Homemaking

Lately I have been struggling with laziness. I know that I am taking care of Ryland and meeting all her needs every minute of the day, but there are so many other things that need to be done around the house and I really do have time to do most of them, I just choose not to. I would rather sit and watch my favorite TV show while Ryland sleeps or fold the laundry when Kyle comes home and can help me. I am convicted. I am not called to just be a mom, but to be a Homemaker. I found this blog and it has really opened my eyes up to Homemaking in a whole new light and it has given me the encouragement to get off my romp.

From: Girl Talk

As homemakers, we can be keenly, and somewhat painfully aware of our lack of specialized skill. Many of us trained for a specific field of work only to leave it behind to come home with our baby; and then the field left us behind as we raised our children. We may see our husband excelling at his career, and observe other women who seem to be “the best” at something, and because we haven’t distinguished ourselves in some way (we’ve been too busy cleaning toilets, running errands, reading children's books and pouring bowls of cereal), we wonder if we are really good at anything.


Twentieth century British author G.K. Chesterton has liberating insight for all homemakers who feel pressure to excel in something besides homemaking. In an essay entitled “The Emancipation of Domesticity” he observed that woman is a “general overseer” in the home, and as such, she must be able to do many things well—she shouldn't have to worry about being "the best" at something.


“In other words, there must be in every center of humanity one human being upon a larger plan; one who does not "give her best," but gives her all…..


The woman is expected to cook: not to excel in cooking, but to cook; to cook better than her husband who is earning [a living] by lecturing on botany or breaking stones….the woman is expected to tell tales to the children, not original and artistic tales, but tales--better tales than would probably be told by a first-class cook.


But she cannot be expected to endure anything like this universal duty if she is also to endure the direct cruelty of competitive or bureaucratic toil. Woman must be a cook, but not a competitive cook; a school mistress, but not a competitive schoolmistress; a house-decorator but not a competitive house-decorator; a dressmaker, but not a competitive dressmaker. She should have not one trade but twenty hobbies; she, unlike the man, may develop all her second bests.
This is what has been really aimed at from the first in what is called the seclusion, or even the oppression, of women. Women were not kept at home in order to keep them narrow; on the contrary, they were kept at home in order to keep them broad” (emphasis mine).
My fellow homemakers, let’s embrace the “larger plan” ordained by our Creator. Let’s not worry about being the best, but eagerly give our all to the broad calling of serving in the home.