Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [sig] Re: Russian Orthodox dogma about breastfeeding: myth or not?

Expand Messages
  • Jenne Heise
    ... I believe the article was discussing something from the fourteenth century or later... ... Did infants take communion in medieval Russia? I m aware that
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      > This does not sound right to me. XII-XIII century texts concerning parish
      > life and containing instructions on dealing with various aspects of it are
      > very sensible and sometimes more reasonable and understanding of life than
      > some of the stuff people say today.

      I believe the article was discussing something from the fourteenth century
      or later...

      > If an infant is allowed to nurse before taking communion (Orthodox Christians
      > are supposed to fast from midnight on before taking communion), then I can't
      > see that it would be prevented from drinking it's mother's first milk.

      Did infants take communion in medieval Russia? I'm aware that the rules
      for when and who got to take communion were different from those in the
      West (in the medieval church of Rome, most people only recieved
      communion once a year).

      > And here's another tidbit:
      > "If a woman, having given birth, starts diying that day, or the next, then
      > bring her into the church, give her communion, having washed her."
      > Sense over ritual.

      The writer commented on that particular rule, and others allowing some
      limited service to unchurched postnatal women.

      > Jadwiga, was there a reference to the source of the statement? If so, I might
      > be able to check it (in the original). On the other hand, other Slavic
      > countries had different rules. An interesting overview of such practices is
      > Eve Levin's "Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs._

      I don't believe there was a clear reference to a source, but I will find
      the book and verify it. The article was by N.L. Pushkareva. " Childbirth
      in pre-Petrine Russia : canon law and popular traditions"

      --
      Jadwiga Zajaczkowa, mka Jennifer Heise jenne@...
      disclaimer: i speak for no-one and no-one speaks for me.
      "It's no use trying to be clever-- we are all clever here; just try
      to be kind -- a little kind." F.J. Foakes-Jackson
    • MHoll@aol.com
      In a message dated 6/5/2001 12:17:12 PM Central Daylight Time, ... I might have more trouble with later dates. I m afraid I don t hold Muscovite Russia in very
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 5, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 6/5/2001 12:17:12 PM Central Daylight Time,
        jenne@... writes:


        > I believe the article was discussing something from the fourteenth century
        > or later...

        I might have more trouble with later dates. I'm afraid I don't hold Muscovite
        Russia in very high esteem.

        > Did infants take communion in medieval Russia? I'm aware that the rules
        > for when and who got to take communion were different from those in the
        > West (in the medieval church of Rome, most people only recieved
        > communion once a year).

        Yes, infants did and do take communion as soon as they were baptized and
        churched (introduced into the Church). Rules were more loose in Kievan Russia
        when priests were not always available all the time for every rite. Even
        common-law marriage was recognized, and must be sanctified as soon as a
        priest was available.

        > I don't believe there was a clear reference to a source, but I will find
        > the book and verify it. The article was by N.L. Pushkareva. " Childbirth
        >

        Pushkareva is usually reliable, but even her analyses and conclusions should
        be double-checked. It also matters when the article was written in relation
        to 1991. Long before -- and the analysis will reflect official opinion;
        shortly before -- the author's opinion comes through more clearly. And
        post-1991 -- it's anyone's guess.

        There is also the issue of Soviet scholarship: the methodology is not very
        reliable.

        Predslava.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jenn/Yana
        Eve Levin in her article Childbirth in Pre-Petrine Russia , talks about just this issue (and I think that this is the article which Jadwiga may be thinking
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Eve Levin in her article "Childbirth in Pre-Petrine Russia", talks about
          just this issue (and I think that this is the article which Jadwiga may be
          thinking of). It is part of a wonderful book about how women, in
          particular, retain agency within their lives, in the face of seemingly
          arbitrary and illogical beliefs. So now I will quote from Levin's article...

          From Levin's article of the above name, pages 49-50 in "Russia's Women:
          Accomodation, Resistance, Transformation," edited by Barbara Evans
          Clements, Barbara Alpen Engel, and Christine D. Worobec. Univ. of
          California Press, 1991.

