Tuesday, April 22, 2014

There is life after Pesach

Just a little over a week ago, it seemed the cleaning and chametz-proofing the house would never end. Like every year, I told myself I will never clean anything again when this is done. Like every year, I seriously considered transferring the whole family to a chametz-free diet year-round. And like every year, by the time we sat around the Pesach table I had already half-forgotten all the hard work and trouble.

In a way, it was like moving house. Or having a baby. 

Now we are enjoying the glorious spring that is fast melting into summer. Our hens are laying nicely, and three have gone broody and raised chicks already. The last one had her first chicks hatch only a couple of days ago. Doesn't she seem content, sitting in her cozy nest of straw with her little ones? 
In case you are wondering why the chicks look so unlike their mother, this hen just started sitting on an empty spot, and the only eggs we had to give her at the moment were from Leghorns. Of course, since she is a miniature hen and Leghorn eggs are large she couldn't cover many, but she did hatch two chicks who look like they will outgrow her soon!

It's a beautiful afternoon, children are playing outside, and I'm enjoying some leisure time after a day spent mostly in taking care of a week's worth of laundry, including just about every item the children own. Now that the closets are in order again, I can close my eyes, sit back, and relax. 

I hope you have some time to do the same today.

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

The burden of guilt

Helen writes:

"Feeling that you are not making a financial contribution can be soul destroying for many women (I know, I've been in that position) and seeing your husband/partner working himself into the ground while you are at home can be truly detrimental to a happy relationship, as resentment can build up on both sides."



A great shortcoming of the modern world - actually, I think tragedy wouldn't be too strong a word to use - is the amount of pressure being heaped on women. No matter what we do, it isn't good enough. If we work outside the home, we must be careful that the little time we get to spend with our family will be Quality Time, and when this still isn't enough, we are frustrated and wonder what had gone wrong. If we stay home, we aren't contributing financially and aren't being productive members of the society.


The reason for this is, of course, that perfect balance between work and home just doesn't exist. Many women feel torn in two, in particular when they become mothers. 

For some families, it may be that the wife's salary - even if it's modest - is what stands between them and going on welfare, or going into debt. For many, however, it's what stands between them and a vacation abroad or, in other words, it's an extra they could do without. As for the husband working long hours vs. the wife staying at home, an important question that needs to be asked is - would things be easier for the husband if the wife worked? 

Not that I believe it is the right question to ask. In the not-so-distant past, men took pride in their role as providers. Nobody would think to resent his wife for not shouldering the same burden. But let's just ask this question... if the wife works more, does it mean the husband can work less? 

My husband, for instance, has always worked long hours. Always, even when he was a single man and had no family to support. This is just how things are in his field of work. Any place he had ever worked for demands a work week of approximately 45-50 hours... regardless of his family situation. To the best of my knowledge, this is how things are for most men who are serious about their career. It's not like they can afford to work part time because their wife works as well. 

I know this is a broad statement, but a family which has a husband working long hours and a wife at home is generally better off financially than a family where both spouses work part time. That is because part-time jobs usually don't pay much. 

I know many families which would be better off financially with the wives not working. Why? Because the sense of accomplishment from work, and of having "her own" money (a term I strongly disagree with; any money earned by either spouse is family money, not his or her own), often goes to the women's head. A lot is spent on trifles. Daycare is expensive, as well as having a second car and buying a lot of fancy clothes to keep up with everybody else at work. I know not everyone is like that, but I do believe a family is better off with a frugal stay-at-home mother than a mother who works part-time and spends more than she earns because she "works so hard and deserves it."

A wife/mother at home has so many possibilities to contribute financially, first of all by saving money. She has more time to shop frugally, visit thrift stores, cook from scratch, compare prices, etc. Of course, if she has a baby then the savings are even more obvious, since she won't have to pay for daycare and formula. If she has a toddler she can potty-train earlier and so save a bundle on diapers. And then there is the matter of indirect savings - in her free time, a woman can make the home such a welcoming, cheerful place that the family will seek less entertainment outside the home. Also, if money has to be earned, there are various options of earning it from home. 

