact that most men would treat a woman who was this kind to her husband as an absolute jewel to be cherished, cared for, and loved with passionate devotion. The few who would not, are jerks who would continue to be jerks no matter what the woman did.

Just sayin’…!

(Of course, the sad economic reality, now, is that this sort of a situation is often simply not possible in today’s world – in which both partners must usually work outside the home in order to financially support the household – even if both parties wanted it. But that is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish………)

Advertisements

NYC School Cancels Father-Daughter Dance to Comply With New Gender Guidelines | Fox News Insider

https://i2.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2017/03/Father-Daughter-Dance-AP-640x480.jpg

Source: NYC School Cancels Father-Daughter Dance to Comply With New Gender Guidelines | Fox News Insider

This came across my newsfeed, with the following excellent comment from one of my friends on Facebook, Lutheran (Missouri Synod) pastor, Pater Larry Beane:

“This is where ‘cultural secession’ comes in. Parents can opt out of the school’s and state’s approach to this and organize their own event. Communities used to do this kind of thing all the time. This is an example of what Tony Esolen calls for in “Out of the Ashes.” This is a golden opportunity to pioneer a new cultural paradigm.

Don’t just complain; fight back by ignoring the school and doing what you want. We’ve surrendered too much of our lives and sense of community to the government out of convenience. [emphasis added] Since when do DOE bureaucrats tell us all how to live? We don’t need them, and speaking of education, they need to learn that reality.

And there is always #homeschool as the ultimate act of defiance.”

And yes, I know not every daughter has a father available. That could be easily allowed for by including “grandfathers or other ‘father figures,'” rather than canceling the dance entirely. This is pandering to the concerns of a small slice of society by disrespecting one of the most key elements in human culture and society, the father-daughter bond. Unacceptable!

And Pater Beane is right: communities – by which I mean not just or even primarily geographical, but cultural – need to combat this by setting up parallel structures and events, not simply meekly acceding to the currently-dominant paradigm, which despite trumpeting “diversity” and “inclusion” is in fact deeply and intrinsically limiting, coercive, and enforcing of sameness.

Remember the words often attributed to Edmund Burke, that

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

The Family that Prays…

The Family that Prays Together Stays Together

We did not do this so formally, in my family, except on special occasions. And as Methodists, we did not kneel! But I was raised in a devout, reasonable, Christian home; and I learned the faith literally at my mother’s knee. I have always been grateful for that, and my gratitude grows with each passing year!

“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” — Proverbs 22:6 (KJV)

Mother and Daughter Country Sweethearts Aprons

Source: Mother and Daughter Country Sweethearts Aprons

It saddens me that so few women wear aprons these days. It may seem a small thing, in a world in which so many terrible things are happening (this very day, a radical Islamic terrorist from Uzbekistan ran down and killed at least eight people in Manhattan with a truck, while shouting “Allahu akbar!”), but it is both a symbol and a thing itself.

Aprons are attractive and feminine, as well as being useful for keeping a woman’s clothes clean (and if they have pockets, carrying needful items for sewing, cooking, or wiping the tears of a sobbing child). But they are also a uniform, of a sort: the uniform of a woman who takes caring for her home and family seriously – a priority, not just one among many possible tasks, that she may, or may not, do if she has time.

And if she has a daughter, and they are wearing a matching mother-daughter set like this one, she is both setting an example and encouraging solidarity and emulation on the part of the rising generation. That is something which has always been important, but now that it is no longer taken for granted, no longer a given, is perhaps more vital than ever!

A woman who puts on an apron is girding herself for battle with entropy, chaos, and dissolution. She is taking a stand against disorder on the domestic front, and in so doing, she is also taking a stand against disorder in the wider world. That may sound excessively cosmic, but I think there is real truth to it. So I am happy to see these! Hope they encourage more women to “put on the uniform,” and take up the fight.

 


 

(The others on the page are lovely, too. The only thing I wish is that the pictures showed an actual mother with her daughter! Although I suspect she’s probably the one taking said pictures…)

The Death of Eros by Mark Regnerus | Articles | First Things

Something strange is going on in America’s bedrooms… The trend is most pronounced among the young. Controlling for age and time period, people born in the 1930s had the most sex, whereas those born in the 1990s are reporting the least. Fifty years on from the advent of the sexual revolution, we are witnessing the demise of eros.

