Friday, 28 December 2018

Syntax Error

I like to read historical novels. Both books that are actually written "back then" and books that are written now, describing the times past. But there is one thing that has started to get on my nerves more and more: really many modern writers do not understand the mindset of people who lived long time ago. They want to show us a heroine, who is practically a modern, feminist woman who just happens to wear victorian clothes.

For her life had to be more than just embroydering an appron; she had to have work to do, a meaning for her life.

Apparently embroydering your own appron is degrading. Being a seamstress, who gets payed for the same act, is not. Having your own tailoring business is superb, it ennobles you in a way than your title of marchioness never could.

Running your own household, however big it is, is mere slavery. Running someone else's household as a paid housekeeper is a career, and therefore fullfilling.  Interestingly enough women running their own households are both slaves and both bored to death while embroydering their approns. Housekeepers are never bored, they work so hard that their mistresses can be bored and focus on embroydery, and somehow all this is so very satisfying to the housekeeper.

Being a governess or a nanny to other people's children is highly respectable. You do get paid, after all. The more oppressed your position, the brighter your martyr's crown. On the other hand, if you are just taking care of your own children, you are a slave, bored and all that appron-embroydering.  

Having a Chocolaterie is as good as it gets. You do make money of it, and enable all that chocolate-eating those appron-embroydering homeslaves must do - Valium wasn't invented at those times and one cannot have vapeurs all the time, can one? So chocolate it is. On the other hand, if you are making your own petit fours at your home, maybe even with your own children -if that is not the cruelest form of slavery, I do not know what is!

I could go on forever, but I think you got my point already. In the minds of a modern writer, the only value woman has is the paycheck she gets. Her actions as such have no values. Money is the only value a person can have. Well played, feminism. In order to get more respect to women's work, you managed to degrade us and everything we do. We, as women, used to be outside that money-defines-your-worth- thing. Above it. It was actually concidered that mother's or even wife's presence at home is priceless. And then came feminism and market economy. I wonder, if market economy is the only reason modern feminism was invented. In system like this, everything must have monetary value. That's why religion is dead, too.

I wonder if we well finally reach the point where being a prostitute is a fine thing, because, hey, they get paid for it! And having sex with your husband makes you sex-having-robot. People already often see housewifes as housekeeping-machines with no intellectual pursuits. It is like the paycheck makes all the difference. Housewife, taking care of her own children, is boring. Woman who works in a kindergarten, is so much more interesting, because she has a work and she gets paid! And so on.

Feminism was never for women. It has always been for market economy. It has always been for destroying traditional values. It has always been for breaking the homes. We live in a society where everything is measured with money, even people's worth. It goes so deep that people do not even notice it anymore. The fact that lightweight historical novels advertice that same paradigma proves it.

Why? Why all this? Only explanation I can think of is that people are easier to control when they have no values, no roots, no time, no happiness. They are just producer-concumers.

Monday, 3 December 2018

Why All Women Should Knit

Take a little experiment. If your husband is not paying attention to you, sit on your sofa and take on your knitting. He will be drawn to you. Maybe he will just play with his phone, but he will want to sit next to you. Very likely he will want to talk to you.

Same goes with kids. Now I do not have kids of my own but I have noticed that when I start knitting, it draws kids to me and they will start telling me their little worries. I am convinced that it is very important that kids see their mother knitting, not in a hurry: they know that mummy is having some silent time, being present, and they can share it and their little thoughts with her.

I am sure this little trick works with every living person who has seen his or her granny knit. Somehow a knitting woman sends people a message: I am going to sit here silently and peacefully for some time now. I will not make eye contact, because I have to count stitches, so you can comfortably share difficult things with me.

It seems to me that a knitting person creates really comforting atmosphere. Other people are drawn to it, they want to share it and share their thoughts with you. If you knit, people cannot resist you.

As my husband says:"It is so cozy when you knit."

