In my kitchen, there's a rather modern microwave, the kind where you press a single button for just about everything you'd want to put into it. There's also an oven only a few years old, and a refrigerator just a bit older than that. Both appliances offer all of the modern conveniences people would expect. Between the refrigerator and the oven, amidst semi-recently purchased plastic containers with "aroma-sealing" or what-have-you lids is a Tupperware container that is used to hold flour. It was likely bought at a Tupperware party, also likely back when the concept was still new and novel. Inside of that container, resting on the flour, is what most people would call a spade around the same age as the container, and they'd wonder why a garden tool was being used in the kitchen. It is not, however, a spade. "Back in the day", it was a rather common kitchen tool, used to dig powdery substances--such as flour, as a matter of fact.
I like using that container and "spade". I have other containers and devices I can use, but I prefer those two items, in conjunction with the sifter that's likely even older than the "spade" and the container. Every time I use them, I think to myself how, sometimes, the old ways really weren't so bad at all. Sure, if you want to get into the heavy stuff, no one can deny that the equality issue, for example, is better across the board now than it was half a decade ago; we're also now better educated on medical issues, leading to longer lives that also stay productive. I think, however, that most people see the heavy issues and disregard all of the things done and knew a generation or three ago; baby and the bath water, as it were. I don't know why that is, but I find it disheartening.
Sometimes I think it's a case of too much convenience. Consider the automat. Now we have pre-packaged foods that you can grab and eat on the go, for any meal, and most places even offer microwaves to heat food up before you go. It's convenient, yes, but I think it's a bit too convenient. When we do that, we don't really see or talk to anyone but the person behind the counter where we purchase the food. Automats, however, were similar to cafeterias in that there were tables to sit at. This restaurant-esque atmosphere engendered meant that after you purchased your food from the slots, you would sit with other people. Even if you didn't necessarily speak directly with people at neighboring tables, they were still there. You would overhear their conversations, hear people speaking of their hopes and dreams, their fears and failings, and--consciously or not--you'd remember that these are real people, working no less hard for no more money than you.
We've forgotten what that's like, I think--being around other people for most of our day. These days, most people ride alone (whether literally or metaphorically) to work, where they work alone, then they ride home alone. If they live with someone who stays at home, then that person has been home alone all day, taking care of household tasks. Perhaps they go out to a grocery store or to a laundromat, but they are still at least metaphorically alone. At least a good eight hours spent in solitude. This causes feelings of isolation, and we have a harder time sympathizing with others, especially those outside our Monkeysphere. These days, we get most of our news from televisions and newspapers rather than neighbors--and most of us don't even know our neighbors' names. Neighborhood backyard barbeques have given way to solitary or near-solitary entertainment with a television.
Walking around my city, I can always tell the general age of cement sidewalks. The cement laid decades ago is still unbroken (save for obvious external things like a growing tree, an accident, or some similar). The cement laid comparably recently typically has cracks--hairline fractures all the way to deep gashes. Makes me think about the conveniences around us. Culturally, we're different now than we were even merely decades ago, in some ways drastically. As such, we divide, we put up these huge chasms between "us" and "everyone else". A few generations ago--yes, you had problems like equality issues, but we're laying that aside for the moment--people tended to stick together, they tended to keep larger Monkeyspheres.
I have to wonder about future generations. Will the ever-growing desire for convenience make them even less capable of dealing with others on a personal level? Will they see others solely as a means to garner more convenience? I hope they remember that when we walk through life, we leave footprints behind us. More and more, people's footprints are in solitary paths, only lightly touching on another person's footprints. I hope they remember, so walk with as many people as they can. A new automat has opened in New York. Hopefully a lot of footprints will lead there, and more will be opened across the world. Maybe then there will be fewer solitary paths.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Just an Old-Fashioned Love Song
When most people think of Donna Reed, they think of "The Donna Reed Show", where she played Donna Stone, a woman devoted to her family, and to being a housewife that didn't just stand back and smile while the husband took care of everything. For the time, it was rather atypical--not only did Donna Stone actively help the children solve their problems, especially when her husband--a pediatrician--had to see patients, but she also worked as a nurse at a time when almost, if not, all women her age were (or were thought to be nothing more than) housewives.