          "Russian canons introduced an additional prohibition [to the beliefs about
          the defilement caused by childbirth]: no one was permitted to eat in the
          woman's company until her purification. This rule created a particular
          problem for the newborn child, who in theory could not nurse from his or
          her mother. There were a number of solutions to this problem. One was to
          delay the baptism of the child until the fortieth day--an infant not yet
          admitted to the Christian community could not be defiled by association
          with its impure mother. The concern for protecting Christians from a
          woman's postpartum impurity was so great as to raise questions about what
          to do if the infant's fraility prompted an early baptism. Metropolitan
          Ioann in the eleventh century had to rule specifically that an infant be
          allowed to nurse, even from an impure mother, to preserve life.

          "There was a second alternative for the problem of feeding the
          newborn--finding a baba [wet nurse, in this circumstance]...The church
          regarded wet nurses favorably, comparing them to their biblical forebears.
          Blessings lauded them for "recieving this infant in Thy name." It appears
          to have been rare for a new mother to have permanently turned over nursing
          of an infant to another woman except when she had no milk. Otherwise the
          mother would take up feeding the child herself as soon as she had undergone
          initial purification. When a wet nurse took on the responsibility of
          feeding an infant, she also acquired a special role in the rituals
          surrounding birth. If the mother was not able to present the child for
          naming or baptism, the baba would tak on this role. Furthermore, whoever
          nursed the infant, either its mother or the wet nurse, would undertake the
          prebaptismal fasts on behalf of the child. This involved abstinence from
          meat and milk for eight days--obviously impossible for the infant."


          So you see, even though the religious restrictions seem illogical and
          impossible to overcome without endangering the continuation of the
          community, people still manage to live with them by actively coming up with
          solutions. A society which fails to preserve the life of its members will
          simply die out, after all.

          --Yana
        • LiudmilaV@aol.com
          In a message dated 6/5/2001 7:02:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... This is fascinating, but I still don t understand how could a woman begin nursing 40 days
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 5, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 6/5/2001 7:02:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
            slavic@... writes:


            > It appears
            > to have been rare for a new mother to have permanently turned over nursing
            > of an infant to another woman except when she had no milk. Otherwise the
            > mother would take up feeding the child herself as soon as she had undergone
            > initial purification.

            This is fascinating, but I still don't understand how could a woman begin
            nursing 40 days after giving birth! As a newly nursing mother, I read a lot
            on the subject and know that it is possible (but hard) to restart lactation
            (and even induce it in adoptive mothers), but milk supply remains low. So,
            how id they do it?

            Liudmila


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jenne Heise
            ... Yes, it is. I had out two books and apparently got them confused. ... Well, this is what puzzles me. It seems like either women were routinely expressing
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 6, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              > Eve Levin in her article "Childbirth in Pre-Petrine Russia", talks about
              > just this issue (and I think that this is the article which Jadwiga may be
              > thinking of).

              Yes, it is. I had out two books and apparently got them confused.

              > So you see, even though the religious restrictions seem illogical and
              > impossible to overcome without endangering the continuation of the
              > community, people still manage to live with them by actively coming up with
              > solutions. A society which fails to preserve the life of its members will
              > simply die out, after all.

              Well, this is what puzzles me. It seems like either women were routinely expressing
              breast milk (an option not mentioned in the article) or routinely delaying baptism. I was
              always led to believe that a long, for instance, 30-day, hiatus in breastfeeding is going
              to seriously impact lactation. The body believes that there is no baby to feed, and shuts
              down lactation.

              It's possible that women of the class from which wet nurses came simply delayed baptising
              their babies until the 40th day, and women of the class that hired wet nurses had their
              babies baptised within the 8 day recommendations, then hired a wet nurse to nurse their
              child.

