Not a Blog!

This is no longer a blog.

For a real blog, please go to Stay at Home My Heart.

WordPress

I am officially over at wordpress now -- I love it!

www.onebeggarsbread.wordpress.com

Stop by and say HI :)

New Blog!

My sis just introduced me to another blog arena -- www.wordpress.com, and I LOVE IT! It seems easier to manage -- a good thing for a non-techie like me!
I think I'm movin' on.
It'll be under construction for a bit, but come visit me over at:
www.onebeggarsbread.wordpress.com

In This Corner...

CHARLOTTE MASON v. LINDA HIRSHMAN

---

My Amble Ramble Yahoo group (a support group for Charlotte Mason Education) has been abuzz this week over Linda Hirshman's recent assertion that a woman's place is in the office. Reading articles by Hirshman alongside Home Education by my Charlotte Mason, list member Kari Hannon was struck by the incredible difference between these two women.

I can imagine the boxing arena full of cheering women as we set Linda Hirchsman, a prominent feminist thinker up against Charlotte Mason, prominent educator from the late 1800's/early 1900's whose work has recently made a comeback to greatly influence the modern home education movement.

Kari gave me permission to reprint her thoughts here:

In my reading of Hirshman's article, it is clear to me that she has no clue what motherhood and "staying at home" truly is. Of educated women who choose to stay at home she writes, "these daughters of the upper classes will be bearing most of the burden of the work always associated with the lowest caste: sweeping and cleaning bodily waste...They have voluntarily become untouchables." So, she equates it solely with the physical and lowly tasks of cleaning homes and children. A maid or janitor. Contrast that view with Charlotte Mason's understanding of the value of motherhood.

First, Mason, an early 20th Century British educator, quotes another person called Pestalozzi, who said, "The mother is qualified, and qualified by the Creator Himself, to become the principal agent in the development of her child; ...and what is demanded of her is--a thinking love...God has given to the child all the faculties of our nature, but the grand point remains undecided--how shall this heart, this head, these hands be employed? to whose service shall they be dedicated? ... Maternal love is the first agent in education."

Then Mason writes, "We are waking up to our duties and in proportion, as mothers become more highly educated and efficient, they will doubtless feel the more strongly that the education of their children during the first six years of life is an undertaking hardly to be entrusted to any hand but their own. And they will take it up as their profession--that is, with the diligence, regularity, and punctuality which men bestow on their professional labours." (Home Education, vol.1)

When I first read Mason's words, my reaction was, "Alas...if only that were true!" To me, daycares are much too prevalent and I have not seen this awakening in educated mothers that Mason envisioned.

But Hirshman's article gave me hope!

Hirshman is non-plussed that all these educated mothers are leaving the workplace and returning home. "This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women," she writes.

The fact that top, "elite", educated women are choosing to stay home and don't see it as "unjust" should clue her in to the fact that maybe it IS natural, brings self-fulfillment and happiness and is, yes, even honorable. If things don't stack up as you think they should, go back and check your hypothesis. But that's unthinkable; instead, she points back at the feminist system and blames it for not going far enough. It targeted education and the workplace, but obviously those were not the correct targets. The real target is the home. "Feminists must acknowledge that the family is to 2005 what the workplace was to 1964 and the vote to 1920." In other words, family is holding women back from their full potential as human beings. Only when they are freed from the traditional understanding of home and family will women be able to "flourish".

The fact that these women and their families "seem happy" and would consider themselves as "flourishing" means nothing to Hirshman. It doesn't matter what they think, because she knows what is better for them than they do themselves. "We care because what they do is bad for them, is certainly bad for society, and is widely imitated."

Ahh, thank you Ms. Hirshman, for your loving concern. However, I see that your concern is not truly for women. If it were, you would rejoice with them that they are happy in their chosen field of motherhood. Instead, you lament that they have a choice at all. "Prying women out of their traditional roles is not going to be easy. It will require rules."

Her concern is not truly for society, either, for if it were, she would be more concerned about the children she is so quick to hand over to the casual daycare worker. The good of society does not rest solely on the shoulders of those in the workforce or those currently holding the "power"--be it man or woman. A society can change for the better or for worse with each successive generation. Therefore, any society must look to the future and ensure the proper raising of its young. "Children," writes Charlotte Mason, "are, in truth, to be regarded less as personal property than as public trusts, put into the hands of parents that they may make the very most of them for the good of society." And who cares more for the success of her child than a mother? Mason writes further, "This is why we hear so frequently of great men who have had good mothers-- that is, mothers who brought up their children themselves, and did not make over their gravest duty to indifferent persons."

No, Ms. Hirshman's concern is for money, power and honor--her own definition of honor, of course, which seems to be related solely to money and power. Her love of money and power has blinded her. She is blind to the truth that, not only are men and women different, but that the world benefits when we embrace those differences, allowing both men and women to flourish in the roles for which they were created.

I would recommend that Ms. Hirshman go back to the drawing board and do a bit more research into 1) the natures of God and man and 2) the importance of training in the development of a child. Once she has a deeper grasp of both of those, she will be able to see why feminism has not "worked" to her current satisfaction. Her response may no longer be a bewildered, "What is going on?" but a victorious, "Hallelujah!"

---

Thank you for sharing, Kari!

More Baby Famine in the News

This idea is popping up all over the place!

I came across 2 articles today about population statistics and how they relate to conservative values and modern thought.

This one from News Max (thanks for the link, Mom!): Conservative Baby Boom; Liberal Baby Bust

And this one from Melanie Phillips: Britain's Lop-sided Baby Famine

Interesting reading!

