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.

E L Fay on LAF

E L Fay, in her article, "Ladies Against Feminism" says:

 But just examine the blog Homeliving Helper , belonging to LAF's other co-founder, one Lydia Sherman (WHO HAS THE SAME NAME AS A NOTORIOUS SERIAL KILLER!). She's got more Victoriana going on than every period costume film made in the last ten years. 

Much as LAF emphatically claims that they are not trying to emulate some bygone glorious past, I can't help but to wonder whose Word they're going by: God's or vintage Western culture's? Because their dream of the ideal Christian life is ultimately as much American as it is (supposedly) biblical. It's the nineteenth-century vision of the "Republican Mother" I discussed in my last post, which was, oh irony of ironies, very much a novel, "feminist" concept in its own day! As Elizabeth Kerber discusses in her book, the soaring rhetoric of the Revolutionary War demanded a new generation of strong, educated patriots, and it was now believed that the home was foundation of American liberty, and women, as keepers of the home, would play a vital role in the shaping of American destiny. "The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world." But evolution is inevitable (in both society and nature, although here I'm talking about the former), and this innovative model that came out of the Revolution eventually settled into the bourgeoisie "angel of the house," the well-dressed genteel lady who kept a beautifully-decorated abode for her world-weary husband. But the influence of both is glaringly evident on LAF.

Do read her entire article at This Book and I could be Friends blog.

Exercise in publicity - Part I

I predict this series might be really long. I love pictures of me in my pretty dresses. Getting publicity at the LAF site was easy, because I wrote the Lady Lydia Speaks column and send the Lady Lydia's newsletter to a select circle of friends. I was able to publish as many pictures of myself as my heart-desired! Ah, the virtues of having your own website and blog! Hope you enjoyed these pictures!

JoshuaC, ardent supporter of Matt Chancey

JoshuaC is the archtypical Matt Chancey, LAF supporter. Matt Chancey himself is quite nasty at his Mrs Binoculars blog on Jem. He makes a fool of himself as Jem is not the founder and does not run Ministry Watch.

But just as Matt Chancey is high on nastiness and low on facts, so is his ardent follower JoshuaC.

He doesn't bring much sense to argument, but he is quick to accuse other debaters of gossiping and devil's work. He talks about chivalry, but has no compunction brow-beating, Cindy Gee, Corrie, Grace and many other Christian women. While these women show Christian forbearance and tolerance for other people's opinion, JoshuaC just bulldozes ahead, sparing no one's feelings

Notice his interactions during the discussions at Dothan Eagle. The first news story was "PSC Candidate's wife says she chose homemaker's job."

JoshuaC says:

Vote for Matt Chancey July 15th!

We need energy independence in our state. We need accountability at the PSC.

www.mattchancey.com

Go Jennie! We need more people standing up for their rights and not the mainstream movement of the US today.

Cindy Gee says:

Uh, no, Jennie. NOBODY is “telling women they shouldn’t even be allowed the choice to be homemakers”, and nobody but you has brought up homosexual marriage, or said that it should be mainstream.

Feminsm has nothing to do with it.

Homemaking is still very much MAINSTREAM, and the concept of “one person, one vote” is likewise MAINSTREAM; conversely, in America today, the idea that suffrage should be limited to male heads of household—like the idea that homosexuals should marry one another or the idea that indentured servitude should be legal—is definitely NOT mainstream.

“Naturally, everyone has the right to choose his or her own path”, but when that path runs contrary to what most Americans consider normal and decent,  and when when the person on said path is seeking to serve in a position of governmental authority, one can expect to have normal, decent folks to have questions about it.

Grace says:

I applaud Jennie’s choice to be a homemaker, but her remarks about wives and homemaking on Vision Forum’s (Doug Phillips’ site) is extreme, and I don’t think has ever been “mainstream” thinking.

