Lady Lydia's info on the net

Lady Lydia has started harassing Christian women, whom she suspects of participating in this blog.

Well Lady Lydia, all the information one would ever need is on the internet:

Where did we learn Lydia never went to school or college?

On Linked In:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/7/444/b6

Lydia Sherman's education: homeschool 1955 — 1967

                  __________________________________________________

Lady Lydia or some ardent supporter of hers once asked us why we are criticising Mr Stanley Bumpfries for selling insurance. We had no clue Mr Bumpfries was an insurance agent - we only knew he did MLM marketing because his pastor's salary couldn't support their "refined, but costly habits."

So we checked Manta.com and we found:

http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_wjqg8

Joseph Stanley Bumpfries

29285 Lingo Ln, Junction City, OR 97448-9648

URL (web address): no entry (He's obivously not competing for internet space with his wife)

Business Category: Life Insurance Carrier in Junction City, OR

Industry (SIC): Life Insurance

Location Type: Single Location

Est. Annual Sales: $91,000 (Too bad! Wonder if his wife would advertise that on her blog?)

Est. # of Employees: 1

Est. Empl. at Loc.: 1

Year Started: 1982

Contact's Title: Owner

NAICS: Direct Life Insurance Carriers

                  ____________________________________________

Where did we learn Lydia's son-in-law doesn't have a job, despite having a wife and four children?

a) From the Unpleasant Times

b) From LinkedIN:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/aiden/humphrey

Past:

Architect Intern at Design Structures

Pulpit Minister at Florence church of Christ

Physics and Advanced Math Instructor at LifeGate Christian Acadamy

That was in the past, currently the guy's just a student, financed by his wife's parents + his parents at the University of Oregon.

           ___________________________________________

And Lydia herself loves to promote herself and her book on the net - from where we get all our info....like for instance:

http://www.feedage.com/feeds/1570794/comments-on-kidults-part-3-ruining-our-lives-with-fun

http://www.mcgaughey.org/thingstosay/index.php?entry=10

http://www.clansandnames.org/forum/read1-4.html

Lydia McGaughey Sherman Says: 

November 8th, 2006 at 7:12 am

I am writing a book about my mother and father who homesteaded in Alaska in 1948. Mother was only 19, and Daddy was 23. After reading their letters and looking at the pictures of them building a house in the snow, I wonder if any 19 or 23 year old today could survive in that situation! They are all playing video games and going out for pizza, socializing, etc. My parents were so very brave and strong, but there were other young couples doing the same thing. Each couple got 160 acres and had to clear it and build on it, and they all helped each other when it came to rasing the roof on the houses. Their leisure time was just being thankful to breathe the air. I still weep when I see pictures of my mother with her happy smile, peeling a log, at such a young age. She thought it was an adventure, and it was something different. All seven of us kids had the privilege of growing up on that homestead. Is it somewhat our fault though, that the next generation has nothing to do but play games? Growing up in a neighborhood with only a social life and not real adventure, is not very motivating. Perhaps these video games take them away to something so fantastic that is different from the pointless lives they lead. I don’t like to see them playing these games all the time; it is disturbing. But what will we have them to do?

Lady Lydia on religious persecution

Lady Lydia now fancies that because of this blog she is under "religious persecution."

Do take the blinkers of your eyes Lydia, you are the most unchristian woman blogging on the net, and the last thing we would do is regard you a Christian.

If there is any religious persecution going on - its by you. You and your snobbish attitudes on dress, manners, culture, etc must be a shame to Christ (since ur using his name to ply your trade - online businesses). 

She has also mentioned that "we," the "enemey," (her spelling are also atrocious -must be from all the homeschooling) know the exact words to debilitate her. Nice to know we are hitting right on target.

Why not we have a deal? You keep on posting about craft items and we won't talk about you! But start theological debates or another of those racist, elitist views and we can be back on track!

Lady Lydia is a public figure

Picture courtesy: www.cafepress.com

Candy is a liar blog has a great post on copyright/privacy laws.

At many times, we have been accused of slandering, etc....Let me remind everyone that Lady Lydia is a very public person. She is an author, writer for different sites and her own blogs. She has commented on other blogs with links to her own blog. She is by no means a private individual, considering that you can see her on the net all the time.

Candy is a liar blog says on copyright:

Various commenters have said that C should sue for defamation, or slander. Obviously, this blog is written so slander is out. Remember, hens, sssslander is ssssspoken!

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's entry on defamation:

Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?

Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.

A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Who is a public figure?

A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures—a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate—someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure—for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.

Read the original article at Candyisaliar at this link.

Lady Lydia on extra pay for married men

Picture courtesy: www.lacetoleather.com

Lady Lydia of course has lots of screwed-up, odd-ball ideas, but this one is supreme. She wants married guys to get double-pay so that their wives can stay at home! Get a laugh with this one!

In an article called Umbrella card, Mailbox card, she says:

If employers would say to the men: I will give priority to hiring men whose wives are at home. I will pay you what you both would earn in my company, and your wife can still stay home." there would be a greater motivation for women to stay home. Women ought to get a prize for staying away from the office and tending to matters at home, even if it is just to recover from illness or get more rest or just prepare the place for their husbands. Illness is certainly a good reason to stay away from work, and women need more care.

Lady Lydia on our spoof blog

Picture courtesy: www.geocities.com

Lady Lydia we know is a frequent visitor to our blog! She has taken down some of her more racist articles from her blog, after she faced criticism from this blog and others. But of course, she can't admit to her fan following, that she took it down because she didn't want to say sorry for her racist views....so in a reply to one of her readers,

Lady Lydia says:

"I went ahead and posted this because I wanted you to know that I am in the process of taking down some articles to put in small booklet form, that can be puchased for the price of the printing and paper. "

Acutally what is true, is that she has deleted some of her more overt racist remarks...and now she's pretending that she took them down because she wants to compile them in a book.......

I wonder which publisher would accept a book that had comments like ........"black slaves in America were happy under their white Christian masters. While the black men worked in the fields their wives played June Cleaver at home."

Lady Lydia continues:

It will take awhile but then you will have some basic things to give away. I always thought there needed to be little brochures or pamphlets to give to people on the subject of daughters, wives, homemaking, children, etc. and these booklets will be basic to that. As for the contact me not working, I'll try to get that fixed today. I do not know what happened. You are welcome to print off articles if you are still able to do that. It is just as well the pictures will not copy, as it takes a lot of ink. I did not want to use all the restrictions that are on here but was forced to. Nice people are going to have to live behind more and more reinforcements, gates, and passwords, while the lawless run free, being destructive and looting.