Of course it does not have to be knitting. I am sure crocheting works as well, or embroidery.  Though knitting needles make that silent little tinkle that is very soothing.

"But I am so lousy at handwork!" You may say. It does not matter. You do not have to be good at it. I am not. It takes me six months to finish a pair of woolsocks and they are not that pretty. It is the act that matters. And your skills will develop -eventually. You don't even have to like it. I don't. But I like how it soothes everybody, myself included -and I also like warm feet.

And no, colouring books for adults wont do. If you colour, it is a little bit like writing your journal. You are focusing with your eyes and you are in your own internal world. When you knit or do other handwork, you focus through your hands. Your hands keep you present. Also, using your fine motor skills in more demanding way is so important to your brains. Knitting activates your brain so much more than colouring or writing. It is like meditation on motion.


Studies even show that knitting can reduce loneliness. I am not surprised, if people on public places are as drawn to the knitter than people at homes.

Knitting can reduce depression and anxiety, slow the onset of dementia, and distract from chronic pain.

What if you are really super-knitter, knit a pair of woolsocks at one evening and are drowning in them? Donate them to homeless. In that way, you can add charity aspect to your knitting, and that is also good for your health -and your soul.  Women used to do that a lot. Especially during war, everybody was knitting socks and scarfs to soldier. Not all soldiers had female relatives who could knit to them. And hand-made woolsocks give you that feeling: "Someone, somewhere, actually cared of me so much that she spent several hours knitting these socks for me."

Wednesday, 14 November 2018

Bookworm Nook: Comparing Heroines

I have been watching new, fresh tv-series of Vanity Fair. I think I have never actually finished the book, I did start reading it but when George died, Amelia started getting on my nerves. I also just read The Sea Wolf from Jack London. Since my brain makes connection all the time with all information available, I have been making comparisons of literal heroines.

What do Becky Sharp and Jane Eyre have in common?

They are both orphans and forced to serve as governesses. They both have intellect, wit and most importantly: a will of steel. Just like Elinor Dashwood in Sense and Sensibility.  I have actually come to the conclusion that a will of steel is the most important personality character woman can have. High morals wont help if you do not have will to follow your standards at all costs.

How do Becky and Jane differ? Well, Becky is obviously an opportunist. Social climber. Even a gold-digger. Can we really blaim her for that? If woman wanted to do better in life back then, the only way was to marry up. And higher. Jane, on the other hand, is eager to make her own living and stand on her own two feet.

What I wonder, is this: If Jane had the looks of Becky, how would she behave? Did she just make a virtue out of necessity: Didn't use her "feminine wiles" to attract men, because she did not have any? Remember, how she said if she had some looks and money, she would make Mr. Rochester suffer as much as she did.

Would Jane Eyre be that moral and modest, if she was pretty? Perhaps. But I am quite sure that the modesty of a plain girl is quite different than that of a pretty girl. Which is easier, not to shoot anyone when you do not have on gun, or not to shoot anyone when you hold a loaded gun on your hand?

What I am trying to say that it is much harder for a pretty girl in a difficult situation to stay moral and modest. Because she has the means to climb the social ladder. But when you are plain, it is easier to just pull that prude-mantle on.

This is something I have been thinking about lately. I am getting more and more modest and prude as I age. And I wonder, if it is really because my standards are getting higher, or because I am not that hot anymore? After certain point only thing you can do is to accept you are not that alluring any more and focus on dignity and grace. As I said, make virtue out of necessity.

I have always loved Jane Eyre, and hated Bechy Sharp. But I have always seen that Jane Eyre is, in her own way, extremely rational and even calculating. So is Becky Sharp. What would Jane Eyre be without the moral effect of Helen Burns and Ms Temple? Jane is much more passionate than Becky; imagine the mistakes she could have made if she didn't have that moral highground she stood on -and plain looks. It is easy to be virtuous if there is no temptation. Of course, Mr. Rochester temted her when she found out he was already married. But her decision not to become his mistress was based very much on reason and calculation: she remembered how he despised the memory of his previous mistresses.