On the Vision Forum website, Jennie says that the Bible teaches that wives who work outside the home are blaspheming Scripture, according to the Apostle Paul in Titus 2.

That means she thinks working wives go against the Bible.  Funny how she can market her book, co-authored with Stacy McDonald, do all kinds of promos for it, in addition to writing it, and that doesn’t count as sin, but if a wife has to commute to a job for pay, that is blaspheming Scripture.

As I said, I applaud Jennie’s choice to be a SAHM.  I don’t agree with her view that the Bible necessarily condemns other women’s choices of where they work.

JoshuaC says:

Cynthia Gee and Grace obviously don’t understand everything they read. They try and try to find dirt on Matt and Jennie Chancey, but end up short.

“Is Chancey open to women in the workplace?

He says yes, since he has worked under women, over them and beside them for years.“

Some people have nothing better to do than try to bash people for their personal beliefs.

Cynthia and Grace, this still has nothing to do with the role of the PSC President of Alabama, and that’s what matters most.

I hope the readers of this blog aren’t as ignorant as Cynthia and Grace.

CindyGee says:

Sorry about the double posting, it looked as though my first comment wasn’t going to show up, so I posted it again.

Anyhow, it has occured to me that if the Chanceys ever grow tired of politics and religion, they could always become a husband-and-wife ventriloquist act. I’ve never seen people so adept at speaking out of both sides of their mouths! 

Jenny doesn’t believe that women have a historical or biblical right to vote….yet she says that she votes…. and she says that she doesn’t oppose women voting. 

The Chanceys have gone on record saying that it is a sin for a woman to work outside the home, yet Matt says that he is open to women in the workplace.

Sheesh!

I have only one question: when the Matt and Jenny Ventriloquist Show finally opens, who are they gonna get to be the PUPPETS?

Actually, Josh, there is quite a lot of dirt to be found on the Chanceys if one knows where to look, but why sling mud when they are doing such an exemplary job of discrediting themselves?

The Chanceys’ bizarre view on suffrage is easily documented through their own online writings, and that, together with their doublespeak concerning what they really believe and their insistance that everyone is picking on them simply because Jennie chooses to be a homemaker is quite enough for the moment.

JoshuaC says:

“Jenny doesn’t believe that women have a historical or biblical right to vote….yet she says that she votes…. and she says that she doesn’t oppose women voting.“

Just because someone believes one thing, doesn’t mean that they believe everyone should believe the same as they do.

Cynthia Gee, you are like a machine that won’t stop spreading false rumors.

What will you do when you keep running out of material? Keep creating false accusations?

Grace says:

Joshua, you are the one who needs to read more carefully.  I never said anything about Matt being open to working with women.  In truth, he has no choice, because that is the way things are.  And what I said about Jennie is on the Vision Forum website for all to read.  I don’t agree with her, and that isn’t dishing up dirt, the same as Matt saying he doesn’t agree with Doug Phillips on everything means Matt is dishing up dirt.

This article opened up about Jennie’s views, and it is a fact she said working wives (outside the home, that is) blaspheme Scripture, and one of the reasons she said that is because she said it’s impossible to work outside the home and keep the home, both.

While this may be true if the work keeps a wife away from home all the time, it doesn’t cover all the bases of women who work to supplement income, as Jennie does, on a part-time basis.

Jennie has had to work in order to write a book, which has been marketed, and this of necessity has taken time from being a homemaker.

I was merely pointing out that what she does, and what many, many women do by working some hours away from home is really no different, and clearly I implied there was a double standard.

But note this—THAT IS DISCUSSING HER PUBLIC REMARKS, and stating WHY I DISAGREE with them.  This hardly constitutes “digging up dirt” about someone.  Claiming my comment was “digging up dirt” is hysterical.

I know she says a woman shouldn’t be under more than her husband’s authority if she is married, but that is an impossibility, because a woman is always under more than one authority, whether she is single or married.  Being married doesn’t mean she has to stop being under all authority but her husband.  That is absurd.  She remains a citizen, perhaps a member of a church, and perhaps more venues where she is under authority, and then there is the authority of Christ and the Scriptures.