Excuse me? Nice people?

Lady Lydia is nasty with her racist remarks about black slaves in America and how badly dressed the women victims of Katrina were....

Lydia also adds:

There are so many nice bloggers who get discouraged from flamers or critics, and it does their hearts good to get something nice on the comments section. When I first began blogging, I was warned that the web was a terrible place because of all the spammers or flamers and all the filth elsewhere on it.

More changes at Homeliving Helper

Update: Lady Lydia has now deleted the archives and date links on her side-bar, so that no one can tell how she's stuck in the time-warp. What she doesn't realise is people can easily get every post (expired/ deleted/altered) on her blog, if they only knew how to look. Well, Lydia nice to know you keep checking this blog to see what you should delete or change! Keep snooping around Lydia, your daughter's already our top visitor and your coming a close second!

Our original article, which alerted Lydia on the fallicies in her blog:

Every one knows how Lady Lydia pre-dates her articles, deletes controversial articles, removes articles from the side-bar, etc.
People can do whatever they want on their blogs! What others don't relish is the sneaky underhand way in which Lady Lydia deletes stuff (without offering an apology or feeling remorse for racist views professed).

The post on silly women disappeared after True Womanhood, Punkassblog and WhiteWashed Feminists criticized it.
http://homeliving.blogspot.com/2008/06/silly-women.html
There is now a question & answer session on
http://homeliving.blogspot.com/2006/06/q-and.htmlcom/2006/06/q-and.html

The Q & A session was earlier on the sidebar...but following too many negative reactions it has been taken of the side-bar.

Where Lydia gets trapped in the time-warp?

The White Washed Feminists post – "Doug Phillips, Lydia Sherman, Jennie Chancey, and Stacy McDonald Reject the "Virgin" Mary" - was published on July 31, 2008.
Lydia's rebuttal to that is however dated 06/2006 i.e. June 2006?

Other missing posts at Homeliving:

The post "What if" with Lydia's racist comments on black slaves, slaves in Eygpt and comparisons of working women to harlots has disappeared off the blog.
The post "All dressed Up has undergone severe re-modificiation with much deletion of all those controversial comments on how badly dressed women victims of Katrina were....
So all in all, you can expect a lot of posts to get deleted, re-shuffled, anti-dated, post-dated, taken off the side-bar etc.

Who is more likely to lie? Blogger or Lady Lydia?

Now, blogger (cannot lie being an impersonal service provider) says: Homeliving helper was started on November 2006.
But yet, you will find 141 posts in 2005, 7 posts in 2004 and 1 post in 2003.

That first post in 2003, is the defense to her "What if" post, which she deleted

Scorching notes at LAF - Part III

Ladies Against Feminism pretends to have a semblance of democracy by publishing the negative feedback they have received under one category called scorching rhetoric. If you read through these notes you will find that most of the arguments presented are quite valid. LAF of course doesn't believe in publishing the critic's name or location in case the letter turned out to be from Rev Billy Graham himself or some other well-known Christian! How embarrassing!

Even Christians seem to find it hard to reconcile themselves with the vituperic nonsense these women pour out.

Some of the Christian criticis of LAF say:

I am a young Christian woman, and I do NOT agree with everything you have posted on your site. What is so wrong with wanting something different from being a mother? I personally do not want children. Perhaps that will change one day, but not in the foreseeable future. I enjoy spending time with young men, albeit in platonic relationships, and don't mind their occasional loud behavior. I enjoy sports. I have taken lessons in one sport, and watch another on a regular basis. There are a number of others that I would love to try my hand at. The comments you have posted on your website that pretty well says that women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, are disgusting to me. How dare you suggest that I can't get a job outside of my home? While we're at it, how dare you suggest a lot of the things you suggest... I am a strong, confident, intelligent young woman, and I will not stand for you bashing people like me. While I respect your decision to stay at home to be a mother, that is not for me. Is it so hard for you to accept that a woman can go out, have a job and have good, clean fun and still be a good Christian lady? Or are you just THAT narrow-minded? A little advice from a true lady: I think YOU ladies need a reality check, and soon. ~ Jean

_________________________________________________

As women having equal rights, you are certainly allowed to have your opinion and broadcast that opinion however you choose. I also noticed you made a point of mentioning how the Bible encourages women to teach wisdom and kindness. That is fine. However, I hope you are aware that although the Bible may encourage this, women were denied the right to even so much as do that for centuries. If it weren't for the fight for equality by people such as Susan B. Anthony or Alice Paul, you would not have the freedom and luxury of being able to "teach wisdom." I am not for hardcore feminism but there's nothing wrong with women being able to accomplish the same goals as men and live their lives however they see fit. Not every woman wants to stand barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, cooking dinner for her master (husband?) while chasing around 7 other brats (children?). As a married young woman, I choose to raise my children equally with my husband. I am allowed to pursue an education and he supports me so that I may prepare myself for any career I choose. He works full time yet we share in household chores and the raising of our children. If I feel like cooking him and the kids dinner, I do. If I don't then he will cook or the kids may just have some cereal. That's how life should be if someone wants it to be that way! ~ Ang

Lady Lydia likes boys whistling at her - Part II

Lady Lydia often deletes posts that are controversial. She might decide to delete her post on "Why boys don't whistle at girls anymore" once she realizes someone is talking about.
So the current link for this silly article is:
http://homeliving.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-dont-boys-whistle-at-girls-anymore.html

In this Lady Lydia, laments that boys don't whistle at girls anymore.

Some of Lydia's own Cortie of readers themselves have taken exception to her desire that boys should whistle at her.

Some of the comments for this article are:

Christian Feminist says:

A woman who desires to be whistled at is no lady. In my mind she is more likely a harlot. HOW DARE YOU criticize women who choose to dress according to modern fashion and don't wear the long, baggy, loose and shapeles things you call " feminine dress"? How dare you suggest that women invite assault and rape by the way they dress, and at the same time you regret men don't whistle after girls. If any woman invites rape, it's you with your twisted, perverse way of thinking. In my country, women are still whistled after. Everytime this happened to me I felt nothing but contempt for those pathethic men who used that way of gaining my attention. At the same time, I felt extremely unconfortable, like a piece of meat drooled after by hungry dogs. If you enjoy being whistled at, you enjoy tempting men to sin, you enjoy their lust. What a hypocrite you are, whit your rantings about modesty and femininity!