I remember a mother who told me, "I work only to pay for preschool". It has simply never occurred to her that she might just keep her preschooler at home and save that money! This is how indoctrinated we've become. 

The statement, "I can't possibly sit at home and twiddle my thumbs while my husband is working himself to the bone!" is very much, I believe, a gut response - in many cases. Will the husband be happier knowing that his wife is also overworked? Or will her working outside the home make the family's life even more stressful? If a man comes home after a long day at work to a cheerful and orderly home and a hot meal on the table, at least he can relax. But if household chores pile up and have to be done in the evening, the family has even less time to spend together in a peaceful and unhurried manner. I realize that for some there is no choice. But for many there is.

Which overworked husband gets the better deal - the one whose wife stays at home and takes care of everything so he can get his well-deserved rest after work, or the one whose wife works outside the home and expects him to help with housework as well? Who is better off: the man whose wife is always available to be there for a sick child, or a man who doesn't know when he'll have to call off an important meeting to stay home with a 3-year-old that has a stomach bug? A mother at home is like a safety net providing basic comfort for her loved ones. 

A very important point I must make, though, is that it is the wife's duty to be content with what her husband provides. A cheerful attitude is a must. Of course it can cause a lot of resentment if he works hard so she can have a comfortable life, and she just turns up her nose at what he offers and says, "hm, my friend's husband bought her a new car" or "did you know that so and so is going to a skiing resort this winter?"; of course a reasonable man might lose his temper and say, "well, if it matters so much to you, you go and earn money for it!"

Sunday, April 6, 2014

A reader's response

Following what I wrote in A brief history of feminism, Miriam writes:

"I was raised on a farm. I begun driving a tractor at the mature age of 8. I know something about hard work... my mother was always there, doing the hard work at home (on the farm). She taught everything she knew to me. My father had 2 jobs outside the farm and hauling firewood, he was occupied for 1-2 days a week by them. I never felt I lacked something. At the age of 16 I felt ready to have my own family, I knew how to run a household, how to garden, milk cows etc, I knew the seasons; what has to be done when. Hobbies weren't around or even understood as they are today... but we always had one day a week for rest and recreation, always. There were religious gatherings, picnics by lakeshore, lots of books, bikerides, wandering in the woods, visiting friends, time for your thoughts. It was life in the depths of Finnish countryside in the 60's and 70's.

All that I wanted for my children, too... but the modern cry was and is for education, and so the sad story of my "career" begun. I always felt misplaced, and finally depressed, so I left my "career" and now I am slowly getting myself back, I mean recovering from the ultimate stress the modern standards caused. 

No one said staying home as a wife and/or a mother is an easy task. I think no one meant it's just watering some houseplants and dusting your laptop. It's hard work no matter how you look at it. If someone feels she has more time and energy, and wants an outside job, that's ok for me, but please do not say I should do it, too.

I don't know statistics from Israel or US or any other country, but in Finland the mental problems of children has exploded onto our face. There's a big business in taking children into custody. Am I the only one old enough to see the connection, to see the difference between today and 20-30 (not to mention even more) years ago? No one wants to see that maybe stay-at-home mothers really did something good? 

I don't mean to blame or insult working moms, no! But I do think the vast majority of them are victims... victims of ther modern propaganda. All the women who did work outside their homes or farms in the past did it because it was necessary. They did not seek 'fullfilment' in their lives and they did not want to prove they were as good as men, or better. They did not work because they thought someone else is more capable to raise their children. They did not think even little children need expensive hobbies, and it costs money.