Grace says:

Let me be clear.  Here are Jennie’s own words, not mine:

www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/jennie_chancey_responds_to_tit.aspx

Jennie Chancey:

“How does a woman blaspheme the Word of God? This isn’t something we can just brush aside or take lightly as a “cultural thing.” St. Paul evidently believed it would be obvious enough to his readers that he didn’t need to say, “Leaving the home and going out into the workforce is sin,”  . . .

A simple glance at the domain which the wife is commanded to oversee and rule — yes, rule — should demonstrate beyond a doubt that it is not possible to be an effective, capable keeper at home while pursuing another (outside) occupation.“

OK, this very article mentioned Jennie pursuing “another (outside) occupation” of co-authoring a book.  Granted, it was about housewives, but authoring a book you market on Amazon and elsewhere, do interviews for, etc., does not qualify as homemaking in and of itself.  It is an “outside occupation,“ and a money making one at that.

(In between Lady Lydia made a lot of inapproriate, irrelevant, inaccurate comments that can be read here. Meanwhile, back to the dicussion)

CindyGee says:

Well, Mike, it isn’t pretty, that’s for sure!

I’m the Cynthia Gee that “Lady Lydia” has been ranting about. I sort of helped start all this, when I commented on another Dothan Eagle story last week, and pointed out that Alabama voters deserved to know that Matt and Jenny Chancey hold some rather bizarre beliefs regarding women’s suffrage, women in the workplace, etc. 

I wasn’t “slinging dirt”, or making up “falsehoods”, I simply described what the Chanceys believe, and provided links to their own sites and those of their close associates, where Matt and Jenny and their close associates described their views at some length.  My comment here was truncated for some reason, though since then it has spread in various forms across the internet; here it is in full, for the readers of the Dothan Eagle:

Alabama voters should be made aware that Matt Chancey opposes women’s suffrage on religious grounds. Matt Chancey and his wife Jennie believe that it is a sin (or at the very least, is highly inadvisable) for women to vote, hold political office, attend college, or work outside the home. These views are expounded upon at great length on Jennie Chancey’s website,Ladies Against Feminism.

Apparently, in the Chancey household’s ideal world, fathers would vote for the household, and all daughters would live at home “serving their fathers“ until the time of their arranged courtship and marriage, at which time they would pass from their father’s ownership into their husband’s possession, thus assuring that they would never have the chance to vote; theoretically, any adult sons living at home would be similarly disenfranchised.

Certainly women COULD vote under such a system if they were the heads of their own household, but the only time that this would happen would be when a woman was widowed, and then only until such time as she remarried or moved in with an adult male relative; in Chancey’s world, to ensure that widows remarried promptly, they might even be encouraged to avail themselves of Christian matchmaking/arranged-marriage services, such as this one, run by Jennie Chancey’s parents. (Jenny Chancey’s father is the Reverend Ovid Need; he is a prolific writer, for some samples of his work and his rather amazing views concerning Jews, Catholics, and women, go here and here and here.)

Matt Chancey is also on very intimate terms with Doug Phillips, the president and founder of VisionForum Ministries, a major homeschooling curriculum company. Phillips also teaches that God doesn’t allow women to vote or hold office. Doug Phillips is described by Matt Chancey as being his dear friend and mentor, while Phillips in turn praises as his own intellectual hero one of the most virulent racists of the 19th century, Robert L. Dabney, and has authored a book , Robert Louis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks.

...and Matt is not above a bit of internet sleight of hand, either, when it will aid his political ends, as shown by this article, from the Washington Post.

Head-of-household voting, arranged courtship and marriages, bride-prices…. that’s NOT the American way—in fact, it’s SO unAmerican that most folks would never dream that ANYONE in this day and age (other than fundamentalist Islamics) could hold such views, much less an educated man who is running for political office in the United States of America!