I mention her because she was, in a way, a really good role-model for me and especially my present situation. Like many women on television of the era, she kept up the house and looked good doing it. While I now realize that the looking-good-doing-it part is rather impractical, it had a good impact on me. Also, watching my grandmother do that sort of set of tasks with such dedication helped immensely. Through watching real-life applications of what I saw on television (not that I was around for the initial run of the show; it was watched in syndication by my grandparents, so that's what I watched; my choice was either that or nothing), I learned the value of keeping up a home, and just what they mean when they say that home-making is truly a job, yet without being paid.
Most people either dismiss Reed's show as a fine enough situation comedy, or some similar, but I think it was a good example of television having a positive impact. It wasn't the sole cause, of course, but it was at least a cause. I learned a lot of old-fashioned values, also, and really think that if more people held to similar values, the world in general would be a better place. Oh, I'm not talking about the "values" spouted by the left-wing or right-wing zealots; their values try to pin people down, one way or another, without giving room for individuality and differing paradigms. An example of what I'm talking about would be not caring which person stays home and which person works. Whomever is best suited should do what is needed. If, in a heterosexual relationship, the woman enjoys working and the man enjoys staying home, I don't see why they shouldn't do just that. If both want the same thing, I think they should talk about it and arrive at whatever decision suits them best. What, really, is so wrong with such a blend of old-fashioned and new-fashioned?
Sooner or later, maybe I'll have an answer to that. Right now, it seems that people lean too far one way or another, and that right there is, I think, a big ause of such a schism in the world. It's fine enough to set roles, for whatever needs to be done--in any aspect of life, within the home or without it--but too many people either try to pin people down into pre-defined roles, whether or not they're even well-suited for those roles. Or, people try to have no roles whatsoever, and say that things will "work themselves out". Maybe so, but such a devil-may-care attitude about it surely can't be helping, either.
Maybe one day I'll have a better solution than "respect people without trying to make them into what you think they should be", but then--I have to admit to not thinking there should be a better solution than that.
I mention her because she was, in a way, a really good role-model for me and especially my present situation. Like many women on television of the era, she kept up the house and looked good doing it. While I now realize that the looking-good-doing-it part is rather impractical, it had a good impact on me. Also, watching my grandmother do that sort of set of tasks with such dedication helped immensely. Through watching real-life applications of what I saw on television (not that I was around for the initial run of the show; it was watched in syndication by my grandparents, so that's what I watched; my choice was either that or nothing), I learned the value of keeping up a home, and just what they mean when they say that home-making is truly a job, yet without being paid.
Most people either dismiss Reed's show as a fine enough situation comedy, or some similar, but I think it was a good example of television having a positive impact. It wasn't the sole cause, of course, but it was at least a cause. I learned a lot of old-fashioned values, also, and really think that if more people held to similar values, the world in general would be a better place. Oh, I'm not talking about the "values" spouted by the left-wing or right-wing zealots; their values try to pin people down, one way or another, without giving room for individuality and differing paradigms. An example of what I'm talking about would be not caring which person stays home and which person works. Whomever is best suited should do what is needed. If, in a heterosexual relationship, the woman enjoys working and the man enjoys staying home, I don't see why they shouldn't do just that. If both want the same thing, I think they should talk about it and arrive at whatever decision suits them best. What, really, is so wrong with such a blend of old-fashioned and new-fashioned?
Sooner or later, maybe I'll have an answer to that. Right now, it seems that people lean too far one way or another, and that right there is, I think, a big ause of such a schism in the world. It's fine enough to set roles, for whatever needs to be done--in any aspect of life, within the home or without it--but too many people either try to pin people down into pre-defined roles, whether or not they're even well-suited for those roles. Or, people try to have no roles whatsoever, and say that things will "work themselves out". Maybe so, but such a devil-may-care attitude about it surely can't be helping, either.
Maybe one day I'll have a better solution than "respect people without trying to make them into what you think they should be", but then--I have to admit to not thinking there should be a better solution than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)