I think hobbies are over-rated. Please do not be offended! I don't mean there shouldn't be any nice things in your life, vice versa. But sometimes hobbies become larger than life... everyone should have one, or two, so if you have a family of 4 or 5 kids is there a single night everyone is at home at the same time? As Anna said it so well: The Mystical Quality Time. Families should spend time together, so that they can stay together as a family. Husband and wife should have time together, so that they stay as a husband and wife, and so on. If you have a family, you should invest in it, not in yourself aka your hobbies. 

*** 

I think that is the most important point: all the women who did work outside their homes or farms in the past did it because it was necessary. They didn't do it to become "fulfilled" or to have a sense of self-worth, or because if they did not, someone would wonder what on earth they were doing to fill all those long boring hours at home.

Today, one of the first topics that comes up during any introductory conversation is "what do you do?" - and if you answer, "I'm a housewife", it's a cause for blushing. You might as well have said, "I do nothing". 

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Raising a Small Family in a Large Family World - by Tzippora Price

I had to edit the opening lines because perhaps I wasn't entirely clear. The following article was not written by me, but by Tzipporah Price, as I state in the headline. I found the link here. I wish I knew where the article was originally published so I could give proper credits.

***

As a community we love big families. Bigger is better, and supersize is best. We wonder how they do it. How do these “superwoman” cope, we mutter to each other as they pass by, pushing a double buggy, and trailed by their large brood like little chicks after mother hen. “She deserves a medal,” my neighbor commented once, when a mother of six children under six passed by us. “Perhaps.” I granted her. “Yet there are others who also deserve medals,” I pointed out. “There are people who quietly shoulder on unnoticed, their heartbreak not as apparent as those who are childless, but who are heartbroken nonetheless, by their failure to have more than one or two kids.”

It is a condition that is known as secondary infertility, and it refers to the onset of infertility in a woman who has already had children. In our case, although we have been married over ten years, we only have two children. I cringe every time someone I meet asks me how many children we have, because the numbers don’t add up. At these moments, my shame is intense. Sometimes I feel like wearing a T-shirt that states “It’s not my fault. It is not by choice.”

When I sit in the park, I am bombarded by the news of who is expecting, and who is on bedrest. Sometimes it seems like there is no other topic of conversation. It reinforces my sense of isolation. All around us, families are large, while ours is not. More often than not, I choose not to sit in the park for this reason.

As my children grow older, and no younger siblings replace them in the position as baby of the family, I have more free time. Yet my freedom does not give me pleasure; it breaks my heart because I feel that it is unnatural. It is not as it should be. I console myself that G-d does not make mistakes.

Yet I wonder what the impact of having only one sibling will be on my children. If mothers of large families are considered superwomen, are mothers of small families considered failures? Or are we merely invisible, unworthy of the time it takes to stop and think before you make a comment that may cut like a knife.

You know the type of comment that I mean. The comments like “Parenting doesn’t really begin until the birth of your third child.” Comments like these are hurtful, and they are a transgression of the prohibition of onaas devarim (hurtful speech). Our tradition teaches us that it is wrong to count people like one would count objects, because each person is a world – unique and distinct and irreplaceable.

Recently, I showed another woman some photos of my children. This woman paused before remarking, “You must have more children than this.” I responded that in fact I didn’t. Every member of my family was perfectly accounted for in those photos. Still, I wonder about the choice of the word “must.” It implies that the world order is not as it should be. When, in fact, the world is truly as it should be, exactly as it exists now. After all, Hashem doesn’t make mistakes.

That means that it must be built into the system that some families will be different than others. Some families will be extra-large, while others might be extra-small. That’s just the way the world works, and it does not reflect one’s hashkafic (religious outlook) choices so much as it reflects the reality of the world today. Medical science has made many advances, but it still has not found a way to outsmart God’s Will.

Furthermore, the type of treatments required to artificially create a larger family have many undesirable side-effects and consequences that affect the family as a whole, not just the mother herself. Therefore, it is important to carefully consider the full impact of any potential course of action, and to consult with an appropriate halachic authority for guidance about the long-term consequences.