But, Matt Chancey and those close to him DO appear to hold such views, and the voters of Alabama need to know about it.

Cindy also said:

Another thing that’s slightly off-kilter here are Jennie and Matt’s rather transparent attempts to gloss over the controversy surrounding their views on suffrage—they attempt instead to make it appear that people are picking on Jennie because she chooses to be a full-time homemaker, and claim that the question at hand is one of whether or not women should be “allowed” the choice to be homemakers;  they also imply that it all boils down to a choice between radical feminists who advocate gay marriage, and “old fashioned” girls who eschew the right to vote.

This is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation—NOBODY is “telling women they shouldn’t even be allowed the choice to be homemakers”, and nobody but Jennie brought up homosexual marriage, or said that it is somehow mainstream.

Homemaking is still very much MAINSTREAM, and the concept of “one person, one vote” is likewise MAINSTREAM; conversely, in America today, the idea that suffrage should be limited to male heads of household — like the idea that homosexuals should marry one another or the idea that indentured servitude should be legal– is definitely NOT mainstream.

“Naturally, everyone has the right to choose his or her own path”, but when that path runs contrary to what most Americans consider normal and decent, and when when the person on said path is seeking to serve in a position of governmental authority, one can expect normal, decent folks to have questions about it.”

Cerebral says:

Only some freaky fundie right wing nut job would even utter that women shouldn’t vote.  Or that working is a sin. 

I have news for you: you don’t even have to have children if you don’t want them!  And you especially shouldn’t be having eight whom you refuse a decent education to.  That’s the crux of the whole fndie movement: lack of education, separation of the sexes, unequal rights and religious/superstitious extremism.  The rest of the country is laughing at Jennie.

Mike Keevert says:

WOW, thanks for the links Cindy.  I went to the LAF site and contrary to Jennie’s assertions I DID read many of her articles.  Again…WOW…seems Jennie is perfectly happy “barefoot and pregnant” and wants all other women to do the same.  Is this 2008 or 1808?

CindyGee says:

“ The rest of the country is laughing at Jennie.“

And, “Cerebral”, that’s a shame. Everybody should be able to believe as they choose without being laughed at.

My only point was that if people do have views that are “out there”, they ought to be willing to let the voters know about them, should they choose to run for public office, BUT, such scrutiny (and even criticism or denouncement as being cultic) is not the same as ridicule.

That being said however, I’d like to point out that being a fundamentalist does not automatically equate to being an extremist nut or a cult follower. A fundamentalist, strictly speaking, is someone who believes the fundamental, historically orthodox doctrines and truths of his or her religion, without a lot of trendy, man-made innovations (such as the blessing of gay marriages or the idea that the Bible forbids female suffrage or mandates homeschooling), and it is ironic that the churches which are most often described as fundamentalist are usually those unorthodox churches and cults which have gained a reputation for being the nut ward of Christianity.  The churches have brought this situation upon themselves, to a large extent, beginning in the 1980’s when the televangelists first started to gain a large following—many “fundamentalist” churches were happy to ride on their coat-tails, gaining new membars (and bigger Sunday collection plate hauls), even if it meant that they began to adopt some ideas that were NOT fundamental to historical Christianity; then in the 1990’s, Gary North and Phil Lancaster and the other bright young things in the Patriarchal/Agrarian/Dominionist movement got the Y2K disaster scare rolling, and many preachers and congregations bought into that, and when the televagelists fell to scandal and Y2K didn’t happen, the churches shared in the pop-preachers’ discreditation and as a consequence wore the resultant portion of egg facial.

But, the churches haven’t learned from the experience.