              --
              Jadwiga Zajaczkowa, mka Jennifer Heise jenne@...
              disclaimer: i speak for no-one and no-one speaks for me.
              "It's no use trying to be clever-- we are all clever here; just try
              to be kind -- a little kind." F.J. Foakes-Jackson
            • Jenn/Yana
              ... Well, Levin says that the mother would take up feeding the child herself as soon as she had undergone initial purification. Could this have been some
              Message 6 of 20 , Jun 6, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                >This is fascinating, but I still don't understand how could a woman begin
                >nursing 40 days after giving birth! As a newly nursing mother, I read a lot
                >on the subject and know that it is possible (but hard) to restart lactation
                >(and even induce it in adoptive mothers), but milk supply remains low. So,
                >how id they do it?
                >
                >Liudmila

                Well, Levin says that "the mother would take up feeding the child herself
                as soon as she had undergone initial purification." Could this have been
                some time earlier than the 40 days?

                I know that women can continue lactation without the stimulous of suckling
                for quite some time by expressing milk. I have read of women doing this
                for several weeks (the woman I am thinking of was on an extended camping
                trip without her very young baby), so perhaps the mother kept her milk
                supply going in this manner (it is too bad that the baby may have not
                gotten the colostrum, the pre-milk filled with antibodies and such). Also,
                the canons stated that no one was to eat in the _presence_ of the woman,
                not that the baby could not drink the milk that the mother had produced.
                Maybe the woman expressed the milk and had someone else (the baba?) feed it
                to the baby, away from the mother. There may have been some question about
                whether the milk itself was "defiled", but perhaps there was a way around
                the problem.

                So with the combination of delaying baptism, the possible early start to
                purification, feeding the baby with expressed breast milk, and continuing
                lactation by manual expressing, and feeding the baby for a time via a wet
                nurse, it appears that there were many alternatives to the baby starving or
                needing to be fed permanently by a wet nurse. Babies obviously survived
                the restrictions placed on the mother, so the community must have figured
                out some way to follow the canons without killing off all the new members.
                Humans have a marvelous capacity to work with impossible-looking situations.

                --Yana
              • Jenne Heise
                ... That s a good question. In the context it appears that it is in fact the 40 days purification, but perhaps those learned in Russian medieval religion can
                Message 7 of 20 , Jun 6, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Well, Levin says that "the mother would take up feeding the child herself
                  > as soon as she had undergone initial purification." Could this have been
                  > some time earlier than the 40 days?

                  That's a good question. In the context it appears that it is in fact the 40 days
                  purification, but perhaps those learned in Russian medieval religion can give us a better
                  answer. Was there an additional part-purification undergone before the end of the 40
                  days' seclusion?

                  > I know that women can continue lactation without the stimulous of suckling
                  > for quite some time by expressing milk. I have read of women doing this
                  > for several weeks (the woman I am thinking of was on an extended camping
                  > trip without her very young baby), so perhaps the mother kept her milk
                  > supply going in this manner (it is too bad that the baby may have not
                  > gotten the colostrum, the pre-milk filled with antibodies and such).

                  Presumably, since the baby was not yet baptised, he/she could nurse during the time the
                  colostrum was coming down.

                  >Also,
                  > the canons stated that no one was to eat in the _presence_ of the woman,
                  > not that the baby could not drink the milk that the mother had produced.
                  > Maybe the woman expressed the milk and had someone else (the baba?) feed it
                  > to the baby, away from the mother. There may have been some question about
                  > whether the milk itself was "defiled", but perhaps there was a way around
                  > the problem.

                  Expression of milk would certainly be possible, but the technical issues involved in a)
                  expression of milk from the human mammary gland, and b) widespread 'bottle' feeding of
                  babies, make me think that if this was widely practiced there would be archaeological
                  artifacts of the technology. Further, modern women note that even with a combination of
                  nursing and modern expression technology it's often difficult to maintain appropriate
                  amounts of lactation flow. It's possible that when the mother resumed nursing the child
                  (at the age of a month and a half) was put on some sort of supplemental feeding.

                  > So with the combination of delaying baptism, the possible early start to
                  > purification, feeding the baby with expressed breast milk, and continuing
                  > lactation by manual expressing, and feeding the baby for a time via a wet
                  > nurse, it appears that there were many alternatives to the baby starving or
                  > needing to be fed permanently by a wet nurse.