It is a choice that each family must make individually. We cannot presume to know what is best for our neighbors, or even for our best friends. Rather, we can learn to treat all families with respect for their unique role in the destiny of the Jewish people.


This means learning to recognize that a mother of a large family is not more of a mother than a mother of a small family. It is just that her challenges are different. The challenges of raising a large family are challenges that you immediately notice on your first glance. But take the time to look beneath the surface. All families have challenges. Every mother who builds her family with painstaking kindness is worthy of your respect.

Friday, March 28, 2014

Once upon a time - a brief history of feminism as I see it

Once upon a time, things were relatively simple. Men were the wage-earners, women the caretakers of home and children (or managers of a larger household, in affluent families). The roles were not quite so rigid, of course, and many times a woman would help her father or husband in the family business or in the fields, particularly during the busiest seasons. But generally, he managed the matters without, she focused on those within.

The majority were content. Domestic life gave them busy, innocent occupation, with enough time to refresh themselves, pursue hobbies and crafts, and nurture community life. Some, however, were displeased. They had no inclination to marry and have children, or perhaps they could not. Or they had ambitions which did not tie in with the popuar image of a woman back then. Or perhaps they would have been satisfied with the traditional feminine pursuites for the unmarried, like teaching or nursing, but their family thought it is a disgrace to send a daughter out as a governess. Maybe they noticed injustice in the existing order (because, let's face it, no order is perfect).

This dissatisfied minority, restless, active, generally well-educated and unburdened by petty concerns such as earning their bread, became vocal. 

Fast forward to our times... 

The ideal "balanced life" of the 21-st century: both man and woman are wage-earners. Both have careers. Both share household responsibilities with scrupulous equality. Anything but the bare basics of housekeeping (and sometimes even that) is thrown out of the window. Cooking is abolished in many homes. Children are in daycare or extended school programs many hours in the day, and when they come home, the tired children and overburdened parents are supposed to share a mythical "quality time".

The minority which was never inclined to family life got their fair deal. They are pursuing the glorious careers they could hardly dream of a hundred years ago. They are equal to men, and if anyone says otherwise they will file a lawsuit against him. 

For the majority of people, of course, the situation is different. The majority of women do not have careers. They have jobs. Plain, simple, less than thrilling jobs. A large part of them is a derivative of what a woman would traditionally do in her own home: daycare workers, teachers of various ages, house-care providers. Many are saleswomen or hold administrative jobs - i.e., work that has a lot to do with communication and cooperation, two things women are very good at. It's as if women, despite everything, send the following message out to the world: "if we are told we must do something outside our homes to be considered worthy members of the society, we will choose the more flexible and less stressful option!" - this has little to do with the "glass ceiling" and lack of opportunities, and everything with natural inclinations and priorities. 

Of course, even a part-time job is stressful. Perhaps the woman isn't away from home for as many hours in a day as her husband is, but she is away quite a lot nevertheless. And in most households, it isn't like both spouses share the lot by taking two part-time jobs and dividing the household chores and childcare equally! More often than not, the woman's job is seen as being of secondary importance... because, no offence, it is. If her husband is holding a relatively good and stable position, and she earns significantly less than he does, the family can survive without her income. Also, if she comes home at 3 and her husband at 7, naturally all the household chores fall on her - and naturally, she can't juggle it all as well as she is "supposed" to. When the husband comes home, he finds a drained, exhausted wife and many times, a less-than-perfectly-tended household. 

Feminism has been, in a nutshell, a flip of a coin. Long ago, most people were happy and some were dissatisfied. I'm sorry for those who could not find their place, but surely we, as a society, did not gain from things becoming what they are now, when a minority is happy and proud with its achievments and the majority is struggling with ideals that are impossible to maintain. 