Secular Baby-Making, or Lack Thereof

My dad recently left a comment with a link to this USA Today article about the Red States out-populating the Blue States (for more of my thoughts on this, see It's the Sex, Stupid).

Here's another article, along the same vein, from The Washington Times on on how the French Government is paying well-educated, working women to produce a third child.

I suppose none can truly deny the influence a mother (or whomever is raising the children) has upon the next generation -- even upon whether or not that next generation will have children of their own.

They say that man is mighty,
He governs land and sea,
He wields a mighty scepter
O'er lesser powers that be;
But a mightier power and stronger
Man from his throne has hurled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.
-- William Ross Wallace, 1865 or 66

Another Goofy Test!

You Are Likely an Only Child

At your darkest moments, you feel frustrated. At work and school, you do best when you're organizing. When you love someone, you tend to worry about them. In friendship, you are emotional and sympathetic. Your ideal careers are: radio announcer, finance, teaching, ministry, and management. You will leave your mark on the world with organizational leadership, maybe as the author of self-help books.

The Birth Order Predictor

Ron and I are goofing around with the kids taking all these stupid, boring, waste-of-time quizzes tonight (like, What's Your Hillbilly Name?) -- but check this one! It predicted fairly well my birth order. My sis is almost 9 years my junior, and according to the New Birth Order Book by Kevin Leman, we are both considered "only children."

What's Your World View?

You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational. Cultural Creative 69% Fundamentalist 63% Postmodernist 63% Romanticist 63% Idealist 19% Modernist 19% Existentialist 13% Materialist 0% What is Your World View? (updated) created with QuizFarm.com

Hmmm. I'm equal parts fundamentalist, postmodern, and romanticist? Explains my confusion over The Emerging Church :)

Silly little quiz. What's it say your world view is?

Save California?

(If I could figure out how to keep my posts in categories, this one would go under RANT).

Flipping through my FM radio in the van today, I heard two minutes of a program I've never heard before addressing public schools and homosexualitly. The content was just too much to let my little boys listen to, but I listened long enough to catch a plug for this website:

www.savecalifornia.com

Now, I'm not one to want to save California. At this point I'm not sure of any answer for California besides jumping ship before it sinks (ever heard The Big One theory? Where California falls into the ocean? Now, I certainly am not one to wish for thousands of people to face injury and death! But if only there was a way to dump the overwhelmingly popular liberal and socialist California IDEAS into the ocean without damage to flesh and blood...I'd sign up for that.).

The radio host and hostess increased my embarrassment of my home state by referring to the issue at hand, "Even though we are discussing C-a-l-i-f-o-r-n-i-a (the word "California" was drawn out with obvious scorn, head-shaking and eye-rolling), this issue IS one of which all Americans need to be aware."

Whatever this program was, this morning's broadcast was focused on a new bill, AB 606, which reads:

"A school district shall establish and publicize an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy that prohibits discrimination and harassment based on the characteristics set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code and Section 220, including, but not limited to, actual or perceived gender identity and sexual orientation" -- AB 606 234.1(a)(1).

I'm wondering if any of my public school teacher friends or family know about this bill? What's your take on this?

My husband and I noticed just this week that a protest was held (we watched it on the evening news), with kids who desired gay and lesbian clubs at all public schools carrying signs to demand "Safe Schools."

Frankly, I just don't get it. In It's the Sex, Stupid, I remarked on how our society's general indifference towards the morality of sexuality is causing the downfall of western civilization. Working the numbers of this U.S. Department of Justice report on Molestation Statistics, friends and supporters of Pastor Ake Green (in trouble in Sweden for speaking out against homosexuality) say that a homosexual is 10 times as likely as a heterosexual to molest a child. This article in World Net Daily echoes these sentiments. Steve Baldwin says, "Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture." Baldwin backs up his words with evidence in a 16-page publication entitled Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement.

Gay and lesbian clubs -- glamorizing deviant behavior, putting casual sex in the spotlight, and providing our world with future pedophiles (helping to ensure the next generation of club members?) -- how in the world can they create a safer place for our kids?

While googling this issue, I did find these websites (not for the faint of heart):
The California Safe School Coalition quotes local Stephen Russell, Ph.D. from UC Davis'4-H Center for Youth Development, “Data from the CHKS show that these 200,000 students harassed on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation are three times more likely to miss school because they feel unsafe, more than twice as likely to be depressed, to consider suicide, or to make a plan for suicide." (It couldn't be that the homosexual behavior itself brings on depression, or that whatever is wrong in the child's life pushing him or her toward homosexuality could also be causing depression?)
The Gay and Lesbian Straight Alliance envisons "a future in which every child learns to respect and accept all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression."
Day of Silence/Night of Noise attempts to explain the campain for student-led protests, which fight the "discrimination lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals experience within K-12 schools."

This is an issue for grades K-12? How in the world can a Kindergartner be gay or lesbian? My three year old last night said he wanted to marry his daddy, and last week he wanted to marry a cousin AND our dog. Let me assure you that he is not homosexual nor interested in incest or sex with animals. He is simply expressing his love for all these people in the best way he has seen love expressed -- through marriage.

It takes time, love and attention for our kids to learn what God's ideas for life, marriage, and sex are. How long are Christians going to stand by while the media, public school administrators and gay activists mold the worldview of our young ones?

I submit to you that the last thing our high schoolers need (not to mention our Kindergartners) is on-campus "publicity" for "perceived gender identity and sexual orientation."

Someone fix this. Or bring on The Big One...?