Frona Welse vs. Maud Brewster

I wrote about Frona Welse some time ago. Maud Brewster is not that interesting character, so she does not deserve her own blog post. But I find it very interesting that Jack London has managed to create two so different heroines, only two years between them. Usually even the best of male writers stick to that certain feminine archetype or -types. But Jack London has a great variety in his heroes, too.

The only thing Frona and Maud share is brownish hair, though I think Frona is fairer. And of course they are pure and good. But where Frona is very physical, strong, passionate, running and sweating, having heated conversations, Maud is that delicate little glasshouse flower -type Frona despises. She is weak, both physically and mentally. She may have strong soul, but she has to lie down all the time, and she constanlty needs a male arm to lean on. She writes poems. Maybe Frona did, too, we don't know that, at least she loved Browning. But she is still not poetic at all. She is very much flesh and blood, not ethereal. Frona is not a woman men want to put on a pedestial and worship: she is a woman men want to love in all meanings of the word.

If Frona was put on the Ghost, she wouldn't have liked Hump van Weyden and his very recently discovered strength and masculinity. She would have fell in love with Wolf-Larsen. Head over heels. There is no way she could have resisted that intellect, spirit and strength. No matter Larsen was so amoral. Remember, Frona was quite willing to whip Vance Corliss when she got angry enough: she would have understood Larsen, at least to an extent. And if there was something she couldn't undertand, she would make excuses, like women do with their abusive husbands...

Why Jack London created heroine like Maud after creating Frona? He was a man, after all, writing to mostly men. Why create pale little weakling, after creating Atalanta? Was Frona too much for readers of that time? To me, she is much more appealing, since I am very physical and natural child myself. But women at that time were supposed to be delicate, artificial and exaggerating their weakness. Or maybe Hump's newly found masculinity was so weak, that he needed someone really weak to lean on him, to grow as a man? Woman like Frona needs really strong man as her counterpart. Not some 35-year old sissy who has just found he has muscles and testicles.

And why, why there is no movie of the Daughter of the Snows? I would like to see one. Jennifer Lawrence would make stunning Frona.

Wednesday, 7 November 2018

"So, are you F****ng with other guys, too? Just thinking about STDs..."

I am so sick and tired with todays low morals that I want to scream and throw things.

Why am I so trickered, you may ask. Well, I had most illustrative conversation at one forum. Other ladies are all very smart, many of them well educated and such. One of them is having a relationship of sexual nature with a youngish lad. Woman in question had to get tested for STDs because a year ago she accidently shagged some stranger without a condom. She was, clean, but the lad she is shagging now, asked her the question above.

I mentioned I would be terribly insulted if someone asked if I am having sex with other men, too. Because in my world, it is a default expectation  that if you have sex with one person, you are not having sex with others. Woman in question was not offended at all. Other women then educated me how it is very silly and irresponsible to think like that: You must not make assumptions of other people, you must ask. Because people have so many ideas of sex, relationships and such. You know, in their world it can be ok to shag you, your best friend, her mother and her dog at the same time. You cannot know if you do not ask.

Asking those questions before you start sexual relationship is apparently also out of question. It would delay your pleasure, after all.

They really told me that making such assumptions (of people being defaultly monogamious) is wrong. And expecting them to make same assumptions of me is even worse! I cannot expect people to know my morals by sight. Well, they did not use word "morals" because to them, this is not a question of morals. It is just question of opinion, little bit like do you like to eat only main course or also starters and dessert?

All that coming from smart, well-educated women. I haven't realized before that people are really so immoral nowadays. I didn't even dare to use word "morals" myself, because they would just have explained to poor-old-childish-me how people have different morals but sexuality is really not moral issue at all. Unless if you look at women wrong way or compliment them, then it is, of course.