I believe that most women would gladly go back to being housewives if:

1. They could manage on one income. The prevalent notion is that even two average paychecks are barely enough to survive, so how could you do it with only one?! It's true that prices have become, relatively to salaries, much higher. But so have our expectations become higher. It is perfectly possible to manage on one income if a family is willing to undergo the necessary adjustments such as a simpler life and more frugal ways. Of course, there would be no keeping up with the Cohens. But a creative and satisfying life is very much within reach of every family who takes the leap.

Note: the sad prevalence of single mothers is the myth-buster of "you need two paychecks to survive". Somehow no one doubts their ability to raise children on one income. Of course you'll argue that many single mothers receive child support and government aid. Many don't, though. My mother did not, nor did she hold some very lucrative high-paying job. If you are a housewife, you will get a lot of "oh, but how are you managing financially?"; if you are a single mother, no one will blink an eye. This is despite the fact that a housewife generally has more time on her hands than a single mother does, and therefore more ability to contribute to her family's finances in other ways (shopping and cooking frugally, thrift store bargains, creative small business ventures). 

2. It became a socially acceptable choice again. It is very important to women to be approved, validated, accepted. Did I mention communication and cooperation? Men can exist as lone wolves, women can't, not without being miserable. We thrive on approval and it's normal (just have to be careful who we choose to receive it from). This is the reason why girls do so much better than boys in mainstream co-ed schools. The system encourages cooperation, hard work (which often turns to drudgery) and docility more than anything else. It glorifies the average and is extremely harsh on misfits. 

A little anecdote from my school days. Once, a student took pants off in a classroom and flashed a tushy in the face of the teacher. Sounds extreme, I know. But can you guess the gender of the student? That's right, a boy, of course. But I digress.

Currently we live in a community where most women are homemakers. Not the perfect homemakers, but the old simple busy moms and housewives with a bunch of children and a messed-up, lived-in home. The choice is acceptable and therefore comes with social validation in our small community. In the time I have lived here, three more women (out of 13 families) have quit their jobs to stay home.

3. Women could find an alternative source for the satisfaction normally derived from working. Few women get a thrill from the substance of their paid work. But the workplace has become the community they so desperately crave; many have no social interaction outside the family other than with their co-workers. This is especially true in cities, where many do not know their neighbours. 

Other will never dress up or put on some make-up at home. They follow an unspoken House Code that dictates they must wear frayed sweat-pants and a stained T-shirt from junior high. This alone is enough to depress a woman, because we see so much importance in being aesthetically pleased. 

On the other hand, if a group of women dressed up neatly and gathered with their children for some mid-morning activity (like doing some handiwork together while catching up with each other), they would get all the refreshment and none of the stress a job outside the home can bring. 

Naturally I don't wear my best clothes while scrubbing floors or working in the chicken coop. But neither do I wear stuff that's only fit to go in the trash bin. I have good, simple, sturdy and nice-looking work clothes, and nicer things to put on Shabbat and social gatherings.

***

I realize I have made a lot of generalizations in this post, and so I'm prepared for some "but I'm not like that at all!"s and "you have failed to mention so and so"s. I still believe, however, that what I wrote is true for many women. 

Monday, March 24, 2014

The mismatched piece

For as long as I remember myself, fitting in had been terribly important. A sense of being or doing something like everybody else gave me a warm glow and a sense of belonging; being "out of tune" made me feel like an outcast, someone who will never feel comfortable. I desperately longed to learn the steps of the dance, and every stumble brought me immense frustration. I guess it is natural when we are young, and even when we are older. 

In addition, school, and later university framed my life. The order of it made me feel secure. I didn't have to question what I was doing and when. Also, being a bookworm who had already learned it all at home, I had the opportunity to please my superiors (the teachers) and help other students. It was a great confidence boost.

Fast forward a few years, I got on the track of teshuva (becoming religiously observant). This changed a lot, but not all. While the identity of my new group/community changed, the desire to belong, to fit in, did not. I simply had new ideas now about how my life is supposed to look, how I'm supposed to behave, in order to be like everybody else, to be inconspicuous, to avoid standing out. 