One look at the writings of Doug Phillips, Ovid Need (Jennie Chancey’s step-father, who calls Pope John Paul II an antichrist), Gary North, or Bruce Ware shows that they are certifiably outside of mainstream, historical Christianity, with their talk of arranged marriages, stoning people to death, letting women die from tubal pregnancies, etc, and yet their books are selling like hotcakes in “fundamentalist churches, especially throughout the South….. and still we who are mainstream, orthodox, fundamental Christians wonder why people outside the church are calling all fundamentalists and even all Christians into question? 

I’d say that it’s NO wonder, no wonder at all. If we in the churches do not police our own, and call a cult a cult when we see one, we shouldn’t blame non-Christians for pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

Grace says:

“Only some freaky fundie right wing nut job would even utter that women shouldn’t vote.  Or that working is a sin.“

This isn’t necessary; I agree with Cynthia on that. 

Jennie, by and large, thinks women shouldn’t vote, unless they are the head of their household through widowhood, and perhaps even incapacitation of the husband, but I’m not sure on that one.  She believes in one household, one vote, and that should go to the man.

In this day and age, to teach that principle to wives is asking for trouble, because Jennie is allowed to vote, and could double her household vote, and if they have children over 18 living with them it could be tripled, quadrupled, etc..

So I have to ask why, if she is permitted by law to vote, that she doesn’t, because this belief played out in huge numbers nowadays means probable loss of elections for them.  And the only answer I can come up with is she really believes it would be a sin for her to cast a vote.  Even if she does just what her husband tells her to do.

On working, it is working outside the home that is the sin.  Jennie believes women should work, but for wives to be employed outside the home means they are blaspheming Scripture, because she is sure all women who do this are neglecting their husbands and children.  I disagree.

And she thinks wives can’t be serving two masters, so if a woman works outside the home, it is a sin for her to be under a boss’ authority.  Again, I disagree.  That concept is just simply not in Scripture.  When Jesus said you can’t serve two masters, he was talking about serving God and money.  But that goes for men, too.  And we have to remember that we are all to be subject to multiple authorities—if in school, our teachers, our bosses, our law enforcement officers, the government, the elders at our churches, so Jesus could not possibly have meant that a person was to never have more than one authority in his life at a time.  What He was saying is you can’t have more than one ultimate master, who is the despot, in your life, at a time.

That of course, shut up JoshuaC for a while!

Then there was another article in the Dothan Eagle, called "FAQs about the upcoming primary runoff elections."

Here again JoshuaC displayed his foot-in-the-mouth affliction.

In the comments section you can find:

JoshuaC says:

We need energy independence in our state. We need accountability at the PSC. We need Matt Chancey for PSC President.

The Chancey Five-Point Plan to Improve the Public Service Commission

1. Nuclear Power Expansion

2. Clean Coal and Other Fossil Fuels

3. Hydro-electric Expansion

4. Supporting Economic Development

5. PSC Performance Review

www.mattchancey.com

Cynthia Gee says:

I wonder if Alabama voters are aware that Matt Chancey opposes women’s suffrage on religious grounds? 

Matt Chancey and his wife Jennie believe that it is a sin for women to vote, hold political office, attend college, or work outside the home. 

These views are expounded upon at great length on Mrs.Chancey’s website, Ladies Against Feminism:

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/Hot_Button_Issues_2

JoshuaC says:

Cynthia Gee is an example of people hearing what they want to hear regardless of what is actually said. Jennie’s point was that gender should have nothing to do with voting if you have a system where a vote represents a family. In a sense, her position is actually very “progressive” since it would give representation to children, whereas they are completely left out of the suffrage question today.

Keep in mind that people do have personal convictions. Just like Cynthia Gee probably has personal convictions that some people don’t agree with.

People used to vote as a family and also people who owned land used to vote, because their vote affected their land.I wonder if Cynthia Gee knew this? And if so, then she is ashamed of her founding fathers because that’s how they voted!