Mrs. W said...
I don't know about all this taking a whistle as a compliment, ma'am! I'm a young woman, and I and several girls have had to deal with foolish men honking at us or gawking like wolves at us as we go about our business, on the street or in other public places. Sometimes, the creeps have even slowed down their cars beside me and "flirted" with me as I tried to walk in peace. (I think they tend to be in groups when they do this.)
We don't take it as a compliment because it is overtly sexual and predatory in nature. I remember several times in high school having grown men make inappropriate comments about my young age and beauty as I walked home from school! It's like these men think they are in a rap video or something. How do they expect a respectable young lady to respond?
So no, I don't know if I've ever heard a man whistle at a woman, but it's generally regarded as a foolish woman who is flattered by the chosen "complimentary" behavior of men today.
I do understand, though, how wearing a skirt and *looking* like a girl begets more gentlemanly treatment from men. :) However, many will still gawk and shout "Hey!" or "pssst!" as if it's supposed to be appeal.

Anonymous said...
Mrs. W, I'm in between Mrs. Lydia and you, so I also remember the sleezebags that would drool over my friends and I (and worse), but I also remember as a child seeing men whistle at men, and it was mainly innocent; much like the songs of the period in which men didn't go into lurid details about body parts and the activities best suited for those parts, but simply sang about how wonderful girls were and how beautiful their smiles and eyes were. As a child I never felt like I was in the presence of something dirty when I saw a young man whistle at a young woman and I only heard happiness and excitement in the pop songs about beautiful girls.

Anonymous said...
As a young women (upon whom youth is wasted), I find whistling strangers patronising even when it is clearly meant as a compliment and remains good natured. The attention also makes me uncomfortable. However, if I knew the person whistling at me I would take the compliment. I think it's just a case of these days you can't be entirely sure of the intention of the whistler unless you know them personally. That's why I can't see the trend making a resurgance. In addition, a great deal of my male friends would never whistle at a girl because they too feel uncomfortable and as though they were being disrespectful to the girl. Call it what you will but that is how many in generation think.

Elizabeth said...
Perhaps I'm to young to understand this sort of whistling. I'm 29 years old and have been whistled at a few times. Of course, since I've had 3 kids it's been a while ... haha. But each of these times it was by men that just give you the creeps. You know the sort: the ones that, when your head snaps up with a jump, look at you like a t-bone steak. I certainly would like to know and see this sort of "good whistling" because I have never seen it that I can remember.

Lady Lydia likes guys whistling at her

Lady Lydia often deletes posts that are controversial. She might decide to delete her post on "Why boys don't whistle at girls anymore" once she realizes someone is talking about.

So the current link for this silly article is:

http://homeliving.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-dont-boys-whistle-at-girls-anymore.html

Lady Lydia on Why don't boys whistle at girls anymore:

Am I the only one that remembers a different America? One where the young people actually liked each other and the girls were good natured enough to appreciate the boys whistling at them? (Yeah! Girls love guys drooling and salivating over them like a piece of meat) Doesn't anyone remember the song that rose to the charts in the 50's called "Standing On the Corner, Watching All the Girls Go By?" (This is known as eve-teasing if Lydia didn't know the word existed - and is a punishable offense)
Even at Bible Camp (What kind of screwed up Bible camp did Lydia go to?), the young men would whistle at the group of girls walking ahead of them on a path. There was nothing sinister meant about it at all. (Lydia might find the molestation, ugly-name calling and sexual harassment that follows also not-sinister)
Why don't boys whistle at girls anymore? (Maybe they have been deterred by law-enforcement agencies) Maybe they never heard anyone do it. Maybe we skipped a generation, or something. The last time I ever heard of a man whistling at a young woman was in New York, when a young career woman walked past a construction site. Some of the workers whistled at her and one man yelled something like, "Hey, Beautiful!" The young woman sued them all in court for sexual harassment, and won. (Good for that young lady! And bad for Lydia who doesn't know what is acceptable in a secular world!)
It could be that women don't dress in a way that would make anyone want to whistle at them. Back then, they wore dresses and hats, and it was a pretty sight, quite different than the appearance of men. It would be a worrisome thing to do, today, I suppose, for fear of actually whistling at a man, who looked like a woman. And, how would men be able to tell, at a distance, if the girls were actually girls, by the way they dress, in their jeans and tee shirts and tennis shoes. (Doesn't Lady Lydia remind you of those super snobs who: "Deary, their dresses are so blah! Ugly! How could they ever wear something so ugh!")
I feel sorry for this generation of young people. They never saw a man whistle at a woman because he liked her. You understand, that they didn't whistle hypocritically. (Men whistle sincerely, affectionately, sexually, aggressively, but Oh! God! never hypocritically, according to our enjoyer of whistles Lydia) They never whistled at a woman unless they really approved of her, so if a woman got whistled at, it usually made her smile. (One is tempted to ask: Would Lydia's husband, her son or her father approve of strange men whistling at her?)
I propose that the next time a woman is out in public with her husband, that she make sure she wears a dress and a hat. Her husband should whistle at her and call her a beautiful doll. He should be as loud as he wants. After all, this is a free country, and there are a lot more hot words flying around besides "beautiful doll." His wife should then look back at him, under her hat, and give him a sweet smile. Then they should walk toward each other, meet, and pretend to exchange cell phone numbers. Maybe we could start a trend. (Next, Lady Lydia is advocating public exhibitionism and PDAs) I ran this thought past my son in law and his beautiful wife, (my daughter, of course) and they thought it would bring a smile--at least to them. Of course, if you are mean spirited like a lot of young women today, you could always sue your husband for whistling at you like the girl who walked past the construction workers, but you should make sure you have been frugal enough to save up a lot of money so he'll have plenty to give you. (Just shows Lydia family's just as addle-brained as she is....or maybe they were just politely listening to her lunatic suggestions)
Who or what took away some of the things in our lives, the little things, that made us feel like we had our own culture? What happened to our sayings and our gestures, that did no harm? They were not replaced by anything better. We got rid of the whistlers by intimidating them with threats of lawsuits. (Does Lydia even know what is respecting a woman's freedom and personal space? Is she this dumb always? Or is she pretending just for the sake of her whistling husband) I just don't understand it. I want my country back. (Lydia wants more sexual predators out there....the one's stalking women in the country are not enough....she wants more to join their ranks)
Don't know what in the world I am talking about? It is because you were born so late you missed it. You can rent some old movies maybe and see some scenes where they did it, and some new movies that depict life in the 1950's. Try "Beyond the Sea," or "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." Even in the old flick, "It's a Wonderful Life," there is good-natured whistling.
Don't bother to flame me about this. You are just too young to understand. As they say, youth is wasted on the young. (Oh! And if you dare criticise Lydia, it just shows your too young to know your mind)

Lady Lydia on why she styles herself as a "Lady"