There were new, but no less extensive, mental checklists. Married at 22 - check. A child at 23 - check. Another child at 25 - check. A long skirt, a certain type of headcovering - check. Inward sigh of relief. Now I'm like everyone else. Finally. 

Of course, things were different now. For one, I became a homemaker. My hours were my own now, and though it was an unusual experience, and I spent my first few months of married life floating on a cloud of relative disorder, I became empowered by it. I came to direct and organize my own day. I became more efficient. Contrary to what some warned me of, I did not get bored. My brain cells did not die one by one. Just the opposite happened - 6 years down the road, I'm always busy, always occupied in a productive way, always with something interesting to propel me forward. And I write. A lot. I stopped treating it as a childish hobby and began thinking of it as something mature and talented people do as well. I might be crazy, but it makes me happy. 

The mental checklists became harder to comply with. Regular job - not check. Children in daycare by age of 1 year - no, definitely not check. "Why do you only have 2? I'd have thought you'd like another one by now!" - strong urge to tell the busybodies to go for a long walk and air their brains to find words like "tact" and "consideration". 

I was naively happy when we moved to a community where most women stay at home and most children are raised at home at least until they are 3 years old. Still, I didn't always fit in. My background was different. My clothes were a little different, and so were my pastimes. I did not have as many children as those who have been married as long as I. 

Then it was time to throw all the comparison tables and mental checklists out of the window. I will never be like everybody else. I will never fit perfectly, no matter where I go. And at this point, I'm fine with it. It helps that I am married to a man who often feels like a big fish in a small net, so to speak, and never stops to think twice about what others think of him. He is supremely unconcerned, and I find this admirable.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

A busy, busy season

When I had newborns, I didn't think I could ever be busier - but apparently, this time has come. It seems as though everything is happening at once.

My husband has reached a crossways in his career and is currently at home. Thus, everything is suddenly much more intense. So many projects are suddenly tackled, because right now, with both of us around, it's the perfect chance to do them - and because we don't know how long it will last, we don't like to postpone. Things around the house are fixed, paperwork is waded through, appointments are made.

Also, our rent contract will be over soon, and the way things look now, most likely we won't be renewing it. This means we are moving, but the big question, for now, is Where. We have been to look at several places and are unsure yet. This situation, with everything open ahead of us and so many choices that can be made, has its charm - but I'm kind of beginning to wish we already knew where we are going to go. 

I know I will be a little sorry to leave. I have loved this house. Though we only rent here, I have felt it is ours. We have really bonded with the place, the community, we feel as though we belong. But buying this house is not an option and I know I don't want to rent here forever. So we are already sifting through our things, trying to determine what to take with us and what to leave behind. This is especially important, considering that we are probably going to move to a smaller house. We are a small family, so the prospect isn't daunting, and I'm actually looking forward to see how much stuff we can get rid of and still live comfortably (my guess is more than half of all we own, clothes, utensils, books etc). 

To top it all off, Pesach is coming soon and I haven't yet done half of what I did this time last year. True, I have scrubbed our bedroom and arranged my pantry and washed the living room curtains, but this doesn't even come close to all I planned to have completed by now.

So, with all of this together, and all the things that need to be done every day - cooking, cleaning, laundry, taking care of the girls and teaching them - I simply feel the days are passing by in a blur, and though I often wanted to come online and say hello, I have felt empty. Empty as in my energy resources, and in my head as well. As though too much is happening at once and I don't know how to stop and focus on one thing. 

I do hope this isn't a goodbye before another lengthy period of absence, and I anticipate many exciting things to write about soon. For now, with all the busyness of the season, we are enjoying spring and all the hopes and dreams and plans in the making.

This is "The little cottage", by Mike Savad. Isn't it charming? The low roof and rounded door remind me of a hobbit hole.