Repost: Domestic au pair and homemaking program

It could be more or less formalized, but training young women in the domestic, homemaking arts and giving them practical experience in childcare would be amazingly useful.

There are a number of avenues by which this could conceivably be enabled, not least as part of a general program of supporting women in their women’s work.

A model to start with would taking the system of the current international au pair program, and figuring out how to adapt it to the needs of young women who’d like to be keepers of hearth and home for their families and future husbands and families who could use the help of energetic girls in their late teens and early 20s.

 

Advertisements

Why a confinement model of pregnancy is pro-woman

It is kinder and less stressful in contrast to the American mule thing.  Under a confinement model, pregnant women aren’t forced into the standard of trying to match the ones who can do All The Things in every trimester and who don’t appear to even know what morning sickness is.  Instead, every pregnant woman is given the benefit of the doubt and not burdened with additional expectations that she appear in public or do a lot of physical labor.

Other people in the community come to the pregnant woman.  The pastor or priest comes to visit, she isn’t expected to waddle into church with a passel of younguns behind her.  Other women visit and the expectations for the state of the house are very different, because the time to grow the baby is considered important all by itself.

There has been a lot of historical variation in the confinement model, and it mostly involved waiting until a baby bump was likely for what should be obvious reasons.  But there is a tenderness to it and a preservation of women’s space and a women’s sphere that is sorely missing from modern American norms regarding pregnancy.

A broad standard that builds rest and healing into the natural course of pregnancy, labor and the postpartum period seems pretty pro-woman to me.

Understanding why the manosphere is full of conventionally attractive black women

This is one of those little curiosities that seem like nothing much but reveal some unsettling things about where people feel they have to go to find pieces of normal life, however confused, distorted and (sometimes wildly) inaccurate.

The manosphere is full of black women who are conventionally attractive.  They are probably around their representation in the general American population (so about 3%, as they can’t all be pretty).  They are noticeably more attractive on average than the white women who make up the majority of women hanging around in the manosphere, but this is of course selection bias.

I had wondered WHY MY GOODNESS WHYYYYYYY and then I understood.

Black women can’t be conservative politically and interested in non-dowdy expressions of femininity.  They can pick one, but not both.  Conservatives want their black women dowdy and unfashionable and everyone else wants them politically and socially liberal.  Except in the silly old manosphere.  There a black woman can fight the dowdy within and also be politically conservative. And this is exactly what you see.  You see a bunch of black women who like being feminine and frilly and soft, but who are politically and socially conservative.

We gotta find a new place for these dames to hang out, stat.

Regular conservatives could help out by just not flipping out about black women wanting to look some way other than dowdy or granola-crunchy.

Domestic au pair and homemaking program

It could be more or less formalized, but training young women in the domestic, homemaking arts and giving them practical experience in childcare would be amazingly useful.

There are a number of avenues by which this could conceivably be enabled, not least as part of a general program of supporting women in their women’s work.

A model to start with would taking the system of the current international au pair program, and figuring out how to adapt it to the needs of young women who’d like to be keepers of hearth and home for their families and future husbands and families who could use the help of energetic girls in their late teens and early 20s.

 

Become and support your local seamstress!

From a previous comment, a great example on localism that makes sense.  The era of ultracheap textile production is rapidly fading away and we are already at the point where local production even of cloth is on the table.  Those skills are not entirely lost, for all that it may seem so when glancing around at people very proud of their uneven wool mittens on etsy.

Anyway, all women shouldn’t do it, but the women who have a talent and a flair should be supported by their fellow neighborhood peers.  I’ve supported local seamstresses in the past and plan to do so in the future.  The problem with the mostly-liberal promotion of localism is that everything has never been local once humans figured out how to travel elsewhere.  Some local production makes more sense than other local production, even if it costs more upfront.  This is a real tradeoff that conservatives reliant on endless supplies of cheap goods at thrift shops and big box stores like to handwave in their idolatry of frugality achieved by exploitation and poor treatment of workers.  It’s not pure goodness that socks are cheaper (for now) to replace than to darn.  Shipping abuse of workers to other countries wasn’t a win, either.

And yeah, you can have less than fabulous working conditions without exploiting the workers.  A lot of (white) workers still do fiber mill production for small-batch wool goods and it’s dusty and dirty and hard work, but they are generally treated decently by the fiber mill employer.

Clothing being mostly local is not necessarily a bad thing, if the quality can be maintained.  And there is much more precious than rubies.  Keeping respectable, traditionally female trades viable for women with drafting, cutting, sewing knitting and weaving talents should be worth owning fewer clothes of high quality, durability and pleasing cut.