We are living year 2018 and assuming people have the same standards western civilization was built on, is making assumptions and therefore wrong. If you believe in those western core values, you will be frowned upon. And it is not only western value: cultures, where shagging around is a norm, are rare exceptions.

I really thought that things are still the same they were when I was studying: Girls did have pre-marital sex, of course, but 90 % of them had a boyfriend. They might change boyfriends every six months, but when they were in relationship, they did not have sex with others. Then there were those 10 %, who were concidered "easy". And all men made assumptions... Usually very accurate.

It seems to me that nowadays only easy women exist. And those women on that forum were not young, they were my age group. At their late 30's. And they see no shame in going to STD-tests or having asked questions like "Are you f****ng with other guys, too?"

This attitude has already backfired: we would not have gamers, MGTOW and pages like ROK if men were not so disappointed on women. I just realized that that's where all the misogyny in internet comes from: men are disappointed with women and their low morals. That's why they start hating women and playing games. Gamers could not exist if women were not so slutty. You cannot play games with a woman of dignity and grace. She will see through you and call your bluff.

Women on my forum would now whine about victim-blaming or something. But the fact is, and has always been, that women set the standards of society. It has always been like that and always will be, because men do anything to impress women. And if women have low standards, men will have no standards at all. And then we will have no society.

Bonnie Tyler sang "Where have all the good men gone?" She should have asked: "Where have all the good women gone?"

Thursday, 1 November 2018

Go get some rest. Now.

We live in a most strange culture. We believe that people who look like hound dogs and do triathlons are superior to anyone else. The less they sleep, the more superior they are. Even meditation is "advertised" with the claim that it reduces your need to sleep. In kundalini yoga, that I do love, teacher may say: "It is said that 11 minutes in this position is equivalent to 4 hours of sleep." And that is supposed to be a good thing?

People brag about how busy they are and how little sleep they get. If you say you nap regularly, you get long looks. Only babies need naps. I even know a man (50 years old, he should know better) who sleeps only 6 hours a night, because "Why waste time on sleeping when there is so much interesting stuff to do?" Well, maybe, because it is essential to your health? Sleeping is not waste of time. Far from it. If you sleep enough, you will live longer and healthier and have more time to do all the cool stuff in the long run. But, of course, in our culture we want everything NOW. Mememememe wants it nownownownownow. That pretty much sums up our culture.

Back in the 80's, people slept an hour longer than nowadays. They also had more sex. Most people din't have microwave oven and ready meals were practically non-existing (at least I recall so). So people didn't have all those time-saving advantages and yet they had time to sleep and shag? Well, maybe they didn't waste time on blogging.

What I want you to do, right now, at this instant: go to your sofa, put your feet up and have a nap. If you cannot fall asleep, just rest. Restrestrestrestrest. You need it, I know you do. Teach your kids to rest, too.

In the past, when most people lived from agriculture, everybody napped after lunch. People also slept much longer nights, because there was no electricity. I notice I sleep much more (even more) at our cottage, because there is no electricity. Spending evening in candle- and oil lamp light makes you sleepy at 8 p.m. Sometimes even earlier... Sometimes we sleep 12 hours and boy, how refreshed you feel after that! The thing is, you have to go to bed early enough: You must wake up with the sun, otherwise you will feel very sluggish after such a long sleep. It is also said that our sleep quality is best between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m., so you should make sure you sleep those hours.

Sleep and rest is so very important to your health -and beauty. And yet so see yoga-going, superfood-indulging health-obsessing people deprivating themselves from sleep and rest, trying to find another oriental herb or mushroom that would make them more bright, more energetic... Sleep is not trendy, because it costs you nothing.

I sometimes feel there is a conspiracy behind this. People numb their brains with smartphones and sleep deprivation. They are too tired to think for themselves, and so much easier to control.

Predators generally sleep more than the prey. Don't be a sheep. Be a wolf. Have that nap now.

