|
Posted by Vikki In WA State on May 28, 2006, 12:28 pm
You know, they didn't waste any time. There was no tv, they didn't have to
run to the store, no after school activities. But when the bread or buscuits
were baking, or the clothes were on the line drying were moments for hand
work. They didn't shower every day so that saves 45 minutes. I am just
saying we use a lot of time for things they wouldn't have thought about.
Once your daughters were old enough, they were expected to help in the
house.
My late MIL told me she and her two sisters always fought over the flour
sack. The one that got it had new underwear. My MIL herself saved the
string off the flour sack and feed sacks and when she was married she had
enough lace tatted from that string to put lace on every curtain in her new
house.
--
Vikki in WA State
> And if you have an older home (from the early 1900's and older), you
> clearly see that closet space was not considered the way it is today.
> Only someone like the Queen of England would have had a closet like
> Oprah's, and probably not even then. Certainly there would not have been
> 100's of pairs of shoes in it!
>
> Gee, when we were growing up we had one outfit for church, five dresses
> for school, a couple of sets of play clothes, and three pair of
> shoes--one each for the three venues. And that was pretty much it,
> except for coats and a light rain jacket, and maybe a hat. In fact, I'm
> trying to get back to that way of dressing; my closet contains a ton of
> clothes, but I don't wear many of them, some of which are 10 years old,
> or more. It's too confusing to try to figure out what to wear!
>
> Karen Maslowski in Cincinnati
> www.sewstorm.com
>
>
> Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to send wrote:
>
> > Easy.
> >
> > In the first place, people didn't have as many clothes as we do today,
> > and they made them last longer.
> >
> > In the second place, there was no TV, no movies, no soccer games, no bar
> > scenes for the average person, etc., etc., etc.
|