Chumming For Sharks - Part I

Lady Lydia's son-in-law strongly believes the way women dress is a kind of a radar-signal for lurking sharks (men) around. If you feel Lady Lydia can't be blamed for what her son-in-law writes, please remember that the Ladies Against Feminism site is being run by Lady Lydia and Jennie Chancey. Also please read "Does LAF blame women for rape or abduction?' " By Mrs. Chancey and Mrs. Sherman on the LAF site, dated Jul 31, 2004, for further proof that this was written with the specific approval of our dead Lady Lydia. 

In this article at the LAF site, Mr son-in-law tells why women are inviting trouble by the way they dress. Not only do they invite trouble for themselves, but also for their more-demurely clad girlfriends within shark-attack distance.

"Chumming" for Sharks

By Aiden Humphrey

Aug 2, 2004 - 12:00:00 PM

He says:

Yesterday I spoke with a man who spends a lot of time surfing in the ocean in waters frequented by great white sharks. He said that he did not worry very much about the sharks - except on one occasion.

One day his friend sustained a heavy cut which began to bleed into the ocean waters around them. At that point, they decided to get out of the waters quickly - because sharks can smell blood a long way away.

"We didn't want to chum for sharks," he said.

Women who dress like harlots chum for sharks - with their own bodies.

Women who dress like harlots make the waters unsafe for everyone.

Women who dress like harlots are not the only ones who get attacked - they draw out predators who prey on innocent girls, who just happened to be in nearby waters.

"What did I do wrong?" asks the innocent.

Nothing - it's just that the waters are chummed by your friends. 

We should execute all rapists. But the waters won't be safer until we pull the chum out of the water.

Sin makes the waters unsafe for everyone.

This article makes me want to puke! Ugh! How horrid can LAF-brainwashed people get? His article also shows men in such a predatory light - sharks. Phew!

Women who dress like harlots chum for sharks - with their own bodies.

So if a women wearing mini-skirts gets raped, she deserves it? Then Mr Know-it-all please tell me why fully-clad women in Saudi or Oman are getting raped? And besides what a legalistic, uncharitable and misogynist view to take!

Women who dress like harlots make the waters unsafe for everyone.

Can anyone tell me how I can pelt Mr Dumbo with rotten tomatoes and eggs for such unadulterated nonsense? And what about men - he makes them out as predatory sharks?

Lady-like way to reply to comments

The lady-like way to reply to comments is many a time labelled cowardice by many. 

But being lady-like in your internet comments is necessary. If you want to be nasty to someone you can write to them in private like I have done so.

When those women at Punkassblog came up with "I have infinite time and leisure time and wealth that allows me to play Victorian Pioneer Supergirl, but without the Tuberclosis."

Many of them made nasty comments like:

Christopher

This is a parody, right? They’re doing characters, right?

It’s so hard to tell these days.

Ryan

After reading the title to this post, I considered quitting blogging for good out of that burning feeling of joke inadequacy. I realized it was just that I had spit a mouthful of hot coffee into my lap. Now if I could just marry the spawn of some nice Wal*Mart shopper, I could get this cleaned up.

Ryan

I posted this little summary of a late 18th century sex guide last year: The Horn Book. Although it’s probably the most graphic how to I’ve ever seen on the ways of the bedroom, maybe you should send the link along to Lady Lydia.

She wouldn’t want her sons’ wives to think it’s wrong to cuckold their tightly-wound, disinterested husbands, would she?

delagar

The Wilder books, which are a lot more realistic than this bint gives them credit for, also have a scene, in Little Town on the Prairie, I believe, where Laura, sent off to teach school to help support the family because her Pa can’t manage to do it on his own, has to board with a woman who tries to murder her husband with a *knife* because she’s so sick of being treated like a servant. Slaving from dawn to dusk, I believe the actual dialogue reads. Maybe Miss Lydia skipped that chapter.