This article is one of those rare articles, in which Lady Lydia has permitted rude comments. Many a time this article gets deleted, but still if you search you might get it. Meanwhile, the current link to this article is here

Christian Feminist says:

It's Christian feminist again. I decided to write one last time because I was absolutely appaled by your post on boys not whistling after women anymore, which you regret so. Dear "lady" Lydia ( by the way, did you know that only the daughters of British earls, marquesses and dukes are entitled to use the title Lady before their name? 

something tells me you're no aristocrat, so why call yourself that? a craving for titles? how pathethic..

by the way, I'm a real aristocrat, with family tree dating back to the XIV century, and with ancestors who held high positions at princely courts since the XVIIth century, but I don't brag about that and I never use my title. In a democracy, titles are ridiculous ) 

A woman who desires to be whistled at is no lady. In my mind she is more likely a harlot. HOW DARE YOU criticize women who choose to dress according to modern fashion and don't wear the long, baggy, loose and shapeles things you call " feminine dress"? How dare you suggest that women invite assault and rape by the way they dress, and at the same time you regret men don't whistle after women anymore? If any woman invites rape, it's you with your twisted, perverse way of thinking. In my country, women are still whistled after. Everytime this happened to me I felt nothing but contempt for those pathethic men who used that way of gaining my attention. At the same time, I felt extremely unconfortable, like a piece of meat drooled after by hungry dogs. If you enjoy being whistled at, you enjoy tempting men to sin, you enjoy their lust. What a hypocrite you are, whit your rantings about modesty and femininity!

Lady Lydia Speaks:

Dear Romanian Lady,

Before Jennie Chancey and I formed the site "Ladies Against Feminism" (LAF), we and a number of other women belonged to an online group called "Victorian and Edwardian Ladies Society," where one of the practices was to prefix your name with the word "lady". 

We had Lady Jennie, Lady Susan, Lady Lydia, and lady this or that--everyone addressed themselves as lady, to indicate a more mannerly and genteel way of life that we were trying to import. This trend spread, and now I still see it on many of their blogs, where they sign their names with the word "lady." 

It just means lady -like and doesn't imply a title at all. There is no rule or law that says you must be royalty in order to have that word in front of your name. 

In past centuries, almost all women were addressed as ladies, and it didn't mean royalty. However,as many of us are Bible believers, we know that when we follow the teachings of Christ, we are daughters of the King, and can be princesses or ladies if we like. 

Perhaps you would rather I call myself "Princess" instead of "lady." It began as a tongue-in-cheek kind of joke, but the name stuck, and it goes so much better with Lydia.

You dont have to have official papers in order to use the word lady in front of your name. In the Victorian and Edwardian Ladies Society, we always used the word lady if we were members of that group. 

When we formed the site LAF Jennie wanted me to have a column there dealing with some subjects I had sometimes posted on the Victorian and Edwardian Ladies Society, and so she called it "Lady Lydia Speaks" and the name stuck.

Lady Lydia's nasty rebuttal on why she deletes so many comments/ articles?

In her Q & A post, Lady Lydia tells the world why she will delete posts and comments that do not fit into her narrow-way of thinking.

I feel she herself asks questions and answers them...I am sure the questions from others would be a lot more caustic.

Q. Why do you not answer questions that people put to you in public on their blogs?

A. This is my blog and I can do as I like with it. If they want to ask questions, that is what they will do, and if I dont want to be answering questions all the time, that is what I will do. Its a free blog.

Most of the questions from feminists are demanding and not necessary to helping them become wives, mothers and homemakers. Young women are worried about many things that they cannot get answers to. There are some things in life that most of us at one time or another will never get an answer to. Young people today just cannot accept life. They want to impose their own political beliefs on me and challenge me for the way I live. They ought to be quiet and get their laundry and dishes done and clean up their houses and spend the time getting their relationships with parents, husbands and children, in compliance with scripture, and quit trying to rearrange my blog.

As a blogger, I have a perfect right and liberty to put articles back into drafts and tinker with them and add to them if I like. (Including deleting articles which have I said nasty things about other women and professed racist views) If I want to keep an article in drafts for years, I can do that. I am not getting a salary for any of these original articles and I do not owe anyone an article. If I like it I can keep it up, but if I want to alter it I can put it in drafts and re-do it. I don't go around demanding that other bloggers explain themselves or answer my questions and I don't expect to be given demands from spoiled women who think they have a right to have answers from everyone.

If I want to reject a comment, I may, and so may they. However I often get emails demanding to know why I rejected their posts. I know that feminists often do not post everything that people try to post, yet they get so indignant if I do not post everything they write.

If you have a particular question, do the research yourself and find out for yourself rather than ask me to explain every little thing and spoon feed you an opinion. Do the studying and then reach your own conclusions about any subject matter rather than demanding answers from me about what I believe. One reason I do not answer is because of the attitude of entitlement that these feminists have. They act as self-appointed investigators who are entitled to cross-examine me. They want to entrap me by enlarging things into issues greater than what they were intended to be. I will not answer these kinds of demanding questions because of the arrogance in which they are asked. These girls lack humility and they lack understanding. It will take them awhile to see that their world is not going to go the way they want it to, and that many women will choose to stay home rather than go to college or get a career. They demand that I explain "what I mean " or my "position" on the matter. I don't need to explain it and re-explain it. There are plenty of articles here to read and I dont have to spend days and nights explaining things. They are the type of people who will not be happy with any kind of explanation, anyway, as they are arguers, practiced in sophistry. You can't ever convince them of anything, and much time is wasted that could be spent on those who are seeking the Lord's way. Surely they are educated enough to find their own answers.

Q & A with Lady Lydia

This article might also soon get deleted...

But still for the record, this is the link:

http://homeliving.blogspot.com/2006/06/q-and.html

Lady Lydia in an effort to get back at the ladies at White Washed Feminists for their post: "Doug Phillips, Lydia Sherman, Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald reject the Virgin Mary."

wrote a post called Q & A. 

But she got the dating wrong! The White Washed Feminists post was written on July 31, 2008.

But Lydia's reply to that she has posted in July 2006.

Anyway the Q & A session is interesting:

Lady Lydia on lesbians:

Q. There are rumors all over the web that you hate lesbians. What do you say to that? 

A. I don't know who the big judge out there is that was appointed to decide what I hated and what I did not. Did I say somewhere that I hated someone? Now let me ask a question that I have been wondering for awhile. Apparently there is a quota in businesses, where a certain number of minorities have to be hired, including "alternate lifestyle" people. My question is, what if one of these "alernate" people gets converted to Christ and puts away her sinful ways? Would she have to go to her employer and confess that she was no longer qualified for a minority job?