                  Unfortunately, none of the alternatives are satisfactory solutions to the physical and
                  theological dilemma. When using a wet nurse who had delayed her own child's baptism, or
                  delaying one's own child's baptism, one was disobeying that dogma about time of baptism.
                  One could feed a baby with expressed breast milk, but even today infants in that
                  situation require supplemental feedings.

                  --
                  Jadwiga Zajaczkowa, mka Jennifer Heise jenne@...
                  disclaimer: i speak for no-one and no-one speaks for me.
                  "It's no use trying to be clever-- we are all clever here; just try
                  to be kind -- a little kind." F.J. Foakes-Jackson
                • Brent Rachel
                  From my reading, most of Levin s research in her Sex and Orthodox Slavs was from sources stating what SHOULD happen and not what DID happen . When she
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 6, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    From my reading, most of Levin's research in her "Sex
                    and Orthodox Slavs" was from sources stating "what
                    SHOULD happen" and not "what DID happen". When she
                    talks about penance for certain sexual activities, she
                    IS able to cite a FEW examples.., but for the most
                    part she states the penances that OUGHT to be assigned
                    for the activity. There is no way to determine if
                    they were ever imposed that way, and how widespread
                    any applications might be.

                    Now, I haven't read the work by Levin that we are
                    discussing., but might it not be the case that what
                    she is descibing was the "official" policy.., one that
                    you are all discovering is impractical in the extreme?
                    Are most of her sources records of what DID happen?
                    I find it unlikely that there would be many such
                    sources.., judging by Levin's previous work.

                    So, I hypothesize that this restriction was probably
                    adhered to about as much as the requirement that women
                    not attend church during their cycle. Who's to know?
                    And if such a wholely impractical rule (directly
                    influencing procreation - the MAIN driving concern in
                    all matters of intergender relations, per Levin,
                    herself) *was* strictly enforced I believe that the
                    ensuing chaos would have been recorded by visitors to
                    a greater degree, and would have had PAGES devoted to
                    it in the Domostroi. I think it is *just that
                    impractical*.

                    Just one man's opinion.

                    Brent / Kazimir

                    --- Jenn/Yana <slavic@...> wrote:
                    > >This is fascinating, but I still don't understand
                    > how could a woman begin
                    > >nursing 40 days after giving birth! As a newly
                    > nursing mother, I read a lot
                    > >on the subject and know that it is possible (but
                    > hard) to restart lactation
                    > >(and even induce it in adoptive mothers), but milk
                    > supply remains low. So,
                    > >how id they do it?
                    > >
                    > >Liudmila


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
                    a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                  • stasi.wa
                    ... From: LiudmilaV@aol.com To: sig@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:36 PM Subject: Re: [sig] Russian
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jun 6, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: LiudmilaV@... <LiudmilaV@...>
                      To: sig@yahoogroups.com <sig@yahoogroups.com>
                      Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:36 PM
                      Subject: Re: [sig] Russian Orthodox dogma about breastfeeding: myth or not?


                      >In a message dated 6/5/2001 7:02:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                      >slavic@... writes:
                      >
                      >
                      >> It appears
                      >> to have been rare for a new mother to have permanently turned over
                      nursing
                      >> >This is fascinating, but I still don't understand how could a woman
                      begin
                      >nursing 40 days after giving birth! As a newly nursing mother, I read a lot
                      >on the subject and know that it is possible (but hard) to restart lactation
                      >(and even induce it in adoptive mothers), but milk supply remains low. So,
                      >how id they do it?
                      >The same way working women do it. They continue to express the milk even
                      when they are not acutally feeding the child. We put it in bottles and
                      refridgerate it, but they would have probably dumped it being "un pure". You
                      don't need a pump to get the stream going, you know.
                      B. Anastasia with two babies to her credit>
                      Liudmila
                      >
                      >
                      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      NetZero Platinum
                      No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
                      Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
                      http://www.netzero.net
                    • Jenne Heise
                      ... Yes, but do you need a pump to get any significant amount expresssed after you ve got it going? I was under the impression that the average human mammary
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jun 6, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > >The same way working women do it. They continue to express the milk even
                        > when they are not acutally feeding the child. We put it in bottles and
                        > refridgerate it, but they would have probably dumped it being "un pure". You
                        > don't need a pump to get the stream going, you know.
                        > B. Anastasia with two babies to her credit>

                        Yes, but do you need a pump to get any significant amount expresssed after
                        you've got it going? I was under the impression that the average human
                        mammary gland was not well configured for manual milking purposes.