Source: The Death of Eros by Mark Regnerus | Articles | First Things

Interesting! Not everyone will agree with this, of course, but it’s based on academic social science research (so it can’t be simply dismissed as the ravings of those “deplorable” religious types…) and at the least, raises some issues that are worth pondering. Among them:

Despite all the talk of the “hookup culture,” the vast majority of sex happens within long-term, well-defined relationships. Yet Americans are having more trouble forming these relationships than ever before. Want to understand the decline of sex? Look to the decline in marriage…

A decline in commitment isn’t the only reason for the sexual recession. Today one in eight adult Americans is taking antidepressant medication, one of the common side effects of which is reduced libido. Social media use also seems to play a part. The ping of an incoming text message or new Facebook post delivers a bit of a dopamine hit—a smaller one than sex delivers, to be sure, but without all the difficulties of managing a relationship…

If these were the only causes, the solution would be straightforward: a little more commitment, a little less screen time, a few more dates over dinner, more time with a therapist, and voilà. But if we follow the data, we will find that the problem goes much deeper, down to one of the foundational tenets of enlightened opinion: the idea that men and women must be equal in every domain.

Social science cannot tell us if this is true, but it can tell us what happens if we act as though it is. Today, the results are in. Equality between the sexes is leading to the demise of sex.

Follow the link for more details. As I say, this idea won’t be popular, or even acceptable, with many people. I would modify it to say that identicality, rather than “equality” per se, is the real issue: the idea that men and women are basically interchangeable, rather than being different but complementary, and excelling in different roles. But however you want to parse it, it’s at least worth considering, rather than merely dismissing.

Live and Let Die – Maccabee Society

 

What does the decision of Charlie Gard say about society today? Parents should have every right to save their children. How did this become negotiable?

Source: Live and Let Die – Maccabee Society

I have not heretofore chosen to say much about the Charlie Gard situation, in which the parents of a child with a rare and typically-fatal disease were prevented by the authorities in the British health system from seeking experimental medical assistance which – though without guarantees – might have extended, or even saved, his life, if tried soon enough.

They prevented this even though the family had received more than ample donations to ensure that there would be no cost to the state, and even though the child, Charlie, had been granted permanent resident status here in the States, where doctors waited to do what they could for him.

And at the end, they even prevented the parents from taking him home to die – despite the fact that their argument had been, originally, that he deserved to “die with dignity.”

A British professor of law and legal ethics even went so far as to argue, in an op-ed piece in The Guardian (UK), that “children do not belong to their parents,” asserting that parents have no rights with respect to their children (!!!), only duties – “the principal duty being to act in their children’s best interests.”

Well, even if one buys the whole “no rights” argument – which I emphatically do not – the fact is that Charlie’s parents were attempting to do precisely that: since he was an infant, and not able to speak for himself, they were attempting to give him the best possible fighting chance for survival. In this they were actively, emphatically, and repeatedly hamstrung and blocked by the authorities.

Stemming from these specific circumstances of Charlie Gard, this Maccabee Society article points out the wider implications of this incident, and the precedent it has set. I found this an especially cogent warning:

“The cause for alarm behind the death of Charlie Gard lies in the fact that the court actively stopped the parents from seeking treatment. This marks a shift in attitude from one of permitting a parent to kill his or her child to one that orders the parent to kill the child. This obviously sets a dangerous precedent: if the state does not think it is worth it to save a life, even if it does not bear the cost, it can deny treatment.

“This bodes nothing less than death for so many others, especially the majority who do not have the moral and financial support that Charlie’s parents had.”

It is very far down the “slippery slope” to go from “you must not kill your child” (traditional viewpoint / classical Christian morality) to “okay, you can allow your child to die (‘death with dignity’) / kill your child (abortion) if that’s what you think is best,” to “you must allow your child to die, and you may not seek treatment to prolong his life!”

What are we becoming? May God help us.

QOTD: On ancestors and descendants

Major David French Boyd, CSA
Major David French Boyd, 9th Louisiana Infantry, Confederate States Army; First President of Louisiana State University

“He who feels no pride in his ancestors is unworthy to be remembered by his descendants.”

Maj. David French Boyd, CSA; 1st President of LSU

Particularly ironic, in light of current events in Louisiana (New Orleans, in particular)!