Search This Blog

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Breaking News: Jews & Muslims Spontaneously Combust Upon Hearing "Merry Christmas"

Crate & Barrel was one of the first national retailers to react to the reports today of the apparent spontaneous combustion of several Jews and at least 1 Muslim upon being greeted with "Merry Christmas" by a careless Christian.

STLtoday - Business - Story: "Crate & Barrel has Jewish, Muslim and atheist customers, said spokeswoman Betty Kahn. 'We would definitely not say Merry Christmas,' she said. 'It's all about holiday shopping, getting together with friends and family.' "

Although there have been no reports of Atheists suddenly going up in flames, there have been cases throughout history that suggest that wishing an Atheist "Merry Christmas" may cause them to melt, much like the "Wicked Witch of the West". According to a C&B spokesperson, "We wanted to be sensitive to our Atheist customers, just in case," he/she/it said. "Besides, Atheists tend to spend more money, since they can't take it with them."

Still, panic broke out in some largely non-Christian areas of larger metropolitan areas when word spread that a cashier at a fast food restaurant was wishing people Merry Christmas with wild abandon!

"Where are the authorities?" people demanded, "How can they allow this?"

Authorities finally apprehended the fast-food restaurant employee, who turned out to be a recent Canadian immigrant not proficient in American.

Luckily, a spokesperson from Crate & Barrel was on hand to set the Canadian straight. "You see", he/she/it explained, "Here in America it is considered offensive to say "Merry Christmas" to those who burn up or melt when they hear those words". "Of course we don't want to ignore Christmas altogether, because we rather like all the money we make, so we just ignore the whole Jesus thing, because we feel that the spirit of the holiday has less to do with him, and more to do with Fine Dining Accessories On Sale Now at Crate & Barrel".

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving Everybody!

May your day be full of Happy Times, the makings of Warm Memories, and Family and Friends.



Thank You to everybody who sacrificed so that today's celebration is possible, and Thank You to everybody who bothers to read my silly little blog!

Warm Wishes,

RH

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Rosie O'Donnell Is An Ugly Person

Rosie O'Donnell

I am not talking about her appearance. Today on Live with Regis & Kelly, Clay Aiken of American Idol Fame tried to silence Ms. Ripa by reaching over and covering her mouth with his hand. Ms. Ripa responded appropriately by giving Mr. Aiken a mild reprimand, and then trying to lighten things up with a joke.

"I don't know where your hands have been".

I heard the replay on the radio and it was a graceful but firm maneuver out of an awkward situation. That really should have been the end of it, with the exception of Mr. Aiken enrolling in a basic manners course.
Kelly Ripa

Enter Rosie O'Donnell on The View, who has managed to make the whole incident about herself by accusing Ms. Ripa of "Homophobia", on National Television no less. Talk about blaming the victim. That woman needs to have her head examined and then go to some anger management courses. Here is why:
  1. What Mr. Aiken did was rude. He was invited onto a show and basically told his hostess to shut up. He is her junior both in age and in accomplishment, and she deserves respect. Mr. Aiken did not give it to her.
  2. Ms. Ripa should not have to justify her reasons for not wanting somebody putting his hand over her mouth. That is nobody's business but her own, and to have some aggressive loud-mouth criticize her for somebody else's failure to respect her own personal space is just gross.
  3. Ms. O'Donnell is a bully who does not respect anybody else unless they adhere to her wayClay Aiken of thinking. It isn't right that she fling accusations and "labels" at people to further her own agenda, especially on national television.
It is important that the rest of us do not put up with this, because there is a lot at stake. It has become commonplace to accuse people of being racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic .... Etc. as a method of silencing and intimidating them.

These tactics are a form of oppression, plain and simple. There is nothing "tolerant" about Ms. O'Donnell, she is attempting to impose her way of life on everybody else, come hell or high water.

To use a political analogy, There is not much difference in a dictator from the left and a dictator from the right.

RH

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face

I bet the American Indians wish that Gloria Allred had been on the Wagon Trail back when the West was being settled, for if she had, nobody would have gotten past the Mississippi. In fact, they would all still be there arguing about who has to do the dishes.

When the men went out to hunt so that they may eat, Ms. Allred would be waiting for them not with a hot fire to prepare the evening meal, but with a lawsuit and camera crew, ready to vilify the men for excluding women on the hunting trip as well as cruelty to animals. This is the lady who sued the Boyscouts for not allowing girls and Kmart for having boy's toys in one section and girl's toys in another. Because we all know that girls would eschew Barbie and the Easy Bake Oven if it were not for the male dominated society.

My point here is not just to point out the absurd, or even cast out the baby with the bath water. Some of what came out of the feminist movement is good, and was very much needed. But we are now engaging in a war on boys, which is really a war against ourselves and is going to lead to the unraveling of our civilization.