                        --
                        Jadwiga Zajaczkowa, mka Jennifer Heise jenne@...
                        disclaimer: i speak for no-one and no-one speaks for me.
                        "It's no use trying to be clever-- we are all clever here; just try
                        to be kind -- a little kind." F.J. Foakes-Jackson
                      • MHoll@aol.com
                        In a message dated 6/5/2001 9:01:58 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Is there a footnote, a specific reference to the Russian text? I know the book it comes from,
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jun 6, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 6/5/2001 9:01:58 PM Central Daylight Time,
                          slavic@... writes:


                          > "...Metropolitan Ioann in the eleventh century had to rule specifically that
                          > an infant be allowed to nurse, even from an impure mother, to preserve
                          >

                          Is there a footnote, a specific reference to the Russian text? I know the
                          book it comes from, I'm sure I even read the article, but I don't have it
                          now.

                          Predslava,
                          who just loves to check the original of a quotation. Saves her from doing any
                          *real* work.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • LiudmilaV@aol.com
                          In a message dated 6/6/2001 1:42:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Of course, and it was silly of me not to think of expressing. You actually can do this by
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jun 6, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In a message dated 6/6/2001 1:42:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                            jenne@... writes:


                            > > >The same way working women do it. They continue to express the milk even
                            > > when they are not actually feeding the child. We put it in bottles and
                            > > refrigerate it, but they would have probably dumped it being "un pure".
                            > You
                            > > don't need a pump to get the stream going, you know.
                            > > B. Anastasia with two babies to her credit>
                            >
                            > Yes, but do you need a pump to get any significant amount expresssed after
                            > you've got it going? I was under the impression that the average human
                            > mammary gland was not well configured for manual milking purposes.
                            >
                            >

                            Of course, and it was silly of me not to think of expressing. You actually
                            can do this by hand (that is, you or someone else might, I can't master the
                            skill so far). I have a relative who expressed milk by hand for her baby
                            back in Ukraine about 20 years ago, when there weren't any pumps available
                            and her baby refused to nurse.

                            What still bugs me is what did they do with the milk? There is a strong
                            sentiment in Russian culture not to waste food, so could they throw it away?
                            If not, how would they feed it to the baby? I understand that without a
                            nippled bottle this could be very tricky and time-consuming. Also, what
                            about going back to work in the fields soon after giving birth? How would
                            this non-nursing thing work?

                            Liudmila,
                            wondering if male populations of the list heard more than they'd ever want to
                            know about breastfeeding.


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Robert J Welenc
                            ... milk even ... and ... pure . You ... after ... human ... No, it s not -- but I found that manual expression worked much better than a breast pump. I kept
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jun 7, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 04:36 PM 6/6/01 -0400, you wrote:
                              >> >The same way working women do it. They continue to express the
                              milk even
                              >> when they are not acutally feeding the child. We put it in bottles
                              and
                              >> refridgerate it, but they would have probably dumped it being "un
                              pure". You
                              >> don't need a pump to get the stream going, you know.
                              >> B. Anastasia with two babies to her credit>
                              >
                              >Yes, but do you need a pump to get any significant amount expresssed
                              after
                              >you've got it going? I was under the impression that the average
                              human
                              >mammary gland was not well configured for manual milking purposes.

                              No, it's not -- but I found that manual expression worked much better
                              than a breast pump.