Lady Lydia on White Washed Feminists (at her un-Christian, un-charitable best):

Q.I totally hate what you represent. It is well known what you think about unwed mothers and single mothers and in fact you would have rejected the virgin, Mary if you had met her today. 

A. It is interesting how many "thought-police" are out there claiming to know what I think, or claiming to deduct what I think, or claiming that my blog leads them to know what I think. The people you are talking about are Fearful, Loud, Angry Women who look for flaws in homemaking blogs and use the excuse that they don't like what I write, as a reason to broadcast what they believe I think. Only God knows what I think. They should name their site, "FLAW" because of their constant complaints about the posts here on this blog. I don't know who appointed the "FLAW" bunch as monitors of this particular site. I didn't personally attack any one of the FLAW and never had any personal complaints about them. I don't dictate anything to anyone and people can come and go as they like. They can always take me off their blogroll if what I say irks them. There are much worse sites out there that really do hate other people and really do dictate to women what they must wear and where they can go and how they can live. Some religious groups even have clothing that is approved by their church heirarchy, and cannot wear commercial clothing. Others have their diet dictated to them by their church, and still others do not drive cars because they belong to a religion that doesn't believe in it. I don't dictate anything to anyone. This has a variety of ideas on it but it doesn't insist on its own way. FLAW insist, however, that they are right about what I think. I, on the other hand, can't insist that I know what they think. There will always be the FLAW types that will be unhappy with other sites and blogs.

Lady Lydia twists the words of critics to say they are calling her a child hater and ax-murderer (If Lydia read a little more she might realise there was a notorious murderer who shares her name):

Q. Don't you think you should be aware of everything people are saying about you in the blog world, in order to refute it? 

A. No. It is too time consuming , plus the accusations now range from being a woman hater and a child hater to being an ax murderer. Sometimes I check out these blogs but if they don't have any good recipes on them, I quickly move on. The refutations are available already in my posts on this blog, if anyone reads it carefully.I can't go around putting out all the fires that FLAWS start, and besides, if I get in an argument with anyone, they win: they are better arguers than I am.

Time warp at Homeliving Helper

Every one knows how Lady Lydia pre-dates her articles, deletes controversial articles, removes articles from the side-bar, etc.

People can do whatever they want on their blogs! What others don't relish is the sneaky underhand way in which Lady Lydia deletes stuff (without offering an apology or feeling remorse for racist views professed).

The post on silly women disappeared after True Womanhood, Punkassblog and WhiteWashed Feminists criticized it.

http://homeliving.blogspot.com/2008/06/silly-women.html

There is now a question & answer session on

http://homeliving.blogspot.com/2006/06/q-and.htmlcom/2006/06/q-and.html

The Q & A session was earlier on the sidebar...but following too many negative reactions it has been taken of the side-bar.

Where Lydia gets trapped in the time-warp?

The White Washed Feminists post – "Doug Phillips, Lydia Sherman, Jennie Chancey, and Stacy McDonald Reject the "Virgin" Mary" - was published on July 31, 2008.

Lydia's rebuttal to that is however dated 06/2006 i.e. June 2006?

Other missing posts at Homeliving:

The post "What if" with Lydia's racist comments on black slaves, slaves in Eygpt and comparisons of working women to harlots has disappeared off the blog.

The post "All dressed Up has undergone severe re-modificiation with much deletion of all those controversial comments on how badly dressed women victims of Katrina were....

So all in all, you can expect a lot of posts to get deleted, re-shuffled, anti-dated, post-dated, taken off the side-bar etc.

Who is more likely to lie? Blogger or Lady Lydia?

Now, blogger (cannot lie being an impersonal service provider) says: Homeliving helper was started on November 2006.

But yet, you will find 141 posts in 2005, 7 posts in 2004 and 1 post in 2003.

That 1 post in 2003, is the defense to her "What if" post, which she deleted

(Update: Lady Lydia has now deleted the archives and date links on her side-bar, so that no one can tell how she's stuck in the time-warp. What she doesn't realise is people can easily get every post (expired/ deleted/altered) on her blog, if they only knew how to look. Well, Lydia nice to know you keep checking this blog to see what you should delete or change! Keep snooping around Lydia, your daughter's already our top visitor and your coming a close second)

The Who's Who of the Bumpfries

Lady Lydia's daughter Lollybeth at The Unpleasant Times writes about the Bumpfries family...

To know more about the Bumpfries:

Ma   - Lady Lydia

Pa   -   Lady Lydia's husband Stanley Bumpfries

Rosie - Lady Lydia's daughter Lollybeth

Cousin Jimmy - Lollybeth's husband Aiden Bumpfries

Cousin Lee - Lady Lydia's son Stevie Bumpfries

Scorching notes at LAF - Part II

Ladies Against Feminism pretends to have a semblance of democracy by publishing the negative feedback they have received under one category called scorching rhetoric. If you read through these notes you will find that most of the arguments presented are quite valid.LAF of course doesn't believe in publishing the critic's name or location in case the letter turned out to be from Rev Billy Graham himself or some other well-known Christian! How embarrassing!

This person's comments made a lot of sense:

While at first I thought the website a "gag" site...after reading through it, I was actually in shock... While I know there are ladies out there who are not on the feminism bandwagon, this was just one the the strangest things I've ever seen. 

You should thank the "feminists" who went before you, for without them, you'd not even have the voice to put up this website. Feminisim is not just for a few, it's for all of us. 

Do you ladies vote at all??? 

Makes me wonder, for without them you'd still be under the heavy hand of the hubby. 

I'm glad, no EXUBERANT for the trials & tribulations of the women who worked hard, spoke up & made a difference for not only me, but my fellow women. 

While I agree with some of what you have on your site, I think some is a bit BACKWARD. Granted, this is just an opinion....but I for one wouldn't want to go back to the Victorian era where women were hardly seen, if not never heard. 

Quiet women never make history, and well behaved gals dont make the history books. You should take a class in Women's Studies... might learn that for without the fallen females of yesteryear, you'd not have the luxuries you like so much now. Or maybe you want to be submissive, demure and quiet, that is your choice. Thank the GODS I dont have to live like that.

~A Misbehaved & LOUD chick who can't WAIT to make the history books. ~ Irish

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Your site is degrading to women everywhere. I know that you can't force your opinions on others just for having a website, but your site really does make me sick to my stomach. 

Now, I'm not writing this comment to rant about your site without giving it a good read first. After reading several articles on your site, I have come to the conclusion that your site, is, at the very least, anti-feminist. 