I know many believe this to be hogwash, but it is something that I had started to notice before I ever heard any mention of it in the media. It is subtle, but it is there. Before I was even conscious of any notion of a "War on Boys", I would hear statements by teachers and principals in the schools, that just seemed downright unfair. Some of them were just shy of openly hostile towards boys, and of course, typical boy behavior was NOT TO BE TOLERATED. (In case you haven't noticed, women have taken over the schools, so the boys are in real trouble if they get stuck with some nasty feminist types.)

Then we have those who openly say that we no longer need men as they trot off to the sperm bank to fulfill themselves and their wish for child. They make their own money, they explain, they don't NEED to have the father around.

Well OK then!

But what kind of a statement is that? Women didn't like it much when we were thought of as simply instruments of child bearing or sexual gratification for men, and now we are doing the exact same thing! Combine that with the ME generation attitude and it seems that women have somehow gotten the idea that it is all about them.

I just wonder what the child is going to think when Mommy tells him or her that she doesn't NEED a daddy. Most likely Mommy will give junior some new-agey cock and bull storey about how special they are because they don't have a daddy. What Mommy really should tell junior is that Mommy is so incredibly self-centered and selfish that she felt she had to produce another human being for her own personal gratification.

Think that is harsh? Try this: Think of your own father. Now get rid of him. You don't need him. What's more, you don't get to know him either. You don't get to know who he is, what he looked like, or even his name. Forget about camping trips and baseball, your mother decided all that was not necessary. You may even have two Mommies or two Daddies (in which case the child is ripped off one Mother), and you should be grateful because otherwise you could've ended up in a ditch somewhere, and it is much more important that whichever combination of adults lead fulfilling lives than you know where you come from or get to know the person who made you.

Stop being so selfish will you?

RH

Mother's Little Helpers

It occured to me that the "Boomers" are extremely rigid in their thinking. Even when the evidence is piling up against them, they cling to the notion that the social changes they brought about are somehow "enlightened" and to question them is to brand yourself some sort of Right Wing Nutcake (My apologies to Right Wing Nutcakes).

At least out here in California. And Massachusetts too...but let me get to that later.

So I have taken to giving my profession as Housewife when somebody wants to know what I am up to all day. The responses I get are very interesting. If a discussion of my profession starts, invariably, "Mother's Little Helpers" come up. What is meant by this, is that being a housewife is so incredibly unsatisfying that it was necessary to prescribe Valium in order to cope. We wouldn't want to go back to THAAAT!]

Hmmm.

Has it occurred to no one that the number of Happy Pills we are on now as a society makes "Mother's Little Helpers" seem like placebos? (and we don't even get Valium!). Hey Boomers! If your social changes were so great, why is half the country on drugs? Shouldn't we all be on a natural high?

Kids are floundering left and right, standards have gone down the toilet (because, god forbid somebody gets hurt feelings) and nothing of any importance can be meaningfully discussed, because sometimes hard choices have to be made, and that usually means somebody's feelings get hurt. Which makes you a racist. Or a Sexist. Or an anti-Dentite.

We are so caught up in this nicey nice baloney that we have become a nation of liars. BIG FAT LIARS. Left, Right, Up, Down. It's all peace, love and let somebody else pay for it with the 60s crowd. I think it's time for a national Time Out for the Boomers. They need to go to their rooms and think about what they have done. Maybe when they come out they will open their minds and see the other side of the coin.

RH...GenX and PROUD OF IT

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Look what else I found!

Howdy Howdy!

If you are not a cosmetics counter free gift freak, you may want to skip this one. If you regularly monitor the newspaper for the lasted department store ads for free Chanel, Estee, Clinique etc..., this is a major find! Here's the deal: (at Macys.com)
>>NEW! Estée Lauder The MakeUp Artist Professional Color Collection
Worth over $250! Yours for $47.50 with Estée Lauder fragrance purchase. It happens only once a year…the season's greatest gift of all.<<
Here's the Link: Free Gift
...In case I messed it up, just click "Beauty" from the Macys.com home page, then scroll all the way down and there should be a link to the offer. If you have trouble let me know! OK enough of this shopping talk!

Free Gift by Estee Lauder
RH

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

MACYS ONE DAY SALE

Save Save Save!

I just bought a new bedding set - a 24-Piece Room Ensemble in a Bag! Bed in a Bag! It has curtains too! Anybody who needs anything home-decorish or jewelry-wise or clothing -wise , hop over to Macys.com ON THE DOUBLE!!! This is their biggest One Day Sale of the year and after today, prices go up for the Christmas Fleecing! My new bedding set :
- Canyon Crest "Simsbury Stripe" 24-Piece Room Ensemble in a Bag For $199!!!

- Then I got this cute little Snoopy Radio for a stocking stuffer $14.95, it's a while supplies last deal and they offer it to you when you check out!