Tuesday, 30 October 2018

A Daughter of the Snows

On friday, we got the first tiniest little amount of snow this year. At my parent's place, unfortunately not where I live. Monday morning when I woke up it was -5,5 degrees. Dog went crazy, she loves frost  and so do I. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that cold activates your parasymphatetic nervous system.

Anyway to match my reading to the weather, I started re-re-re-reading Jack London's A Daughter of the Snows (1902). I have always loved old adventure books, those young lads used to enjoy: you know, books filled with gold miners, wolf hunters, manly men, indians, bravery and such. Jack London, James Oliver Curwood, you know the type. And A Daughter of the Snows is the best of the best, especially for a female reader, since in that genre female characters can be rather one-dimensional - if not non-existing.

Heroine, THE Daughter of the Snows, Frona Welse, is everything a woman should be. She is, really. She can even do 20 pull-ups! I assume Jack London didn't quite understand feminine physique: when I was at my fittest, I could do 2 pull-ups...  Anyway Frona is a wonderful role model for young ladies. She is educated, but hasn't lost her touch of nature. She is intelligent, well-read, and yet very capable in physical tasks. She can cook -at least better than Vance Corliss, the hero-, paddle a canoe, ride dog-sled, play Nora in Ibsen's A Doll's House. She is a woman of a multiple talent.

Her character is also above all criticism: She is honest, straight-forward, just, real. And pure, pure like snow, but not "criminally ignorant" as she calls women of society: She is familiar with the world (to some extent), she wants to know the world and she still stays pure because that is her nature. Her only fault ironically comes from her purity: she is very unconventional, she does not respect social code that much. Why? Because of her inborn purity, she cannot see how certain actions could harm her in any way.  She understands why the general rules exists, but does not think it should be applied to her actions. Of course, it helps to be the daughter of Alaska's most powerful man and therefore leading lady of society in small Dawson City.

Two things I like most in Frona: she is extremely physical. That is very rare in older books, to have genuinely physical woman in them. Decent woman who enjoys her body in exercise, in snow and frost. If you think about, say, Jane Austen heroines, well, they are all like vacuum, there is no body in them. They have mind, and they have looks, but no body. Frona is very much flesh and blood.

Also, she likes big strong men. Masculine men. And she is not ashamed of it. She might enjoy poet's art, but if the man is not physically attractive, or healthy -well, she would rather not.

One might think that Frona is a somewhat feminist character. But she is not. Vance Corliss once teases her for being for women's rights, but she declines it: she says she does not speak for new woman, but for new femininity. (My book is in finnish, so I am not sure I am using the correct terms in english.) That is quite understandable: think about how women were at that time, Victorian era had just ended: (upper class) women were useless little glasshouse flowers.  Frona, with her closeness to nature, is something quite different. But she is not masculine at all, and she does not compete with men. She may be superior to other women, but she does not challenge men in any way. At least not manly men, real men. She does not want right to vote or work: she wants women to be real and just.

It is actually interesting to compare her to Jane Eyre. They are both intelligent and have strong, moral character. But Jane Eyre is furious with her indepence and pride, she wants to make her own living and she claims (spiritually) equal position at Mr. Rochester's side. Frona Welse is nothing like that: of course she is a daughter of a rich man, so making her living is no issue to her. But I don't think she would make a fuss of it under any circumstances, such a natural child as she is. I think the question of equality has never relly crossed her mind, not really. It is not relevant to her: she is so strongly woman, so strongly herself, that comparing herself to men would appear ridicilous -even though she can paddle her canoe better than most of them.

I actually think that is very vice approach. Be a woman, yourself, enjoy who you are, whatever kind of a woman you happen to be. And stop comparing yourself to men. It's not them you are competing with. And I have written about competing with other women before...

So yes, I would very much recommend A Daughter of the Snows to your reading list. Especially if you like wilderness and winter.