                              I kept lactation going during a 10-day hospital stay, (forbidden to
                              breastfeed because I was being pumped full of antibiotics) but it was
                              awkward and painful. I can't imagine being able express enough to
                              keep it going for 6 weeks. (And like many young nursing babies, my
                              5-month-old refused to take a bottle.)

                              What does the Domostroi say about women feeding their babies? Was it
                              common for the upper class to put their babies out to a wetnurse as a
                              matter of course, as was done in western Europe? If so, I imagine
                              that this was the only class that observed such a rule.

                              Otherwise it's wholly impractical and unlikely. Professional
                              wetnurses wouldn't exist in small villages, only in larger cities,
                              and the key there is 'professional'. Where does a peasant find space
                              to house and money to pay a wetnurse?

                              Perhaps you could have a relative or friend nurse the child, with the
                              understanding that the next time she gave birth, you would do the
                              same for her. Is there any evidence for such a practice? And having
                              a newborn and an older baby at the breast at the same time wouldn't
                              be easy. They have completely different suckling patterns. A strong
                              let-down reflex on the part of the woman can be handled easily by an
                              older infant, but tends to choke a newborn with too much milk all at
                              once.



                              Alanna
                              ***********
                              Saying of the day: You cannot unscramble eggs.
                            • Art Plazewski
                              ... From: Robert J Welenc [mailto:rjwelenc@erols.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 7:55 AM To: sig@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [sig] Russian Orthodox dogma
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jun 7, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Robert J Welenc [mailto:rjwelenc@...]
                                Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 7:55 AM
                                To: sig@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [sig] Russian Orthodox dogma about breastfeeding: myth or
                                not?



                                Otherwise it's wholly impractical and unlikely. Professional
                                wetnurses wouldn't exist in small villages, only in larger cities,
                                and the key there is 'professional'. Where does a peasant find space
                                to house and money to pay a wetnurse?

                                Perhaps you could have a relative or friend nurse the child, with the
                                understanding that the next time she gave birth, you would do the
                                same for her. Is there any evidence for such a practice? And having
                                a newborn and an older baby at the breast at the same time wouldn't
                                be easy. They have completely different suckling patterns. A strong
                                let-down reflex on the part of the woman can be handled easily by an
                                older infant, but tends to choke a newborn with too much milk all at
                                once.



                                Alanna
                                ***********
                                Saying of the day: You cannot unscramble eggs.



                                Up until today wet nurse is a common practice in almost every village I
                                know of in Poland. They did not have to take money - goods and services
                                are most common to exchange for that service. Also what was a theory (
                                don't feed the baby till 40 days) was theory only , observed in some
                                sporadic examples.
                                Art.
                              • Jenne Heise
                                ... I don t remember the Domostroi saying anything about women feeding their babies. Is it possible that the issue never came up for the author (because babies
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jun 7, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > What does the Domostroi say about women feeding their babies? Was it
                                  > common for the upper class to put their babies out to a wetnurse as a
                                  > matter of course, as was done in western Europe? If so, I imagine
                                  > that this was the only class that observed such a rule.

                                  I don't remember the Domostroi saying anything about women feeding their
                                  babies. Is it possible that the issue never came up for the author
                                  (because babies weren't nursed in front of men, or priests, or something?)

                                  Maybe it was only the wives of priests that obeyed the rule? ;)


                                  --
                                  Jadwiga Zajaczkowa, mka Jennifer Heise jenne@...
                                  disclaimer: i speak for no-one and no-one speaks for me.
                                  "It's no use trying to be clever-- we are all clever here; just try
                                  to be kind -- a little kind." F.J. Foakes-Jackson
                                • MHoll@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 6/7/2001 5:40:54 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Yep, or else, considering the personality of the author, since it s woman s work, it s not
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jun 7, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 6/7/2001 5:40:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
                                    jenne@... writes:


                                    > Is it possible that the issue never came up for the author
                                    >

                                    Yep, or else, considering the personality of the author, since it's woman's
                                    work, it's not really worth mentioning, as it doesn't immediately affect the
                                    household.

                                    Predslava,
                                    being her cynical feminist self.


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.