How can you feel good about yourself while slaving over a hot oven all day, cleaning up what is most likely the mess that your adoring husband has left behind for you, not being caught dead in a pair of pants, and now... you won't get a job because you shouldn't compete with men in thier "god-given roles"? 

Are men (and the Bible) controling your life? 

Have you ever thought for yourself? (and when I say "think for yourself" I don't mean "what kind of dinner should I cook for my husband?" or "what color dress will match with my apron?" Those don't count) 

Is it so hard for men to get on thier knees and scrub the floors? 

for them to cook dinner for you? 

for them to clean up after themselves? 

I mean, since they are "so strong" are they too strong to do thier own laundry? 

Think about it. 

I'm not asking you to change, I can't make you change, and I could care less if you do change, it's your own choice, but I can say how I feel about this website and about everyone and anyone who supports it, and that is to accept that feminism is here to stay, like it or not, and that you are a part of it everyday, and don't respond to me with that "we have myths about feminism in our FAQs" because I have read all of them; you have definitely proven how uneducated you are, but then again, if it weren't for people like you, feminism would not exist and I would not have anything to stand up for or protest, so enjoy being a stay-at-home slave.

Love, Bambi

Scorching notes at LAF - Part I

Ladies Against Feminism pretends to have a semblance of democracy by publishing the negative feedback they have received under one category called scorching rhetoric. If you read through these notes you will find that most of the arguments presented are quite valid.

LAF warns us: These are the negative feedback notes that have been sent to LAF in the past year or so. The only ones we've ommitted are those that contain nothing but expletives and therefore do not even constitute writing. [Warning: These notes really are inflammatory, often hateful, and sometimes slanderous. They are not for the faint of heart. They have not been edited or altered in any way, except to remove expletives. You can judge for yourself whether or not the writers have taken the time to actually read the articles on this site before sending feedback.]

 I totally agreed with many of the view points presented. LAF of course doesn't believe in publishing the critic's name or location in case the letter turned out to be from Rev Billy Graham himself or some other well-known Christian! How embarrassing!

This person's comments made a lot of sense:

I am placing my comments under "Scorching Rhetoric", not because I am some "ranting feminist" as you might like to believe, but because I wish to fully support your critics. 

I sympathize with their intense revulsion. I regret that their comments reflect a bristling, yet justifiable anger that you probably find amusing. (It really is not funny). By contrast, I strive to "keep my cool." I have studied people like you for years, and have become adept at keep cool. 

Yes, that includes studying everyone on the Religious Right from Reverend Fred Phelps (wife beater, child abuser), to Dr. Peter Ruckman, to Dr. Ian Paisley, to Reverend Charles Gleason who believes not only in spanking children, but wives as well. Gleason views such domestic discipline as a reflection of how your Jesus disciplines his church.

I have encountered vicious street preachers, all of whom share your views. 

That includes the unemployed, woman-hating Rev. Michael Woroniecki, who browbeat Andrea Yates until the mentally fragile, submissive housewife snapped and drowned her 5 children in a tub. 

It includes vicious preachers who scream WHORE at women in slacks on their way to work. 

It includes self-appointed Fundamentalists who publish tons of literature and websites urging men to "put women in their place." That means rescind our vote. 

It includes rabid anti-abortion preachers who block clinics, using their submissive wives in their long dresses, pale faces, bulging bellies; screaming broods of 9 or 10 kids who regularly get whippings with the belt. 

That includes GROWN ADULT daughters not yet married to a man of their father's choosing, who are forced to forego education/career, and remain under their religious father's roof. Yes, it includes preachers who praised Rev. Paul Hill as their brave Christian hero, just like the saint Phinehas in the Old Testament. (Rev. Hill was recently executed for shooting a doctor in the back). 

Yes, ladies...... by now I am thoroughly familiar with you people! 

You no longer shock me. 

But you will always sadden me. 

Why? Because you are not inherently stupid. 

But you BEHAVE stupidly and are appallingly ungrateful for all that feminists have done for you. 

By "feminist" I do not mean radical feminists. One needn't agree with everything in modern feminism. Understandably, many object to Lesbian marriages, abortion on demand, etc. Still, Feminism should NOT be hated by you people, but appreciated!! I mean that !! Were it not for feminism, not one of us could vote, attend college, hold a decent job if we are forced to work to support ourselves. Feminists were jailed and some tortured, to get you your rights. Concerning work/careers, remember that work can be more than a necessity. With many woman nowadays, work is a JOY. It is a means by which we can use advanced education, brains, creativity, etc. Plus get respect from men as being intellectually and professional equal, if not superior. 

Plus no longer be at the mercy of some ARROGANT "man" who thinks women are only good for lying naked in bed to do their wifely duty. And push out babies like a ***** whelping her litters (let the children starve, as long as your "god" gets his human litters). Just look at Afghanistan, with its super religious Taliban. Women were imprisoned in their homes under the guise of "chastity", "Muslim virtue", etc. They were flogged, frequently beaten by religious husbands, sometimes even killed (often by the husband "accidentally" pushing the wife into a wood stove). Yet when Taliban fell, did you see TV footage of those brave, veiled women lining up to take the entrance exam to get into college? And doing so in sub-freezing weather!!! In ramshackle classrooms with no heat or running water. Desperate to get an education, to become doctors. They knew that in spite of the importance of homemaking, women DESPERATELY need more. They (we) need education and civil rights to survive in this mean-spiried world we live in.

Amen! I couldn't have said it better!

VegWeb.com on Ladies Against Feminism

KissMeKate starts off the dicussion at VegWeb.com with:

I stumbled across this:

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/

I thought you all might be interested, seeing as how we rock discussions of gender and gender roles here on the V-dubs.  I'm really intrigued and confused by this.  I don't understand why a woman would want to deny her own rights and status of equality in this way.  This is all quite foreign to me.

yabbitgirl says: Yes, there are some out there! Some who want to tie it in to their personal religious beliefs (most of whom have an attitude of wanting to feel "superior" to other women). Some who feel they've missed out on some kind of "romantic traditional" feminine role. (I've talk to some of this type who also mourn the passing of the corset and decolleté; item, they have never actually had to wear one.)  Some will say, half-jokingly, "Well if a man wants to keep me, I'm going to let him!"

Wotever.

KissMeKate says: OK, so I get the idea that some women like the more traditional way of life that existed for women before feminism arose.  Like, they find fulfillment in keeping house, raising a family, and assuming other traditionally female responsibilities.  Which is fine and great!  But isn't feminism about women being free to choose how they live their lives?  Heck, I love corsets, and I love even more that I am not forced to wear one!  It's not ANTI feminist to want to be a stay at home mother!  I feel like these women missed the boat on what feminism is about.  