Monday, 22 October 2018

How To Live A Quarrel-Free Marriage/Why Women Should Do All The Housework

Studies have shown that married people argue mostly about two things: money and housework. There is my way and the wrong way of doing things... Usually the wife thinks she knows best, especially when it comes to housework. Then she tells her husband to do something, poor man does it wrong, just because of his sheer meanness or because he is useless man-child, and there you go, then.

I have actually never heard a man whining how their wifes do things wrong. It is always the woman whining. There is a reason for this: women usually are more interested in housekeeping and have somewhat higher cleanliness standards. Men are more laid back. They vacuum, when they are told to, but since they do not do it from their free will, but because their wife treats them like a child or a servant, they do it badly. Aaand there you go again.

Logic answer to this is obviously that women, who care more about how the home looks, does everything. No quarrelling needed, no need to tell your husband what and when and how. We all remember how annoying it was when our mothers told us those things, can you imagine what a love-killer it is to have your wife tell you the same things? You are not to tell your husband anything. You can ask, but make sure it is not an camouflaged command.

This may not sound fair. After all the years of feminists fighting, men still do so much less housework than women. And now I am telling you to do everything? By everything I mean cleaning, cooking, laundry, baking and such. Obviously not sealing windows, opening clogged drains or such. (Though it is often easier and quicker to do it yourself than wait for your husband to come home and do it.)

Yes, you are to do everything and do it well if you want a happy, quarrel-free marriage. But your husband is to do so much more.

What people argue most in marriages, is money. Moneymoneymoney. That is why your husband should provide for your family and make all the financial decisions. There should be no "my money" and "your money", but "family money". And your husband is the one who rules it. No need for quarreling. Of course you can always talk about things and you can say your opinion, but you should always leave the last decision to your husband. He earns the money, the decision is his. So really hope you married well and chose a wise man who is just and knows how to use money.

If you have tendency to shop impulsively or waste money, your husband should give you only one weeks worth of grocery money for a while,so you learn to really use money. You do not need new lipstick every time you see a new lovely shade. If you need some clothes or something extra, you should ask for it.

If you know how to handle money, you can do it like we do: I don't even know how much money we have at our "grocery account": I just buy what is needed and my husband sees there is always enough. I do budget every now and then, though. Nothing saves money like budgeting. You don't even need to make decisions to "spent less", just start budgeting and it will happen automatically.

So, the key ingredient to quarrel-free marriage is the traditional division of labour. It makes sense, does it? Why our ancestors would have lived that way for centuries if it didn't work? Oh, I forgot, it was the patriarchy that wanted to oppress women at any costs.

All this works with only one precondition. You must marry well. That has been the most important thing for women always. Marrying well. I don't mean marrying up, or marrying a rich man. But marrying a man who is wise, who is just, who is prudent but not scrooge. When you marry, you kind of hire a tresurer for your lifetime. And a odd-job man. So choose well.

My tip to young ladies is this: If the guy takes you to all the expensive restaurants and proposes you with a ring that costs his one month salary: RUN. He is not wise, nor economic. He also lacks imagination. If man finds only costly ways to show his devotion, he is not a keeper. And if you need worldly goods to feel loved, you should go home and grow up before re-concidering marriage.

What about those ladies, who are already married to men who are not worthy? Focus on your own share, hour housework and your kids. If you work outside the home, you should still do the housework: Nagging at your husband wont make any difference. Even if your husband is at home unemployed, it is very unlikely he will do the housework after nagging, if he does not do it from his free will. Nagging will only ruin your childrens childhood, that's all.

Divorce is not the answer: you would propably choose another man just as bad as the first one. People do not seem to learn from mistakes like that. So just focus on making your kids childhood as good as possible: you already gave them bad genes by having them with an unworthy man, there is no need to make their lives even harder by becoming single mother. (Of course if he is violent or alcoholic you should kick him out immediately.)

And for Heaven's sake, theach your daughter to make better choices. Far too often daughters follow their mothers footsteps in marrying unworthy men.

Here is interesting, slightly related article: Women do not want to have sex with men who do housework.
'Men who do less housework have more sex'