Douglas, Friend of Osho

When I click on the profile button of these ladies’ blog, I see an item marked “Team Member”. Apparently, one has to be such a member in order to leave comments about their posts (fair enough). Ergo, I suppose it’s safe to assume the team members listed consitute the entirety of the team’s membership. Is a stretch for me to assume that they constitute a society of exactly two, as the only members listed are…themselves? I am not being facetious, I know as much about how these memberships work as I do about phrenology. Please advise.

?!

This is where I confess that I have a sick, fetish-like obsession for websites about uber-Christian female modesty. Have you seen Lady Lydia and her ilk’s catalogs of “modest clothing for women”? Amazing.

Anyway, I linked to you from my blog - Feel free to do the same if ya like

Alice

THANK YOU. I read that post the other day and didn’t even know where to begin to comment on it.

Thank you especially for this: Lady Lydia, a living example of the kind of delicate femininity that can be yours if you have some kind of Victorian fetish and a husband and or community willing to help you indulge, which pegs her community’s mentality perfectly, and had me rolling with laughter.

By the way, to the commenter above me, you are not alone; I share your obsession. I think there are many of us, actually.

evilchemistry

And then crazy lady continues with the singular. That’s fucked up. I bet her family is more like the Peacocks.

mr skin

If you ever get a chance to, listen to the old audio recording of the original War of the Worlds. It’s pretty good, and people throught it was really happening when they heard it on the radio.

Antigone

Yeah, “Soap making” with pre-built kits don’t exactly include animal fat that you have to render, and the lye is in little bottles with a book telling you to wear gloves. Not really the same thing.

Anne

`You might like my post Dear Lady Lydia on the website whitewashedfeminist.com

Their teachings drive even many conservative Christians batty.

And thanks for this, it seriously cracked me up.

Molly

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for bringing some REAL history into the world of anti-feminist historical revisionism.

A former “lady-against-feminism,”

Kate

That first quote about the future daughter-in-law being in the kitchen with her (whichever LAF woman that was — Lydia?) was so full of self-absorbed snobbery! Talk about the future mother-in-law from hell!

So, THAT’S one way how so-called, modern-day hierarchalist, patriarchalists are made. For a while now I supposed it had more to do with peeniee envy only, and not just the neurosis of latent matriarchs with their lace collars buttoned up too tightly.

Loved the reference to the Allposters.com site  I’ll have to be careful here, because I happen to really gravitate towards intelligent and pain-in-my-side-from-laughing-so-hard sarcasm. It’s addictive.

Iva Bigbody

Xenophobia is not just attached to the national folk religion that Lady Lydia follows but is also a consequence of the gender related effects of enmeshment that they manifest.

The women in Lydia’s cultic religious movement generally have a fantasy-based view of life as part of their “love you into loving yourself” mentality, their own reactions to their own upbringing. The men are detached and pathologically paternalistic, so they are a good yang to their partner’s yin.

Both types are Xenophobic, so the whole pious fear of contamination from other cultures and groups just becomes intensified by their gender-enmeshment traits.

They just read like the textbooks about dysfunctional (addicted) families, actually.

http://botkinsyndrome.blogspot.com/2008/07/roles-that-enmeshed-and-abandoned.html

Conservative one

Let’s not forget that ma had to go to work in the local hotel in order to provide.

If Lady Lydia learned “One thing I learned reading her books is that in those times there was a clear distinction between woman’s work and man’s work” … then she missed the point of the series.

Laura’s daughter ended up being a career woman … she was a journalist. Moreover, it is my understanding that Laura’s daughter was encouraged and supported to have a career by her parents & maternal grandparents.

I see that Lady Lydia conveniently ignores that most men could cook, sew, iron, manage a household, and more. Why? Several reasons …

• cowboys/trappers/hunters needed to perform these tasks consistently or risk losing their businesses (I am NOT saying there weren’t any cowgirls, trappers, hunters … e.g., Annie Oakley)

• a family could NOT afford to have women inside working all day … they needed EVERY body they could get out into the field to work … this was vital to the existence of the family

• when a woman was in labor men needed to perform these tasks to keep the family going

With respect to the statement: ““She did not like to see women working in the fields. Only foreigners did that. Ma and her girls were American, above doing men’s work”. (The Long Winter, 1st Harper Trophy ed., 1971, p. 4).”