The religious parts are a little more nebulous to me.  But the whole thing seems so narrow--it's like, "God made men and God made women and they are different in x, y, and z ways, and they should act accordingly, and that's the only way it should go." 

hanashi says: Basically, from my understanding, this movement came about in retaliation to the "militant"/"chauvinistic" feminism.....you know the kinds who want to socially/emotionally/literally castrate the masculine/male entities that should cross their path. One extreme deserves another!!!  

yabbitgirl says :True, it's all about the "pendulum effect." When I first came to Europe about 25 yrs ago I ran across my first ultra-extreme feminists...the sort that made you feel they didn't so much want to be equal with men as to replace them. As in, get rid of all the men.

hiimkelsi says: there are a couple different waves of feminism.  now i dont know which is which, but most of them, i believe, follows the choice route in different ways, but i think theres one wave of feminism that is less about choice and more about... power maybe?  this is something that i learned about in college when talking to one of my friends.  so i might not have it correctly, but i would think someone else on here could elaborate on the waves of feminism.

KissMeKate says: OK, I could see that. The man-hating part of feminism.   

Baypuppy says: yeah, but i don't think post parts of feminism today has anything to do with these "ultra extreames", esp now that "gender inequality" is a "won" battle.  

humboldt_honey says: We had a discussion about feminism a while back, and a lot of people here were quick to bash it.

Capture says: *Eerg* that is really awful! I'm not a "get on your soap box, bra burning feminist" or anything--but dang! hve respect for yourself and your gender! It's all about global equality! I would get one of those shirts and put a big circle w/ a slash through it! *yikes*

Baypuppy says: huh, the only reason i know what fecundity is is because i have a background in family demography. who the hell else really uses that word?

surprisingly, these "anti feminist" shirts and the whatnot are, arguably, made possible by feminism. if you can make the CHOICE to stay home, damn, isn't that a basic principle of feminism?

what are the big branches of militant/femanazis working today? the closest movement i can think of is maybe lesbian feminism, but that isn't really where feminism is today. i think the "nostalgia" of the militant/lesbian feminist/separatists  movements really tainted later waves of feminism (second, third waves, eco, post/forth, humanism) so that feminist is an inaccurate blanket term used in pop culture that has lost a lot of its "supposed" meaning (i can't say original meaning, since that was like suffrage and (surprisingly) some AR stuffs). don't get me started about issues between GLBT and feminism. boy howdy that was an issue!

but it might explains how the "say feminist perspective on the first day of class and they will drop like mad" theory i use in my large enrollment courses works   i really don't think most people have good grasp of what contemporary feminism is about.

Crackpot website of the day: Ladies Against Feminism

At a recent discussion at Democratic Underground.com I saw the following comments.

Its always nice to know what the sane, secular world has to say about Ladies Against Feminism.

The dicussion was headed off as "Crackpot Website of the Day: 

"At first I thought this was a parody. Sadly, it isn't.

For a look inside the mind of today's Stepford Wife:

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/"

The comments that followed: 

Montauk6 says: What I resent is their use of works of my favorite painter, Bouguereau!

BrklynLiberal says: Immediately after the Lobotomy, you sign onto this website.Details included with the post-op instructions.

Lubernaut says: This one amused me...

"What could Christian homeschooling moms concerned with modesty have to do with an evil communist dictator from South America?"

funflower says: If you liked that one, try this....

http://www.titus2women.org /

Maestro says:  She's effin nuts!She is so proud of being Christian I wonder if someone should tell her it is considered a proper noun and therefore needs to be capitalized.

madrchsod says: that`s what i thought also! i do see some mothers and their daughters dress like this..oh well to each his/her own.

neebob says:  It looks like Free Republic!I fully expect that if I clicked on something, I'd get an error and have to restart IE. That's what always happens to me on FR.

MuseRider says: Enough to give me nightmares.I read a little and I can't imagine ever being like that. I would make a lousy fundie wife.

Sandpiper says: I'm surprised they don't have a section with Wife Beating Tips. For the menfolk. Just in case the little wifey gets all "uppity."

Momgonepostal says: Whoa! Loved the fashion tips!

Also, did you see the article about mixing bowls? It basically talked about the virtues of bowls and wooden spoons over appliances like blenders and hand mixers. Good grief. Why do some people like life to be more difficult than it needs to be? It's like, let's keep those women busy in the kitchen with few appliances and making their own Little House of the Prarie dresses and homeschooling a big brood so they don't have time to think about what else might be out there that might interest them. Sad.

Sandpiper says:  Forget taking women back to the 1950's!These ladies are aiming for the 1850s. But the problem with this is the same as it's always been: "How you gonna keep 'em on the farm after they've seen Par-ee?"

Unless you were raised a fundie, a life of servitude and second class citizenship just doesn't sound that appealing.

Go figure.

Mongo says: Next month - toilet paper. Is it overated?

and the health benefits of corn cob hygeine

EFerrari says: Ladies against Feminism? What, they have a collective death wish?

Do I laugh or whaaaaaaaaaaa?

Nikia says: They either are masochists or assume all men are great!

Sure it is great if they want to be virgins until they marry the Christian man of their dreams, keep their house spotless, and raise children while staying home and letting their husband be the leader. What happens if the man of her dreams doesn't turn out to be such a nice guy though? What happens when he loses his job? What happens when he becomes sick or injured? 

Even if things work out just as they wanted, do they really think that this will work perfectly for all women.

1620rock says: A full quiver?? These people are nuts! And apparently they multiply like minks!

Now this is scary because they home school their spawn so as to insure their future ignorance.

mongo says: God will provide you with a good husband if you are rightous. Otherwise - it's your own damn fault. Besides the only thing worse than a "bad" husband is BEING SINGLE

From the "especially for the unmarried" page:

The Desires of Your Heart

Our Holy God will give us our heart's desires and bring our ways to pass, if we but delight, trust in, and commit ourselves to Him! Ah, but what a big "if" that is. Our foolish, sinful, fallen natures so want to have their own way that it is hard for us to even trust our lives to the loving hands of our heavenly Father.

Thoughts on Singleness

"Singleness." Just the word can bring shudders and dread to a person’s heart--especially if she is unmarried.

Being Your Father's Daughter

Just as a bride looks forward to being with her groom and delights to please him, the Bride of Christ (all Christians) should await the coming of Her Groom, which is Christ. While we are single, how can we best prepare ourselves to demonstrate to a skeptical world the beauty of marriage? By turning towards our father, giving him our heart, striving to please him and delighting in his company.

