A Rich Home Life

Examples of contented women who guard and guide the home full time are often so far away from us, that discussions about the normal model of marriage, home and family make us think of some kind of lost civilization.

Although there is a generation that thinks of the woman as a wife, mother and full time homemaker as some kind of fantasy, there really was a time when most women preferred to be at home rather than out in the world competing for jobs. Most women knew how important it was to create an atmosphere at home that would comfort the family and provide protection from the world, as well as bring up children who would be polite and be able to bear the responsibilities of life.

A family did not have to be rich in order for the woman to be able to stay home. They stayed home because they wanted to give their families their very best, not because they could afford it. It wasn't considered some kind of luxury to stay home. I often get letters saying, "I can't afford the luxury of being a full time homemaker."

In the 1950's, when I was a child, it was rare for a woman to go to work outside the home. They were not rich, but they didn't think that lack of money was a reason to leave their responsibilities at home. They weren't languishing in the luxury of being homemakers. They were home managing their husband's earnings and finding ways to live on the income a man could bring home. A woman would have been ashamed to admit that she could not manage on her husband's income. If they were not doing so well, it would have been kept quiet, as it embarrassed them if they could not make ends meet. There was rarely a complaint, even in difficulties.

Being home meant that there would be time to bake bread and cookies and cook wonderful meals. It meant also that clothes would be cared for by being washed and mended. Things were not easy but the family learned how to live in a home and have a rich family life in a house together. This was all on the surface, but underneath there was a greater thing going on. The loyalty the family felt for each other made them strong emotionally. They stuck up for one another and pulled for one another. They protected each other, and each other's reputations.

By watching their parents, children learned to be good caretakers of the home. They learned how to treat the family posessions, which in most cases, were hardly as nice as the things young couples have today. Being home also meant that the family and the house would have dignity. It would not just be a place where people came to crash after a day away. It would not be a place where people came to shower and fuel up and rest up in order to go somewhere else. Home was a place that had a purpose and a rich meaning. The family was royalty in their own right inside those sacred doors.

The family was making a name for itself by its reputation. It could either be a fine, upstanding family, reliable and steady, or a ne'er-do-well type that produced children that were always troubled. The mother knew she had a big part in what kind of reputation that family would be, and the children learned to keep the family name clean, by their actions and words.

Children who grew up in this environment experienced a rich home life. There was make-believe play and made-up games. There were evenings spent at home with the father and mother around the hearth. There was singing. There was story-telling. There also was preparation for the evening. People did not just fall into bed after staying up half the night. They prepared for retirement by having a meal, reading a verse or two from the Bible, or doing something very relaxing.

One way to understand how this home life was made so incredibly and indelibly impressed on the lives of many young people, is to look into the past. What kinds of things went into making a home life so rich ? Poems and songs and stories of such childhoods abound in schoolbooks of the 19th century. What was it about childhood and homelife that made people weep in sentimental love when they thought about it?

Prior to the 1900's, a good family life was the most important element in building a safe society. This was largely dependent upon a mother who stayed home, and even if there were no children at home, women wanted to guard their home and see to its keeping. They did not have a great desire to go to work for wages. They had it good where they were. For more information about the way in which the women's movement of the 20th century took women out of the home, see http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/Women_s_Lib_They_re_Spoiling_Eve_s_Great_Con_Game_5010050.shtml

Before relating the various things that went into making the home life great, here are some things which were not included in that rich home life:

*There was very little television, and most families did not have any. When television was first available to the home in 1954, most programs did not even start until 8:00 in the evening. Children went to bed then, and the adults watched Bonanza or Wagon Train. On Friday nights, Disney presented a series of programs for children. One of them was called "Daniel Boone," which made a whole generation of boys want to wear coonskin caps, build and explore.

*There were no weekly trips to the movies.

*Parents did not think they had to give children a lot of toys. Many children had one or two treasured childhood toys.

*Clothing and food were prepared carefully from the materials available. There was no such thing as "fast food" unless a child wanted to pick an apple from a tree.

*Lack of money was not considered an excuse for a broken family or for a weak family or an unhappy family. (Some of the poorest people had the most love in their homes.) Financial gain was not considered the answer to strong families.

*There were not a lot of agencies available for family matters to be solved.

*There were not a lot of things that kept young people playing and indulging in games and pleasure in their young adult years.

You can think a moment and probably come up with a lot more things that the 19th and early 29th century families did not have, erstwhile having a rich and complete family life.

One source of richness in home life is seclusion. It is at home that the family is free to be who they are without feeling obligated to tolerate the world and its demands. In that seclusion, however, there must be something in the home that makes it restful. If it is full of electronic noise and commotion most of the time, the mind cannot be restored. If the homemaker concentrates on making that home a place of beauty and peace, it will be a place where the family can restore their minds. When they are able to do this, they can think more clearly and make rational decisions and behave with dignity.

Personal responsibility was part of developing a rich home life. From an early age, we were taught that we were responsible for anything we came across that needed to be done. Granted, there would often be younger children who avoided responsibility, but eventually they, too, would learn that "if you see something that needs to be done, you do it." Therefore, books that needed to be put away, were immediately picked up if someone saw them laying on the floor. Clothes were put away and posessions were cared for. One reason we looked after verything is that if we did not, it would be destroyed by careless use, and everything in those days was valuable. It felt good to take responsibility and do the right thing, by being concerned for others in the home. It made us feel grown up, and the more grown up we were, the more responsibility we would be given. Eventually we would be trusted, and be right up there with the adults, drinking tea in their midst.

(continued)

One of