That simply demonstrates that foreign women performed these tasks all the time. It demonstrates how nationalism was beginning to take root in the USA where American women felt that only the lowly European or Eastern European were fit to be in the fields. Even though this is a racist statement, it is beginning to demonstrate how American women were leaving the field for other paid endeavors (e.g., Ma Ingalls working as a teacher and working as a cook in the field, Laura Ingalls working for her own income, Laura’s daughter having a career as a journalist, etc.)

I of course very sweetle replied:

Lady Lydia:

It took me a long time to make the costume that you see on my blog. I wear it a little more often than a girl would wear her prom dress.

Soap kits are popular even amongst those of “your ilk”. Check out Michaels, JoAn Fabrics, Hobby Lobby, and many other places where craft products are available. Yes, in the year 2008. Imagine that. Making soap in the 21st century.

(Of course I didn't answer any of the questions they raised, but that my dear is successful diversionary tactics)

(My attempt at sarcasm)

Lady Lydia:

Maybe the punk rock culture today can guide young women into a safer, better lifestyle. Maybe Madonna is a better role model. Maybe.

Negative reviews for Just Breathing the Air

I managed to get my good bf Jennie Chancey to write nice things about my book Just Breathing the Air at Lulu.com and LadiesAgainstFeminism, the LAF site we co-author. I even got Mr Jean M Byers to say a few words.

But then of-course the nay-sayers had to come. Actually not many, but one. 

People should not write negative reviews. There should be a law forbidding it.

Well, this anonymous (too cowardly to write their own name) person's review was:

 This book is a series of small vignettes taken from the author's childhood on a homestead in Alaska. Touching and heartwarming stories about the simple life, but the point that connects the stories seems to be the layout of the homestead and its surroundings, rather than the chronology of the family's stay there. There seems to be a story or two about each geographical feature, but the reader is left wondering about the details... Why the author's parents chose to do this (other than a sense of adventure), how long they lived there, things like medical care--were the younger children born at home?--and most importantly, why they left and where they went. The building of the family home is discussed at some length, but the author skips from every day home life to an account of what the homestead looks like today (overgrown). 

Beautiful full color pictures! But more in-depth captioning, especially of people, would have been nice.

Many people might term my actions childish, petty and a little spiteful, but at least they can't say I don't know how to give it back as good as it comes.

The minute she wrote that, I posted a reply - not just one reply, but three replies.

I mean who does she think she is? Writing such reviews! Tsk!

Anyway I told her:

1.  If you read the book, it tells how long they were there. Just look at the date from the beginning and then the date at the end.
2. This story was done in a very logical order: Joe and Lillian meet and find opportunity in the last frontier, a place where many people were excited about at that period in history. 
4. They describe their first year and how cold it was and how the cabin and later the house was built, and how they kept the children warm. 
   
5. Daily life over the next 10 years is described, along with the lessons the children learned about values. 
   
6. It is capped off by going back to the site of the house, showing how it returned to nature when the family left. 
   
7. You can read more about how people understood this book, in a review called "Living Free: The Story of Just Breathing the Air," by Jennie Chancey at her site called Ladies Against Feminism (A Hint: This is how you really review a book)
   
8. The reviewer above will also notice that it says "Volume 1 of the adventures of an Alaskan Homestead Family." If you seem to be curious about certain things, it was because it was written with that purpose in mind: that the next volumes would fill in some of the details and leave you wanting to know more. The book was limited because of cost, to a certain number of pages. We had to continue the story in Volume 2, which will be out soon.
   

I of course tried to get Lulu.com to take down the negative reviews, but they refused. Grumble! Grumble