Finally, I am trying to figure out who I could give these to:

14k White Gold 1/2 ct. t.w. Diamond Studs

They are only $199.00 which seems like a deal to me for diamonds (I am not a big fan of Jewelry, but I can't resist things that sparkle...). Anyway, GET SOME EARLY CHRISTMAS SHOPPING DONE NOW!!! I GUARANTEE PRICES ARE ONLY GOING UP NOW!!!

OK Gotta Shop Some More!

TA TA

RH

PS...Because I ordered, I got a free shipping code from Macy's ($100 or more purchase) which I will share:
XN05Q0QT1DDF (Not sure if you can just use code alone, or need link in email...so I included link just in case...PPS...if anybody uses it and finds it is no longer valid...please let me know so I can take it down. PPS...don't tell Macy's where you got it!) ;)

Friday, November 03, 2006

Glorifying The Single Mother

"Changes in family structure - notably a doubling of the percent of families headed by a single woman - can account for a 3.7 percentage point increase in poverty rates, more than the entire rise in the poverty rate from 10.7 percent to 12.8 percent since 1980."

Remember when Murphy Brown got pregnant and decided to not get married, instead opting to raise the child alone? Remember how Dan Quayle criticized her and the big feminist outcry that followed? Well...(and may God forgive me for saying this)... Dan Quayle was right.

Single motherhood leads to poverty for many women (and for the rest, probably exhaustion). It isn't good for women, and it certainly isn't good for children. Yes, I know, there are a few Murphy Browns out there with the financial resources to outsource their childrearing duties, but for the most part, it is not a desirable situation.

I am saying this not as a criticism of the single mothers of the world, being on my second marriage, I was one for a period, too. (Only technically, however, since my ex-husband and I share custody and cooperate most of the time, which makes it easier than going it alone altogether.)

So what do we do? We can't turn back the clock, nor would we really want to... But the evidence seems to be saying that it is better for all involved (yes, for men too) to be married and stay married when children are involved. Should we make it harder to get a divorce? Dust off the old Home Economic classes and add some Dr. Phil to the curriculum? How about presenting a more realistic picture of marriage, as not all champagne and roses when in reality it is more Gun's and Roses? If couples knew what to expect, maybe they wouldn't throw in the towel so easily when the initial gloss wears off.

Still not completely sure myself, although I have gained some insight from my own mistakes. I do know that I would not want to be raising children on my own; There is nothing glamorous about it.

RH

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

On Service to Husband and Family

Every so often I get letters from visitors who disagree with or disapprove of the concept of a Retro Housewife. Since I love a good debate, I welcome these letters as it gives me a chance to talk about the ideas behind Retro Housewife (And what woman doesn't like to talk!). I got a particularly meaty letter today from a young lady in Australia that I would like to comment on here. I shall comment point by point if I may!

>>What I don't agree with in your site is the idea of service to your husband/family.<<

  1. Service to husband and family should not be confused with servitude. Nowhere do I say that a wife should be her husband's servant! I assume equality of status in a marriage, where both husband and wife value and respect the other's contribution. When you really get down to the nuts and bolts of what marriage is, you will see that on its most basic level, marriage is a life strategy; a man and a woman combining resources and (hopefully) forming a stable partnership for the purpose of raising children, as well as having a life ally who will be there for you through thick and thin. You can just as easily talk about a husband's service to wife and family in his role of breadwinner.

  2. Division of Labor in a world with constraints on time and resources. (i.e. Reality) Wouldn't it be nice if we could all be philosophers and artists, spend more time perfecting our golf game or composing symphonies! While this is certainly possible for the wealthy, most people in the world find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to earn a living. Which leads to the question: "How do we divide up all of this nasty work in order to maximize the outcome?" (The outcome being well-adjusted, healthy offspring, wealth acquisition and life enjoyment.) If you happen to ask an economist (which you did), they would start blathering on about specialization, comparative and absolute advantage, which for our purposes, I will simplify to mean each person should specialize in what they do more efficiently and are better at than the other.

  3. When children enter the picture, the woman is just flat out better at it than the man. (Mr. Mom and Junior notwithstanding). We can make them, feed them and I believe are better equipped to deal with them for long periods of time than men are. Meanwhile, by the woman taking care of the issues of home life, the man is freed up to focus on maximizing the resources he can make available to his family. The total "outcome" should be greater than if either party tried to do it all on their own, or each spouse worked outside the home part-time and in the house part-time.

  4. The problems started because somewhere along the line, society failed to value the contributions made by women to this equation properly, and then somebody looked over the fence and saw greener grass. We then found ourselves in the position of saying "Everything that men get to do = GOOD" and conversely "Everything that women have do = BAD", and the so-called feminists decided that they absolutely have to run into the office everyday or their lives would have no meaning.

  5. I am saying "What men did and women decided they needed = not everything it's cracked up to be" and "What women did and decided they hated = Maybe not so bad after all and definitely important and required for a stable society".

  6. So who is really the feminist here?
To be continued!

RH