The Call to the High Places

“Lord! Why are all the girls my age falling in love and getting married (or so it feels), and I have no one? How can I survive this painful thing called singleness, especially when so many friends are getting married?” Every girl cries these words at some point; most of us must face them again…and again…and again. How do I best live this unasked-for life of singleness

A Merry Future Homemaker

People often ask me what I am doing now that I am finished with my formal academics. I happily reply, “Training to be the best wife, mother and homemaker I can be.” And what better way to be trained and prepared than to continue practicing those household skills that my mother has so carefully taught me—right here at home?

EFerrari says: Brought to you by Stepford Productions.

Have a nice day!

Lady Lydia - up close

Ever since Lady Lydia grew older and started getting wrinkles on her face, she hated having people photograph her up close.

So even though these pictures were taken from a distance, we have enlarged them so that you can see Lady Lydia upfront:

Lady Lydia's minless drone & habit of repeating herself

Lady Lydia in her blog - Homeliving Helper, which has more than 450 posts on the subject of "homemaking, often repeats herself. 

Sometimes its so boring to wade through her blog, because its the same thing - over and over again.  This post on her boring people might itself be boring, but then you will find that Lady Lydia has single-handedly hit upon the Media Bullet theory of influence (or maybe with a little coaching from the hubby.)

She can talk (and is qualified to talk) only on a few subjects, so she does this with unfailing regularity. 

She can talk only about:

1. Homemaking 
2. Homeschooling (dis-obedient children, discplining) 
3. Feminity & Biblical Womanhood (craft items, dress, letter-writing, hospitality)

On these three subjects she waxes elqouent, and when people remind her she's copy-pasting her own stuff, she comes up with an article in defence.

I have every right to repeat myself, she says, in an article titled "Even God repeats himself."

She says:

"Invariably, some inexperienced young philospher fresh out of college, will write and tell me that I'm repeating myself in my continual urging of returning to the hearth fires. "

Why does she inflict such torture on her blog readers?

She says, because:

•  In any kind of training or teaching, repetition is important if the lessons are to be learned. A mother may be training her children to be polite, and find it necessary to remind them when situations come up, not to talk back, to pick up their things, to answer when spoken to, and so forth. Grown children may need to be reminded that there is a family event coming up, and it may need to be repeated, since there are those who are so preoccupied and so busy, they tend to forget. (Wow! She repeats stuff on her blog, because her blog readers have the mentality of a child and need to be trained?)
  
• Parents are not exhonerated just because they "already told" their children something. They are not free of responsibilty until they are sure the child heard, and understood. It isn't enough just to tell them what to do or how to behave. They are responsible to see that the lesson was learned and that the attitudes were changed, and this will take much repetition, even if done in creative ways. (Does this mean, she is parenting her blog readers? And does this mean, she won't stop telling us till we bombard her with mails that we heard the message?)
  
• We listen to the same music or songs, over and over, because we like them. I am not insisting that people should listen or read things that are vile or wrong. I am speaking here of good things. Many times people refuse to read something or hear something because they say it is "repeating itself," but in reality, they are refusing to listen, because they do not like it and have set up a resistance against it. This could concievably be rebellion, or it could just be an unintentional blind spot, or it could be due to the programming of other influences in their lives. (Inference: We must keep on reading her blog, get rss feeds and comment on her blog - otherwise we are in rebellion against good things)
• Biblically speaking, there are entire chapters in which the lesson is repeated:- sometimes in the same way, and sometimes in different ways-- but there is a valid reason for this: people tend to forget, as they go about their day to day activities, the principles that they need to live by. It takes repetition to remember your lines when doing videos or sermons, and it takes repetition to memorize verses of scripture that have meaning to you. To meditate on a scripture, it is necessary to look at the same sentence in many different ways. If you feel people are "repeating themselves" to you, it is possible you did not absorb the understanding they were trying to put across to you, and so they tried different ways of enlightening you to the message. (If you still feel she is repeating herself, then it means you haven't absorbed The Message or Lydia's gospel)
  

Lydia's attempt to hypnotise women into homemaking:

To insist that others speak or write without repeating anything, shows a lack of knowledge of the effectiveness of repetition, and a closing of the mind. Some of the more close-minded people who are reluctant to see the whole of things, may benefit from reading a book called, "The Closing of the American Mind" if such people could be brought to read it.

Punkass blog says: Lydia, all by herself and probably without any help from her husband, has stumbled upon the bullet theory of media influence. At a mere 40 to 60 years out of vouge, it’s right modern by Lady Lydia’s reckoning. It was popular back in WWII when Orsen Welles’ War of the Worlds stunt scared the ever living shit out of the entire Eastern time zone. However, it turns out that monkey-see-monkey-do is not normally how people consume media, and merely replacing Hillary Duff with Elizabeth Bennet will only work if, for some reason, gowns and private balls become all of the rage again - and don’t for a second think that your “simplicity” message would have any room at that party.

Lydia continues her aspertions against people who find her blog boring and repetitive.

She says:

• There are those in this society who never seem to have victory over their anxieties, worries and fears, and never seem to be able to develop character qualities of self-control, or steadiness of behaviour. Upon further inquiry, it will be discovered that they were close-minded to studying more about the things that would help them, using the excuse that it "repeats itself." Perhaps one reason a generation fails to have stability is because the wise sayings that were repeated to previous generations, were not handed down to them. Common expressions such as "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree," and "Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free," have to be repeated enough when applicable, in order for the next generation to have the wisdom to live their lives. (So people who find her repetitve are anxious, worried, fearful, lack self-control, exhibit unsteady behavious and have the IQ of a cockroach)
  
• The lesson here is that if things do not in some way "repeat," the lessons are not effective. I recall one sermon I heard when I was young, called "Reconciliation." In it, the preacher repeated the concept of reconciliation with your loved ones, and with God, using many different illustrations, and the consequences of avoiding it. If anyone had asked me that week what the sermon was about, I knew without a doubt that it was about "reconciliation." Yet, today, due to the lack of repetiton, many people do not know for certain what the central theme of the sermon was. (What Lady Lydia doesn't realise in this moral is...She is the only who is repeating herself; So basically she's saying she's repeating herself because her sermons/posts are ineffective)
  
• In the book of Jeremiah, you cannot get through a chapter without repeating something. This is because Jeremiah was trying to get it "in their heads." In the book of Acts, the Gospel plan of salvation is repeated many times. If you stopped people in church on their way out, and asked them what the plan of salvation was, could they repeat it? The only way they could, would be to hear it repeated, read it, and tell it themselves multiple times. (So bascially she's just trying to din it into our heads)