She’s just knocking it out of the park today!
“I still find it hard to understand what is wrong with a blog that teaches women how to better keep their Home or encourages a different way of dressing instead of letting the world tell us…or to be slaves to the fashions of today.”
Kaye,
Who said that this is wrong? You are not really hearing what has been said over and over again or you are confused as to what the issue is.
It is wrong to revise history and make it seem as if female Christian slaves were good homemakers who stayed in their nice, little, warm slave quarters and birthed babies and made dinner for their cotton-picking “husband”.
It is wrong to be so obsessed with clothing that when one sees women in distress during a hurricane all they can do is focus on what they are wearing and how that they wouldn’t be caught dead wearing those items of clothing. Remember, we are talking about the very poor here, too.
It is wrong to judge old ladies at vegetable stands and make fun of their shorts when they are probably wearing clothing like that and having short hair because of their arthritis or other health problems that make it hard for them to be elaborate in their outer appearance.
It is wrong to equate Lydia’s preference for Victorian dress to godly/biblical femininity.
I am just as feminine and lovely in my workout wear or capris as I am in my skirts and neither makes me more so.
I’m not sure that it’s confusion that I’m suffering from. I’m just not sure I understand why it would be an issue….or at least why it would be such a heated issue.
I didn’t/don’t think this blog dislikes feminine things. I have gathered that the Home Living blog is disliked. I have merely shared that I like the blog. To be honest, I didn’t realize there was so much displeasure with blogs like Mrs. Lydia’s. This is new for me.
I don’t recall in my entire adult life having made fun of what someone was wearing so I am not sure why that has come up in a post with my name in it.
Thanks.
Kaye
Kaye,
Are you kidding? You don’t know why some people might be upset that Lydia is revising slave history and painting it a rosy hue circa 1950′s and making fun of old ladies and women who are fleeing for their lives?
Sheesh.
Lady Lydia has made fun of what people are wearing and if you were reading clearly you would be very aware of that by now.
Just the fact that I have to explain, again, to you means that you are jumping the gun and making judgments about things without having the facts first.
As I mentioned in another comment–I suppose it’s a matter of interpretation. I always come away encouraged from the Home Living blog. If I thought Mrs. Lydia made fun of people then I could have just as easily passed on by without a second look.
I don’t know what is meant about me jumping the gun.
I don’t believe I’ve read claims for perfection from the Home Living blog or this one.
Thanks.
Kaye
“It is wrong to equate Lydia’s preference for Victorian dress to godly/biblical femininity.”
I couldn’t find anyone who believed that Victorian dress was equal to godly feminity. Could you direct me to the posts that make this claim, or to anyone who believes that? You are putting words that don’t exist, on her writings. Because someone likes the Victorian period and style, does it necessarily stand that they believe it is the only way to Heaven? You have seriously misquoted and mininterpreted anything she has said.
Hi Girls,
As I’ve mentioned before it’s been entertaining, but I don’t have time for long talks at the computer. It can be addictive.
I’ve got to pull in the oars for a while. I have things that I must attend to.
Thanks for the chit-chats. Take care.
Kaye
That’s our Corrie!
Kaye,
I may have missed whether you have said this or not, but it seems that you’ve never read the offensive topics on Lydia’s blog. I’m going to assume that you also know that she represents herself as an older, Titus 2 woman on Ladies Against Feminism, Jennie Chancey’s website. It is this seemingly strong and well-promoted relationship between Lydia and Jennie that makes Lydia significant, not necessarily her neo-Victorian blog, even noting the content that claims to be Christian. It is her embracing of the patriarchal model and representation of herself as this Titus 2 example, welcoming association with the Patriarchy movement, that draws criticism.
I read that you lightheartedly noted that you like to consider yourself Queen of your domain, but you did not indicate whether you are knowledgeable at all about the patriocentricity belief system. If you are only remotely familiar, there are two things to consider. As Karen Campbell has described it, there are many layers to the patriarchal belief system. The veneer that is meant to be inviting and attractive does not make the harder views and beliefs well known until you get partially involved. There are unwritten rules and codes of conduct (on top of the hosts that are already written). Then there are the underlying beliefs.
I would also like to point out that these groups cycle back and forth between very vocal and unabashed commentary and agenda promoting (more authoritarian) tactics and behavior in public to a more permissive and softer version. Depending on the criticism and the events of the day and how well the books are selling, they cycle into more laid-back postures. So this phenomenon is very common in these types of idealisitic groups. Between the deception that is used to promote the warm and soft surface and where the group is in their cycle (much more aggressive a few years ago and has toned down due to efforts and exposure such as in this forum), the groups and teachings and representatives like Lydia may seem benign. Actually, Jenny is far more interesting of a character to watch, but Lydia has put herself in a position well worthy of criticism and rebuke in some cases.
I did not have the same kind of blog experience when I read Lydia’s blog. I was not at all impressed with what I read of Lydia’s on LAF, but I do not read often there either. But from what I have read, I am not interested in reading any more.
I’ve been to Lydia’s blog once or twice. I went once after following the link about how offended she was that Christian women could wear unkempt clothing while packing up and fleeing from Katrina. People who had nowhere to go and not much notice to get there. I think this was addressed at length in a previous post. There was the farmers market or flea market comment about the dress of elderly women because they were not in dresses to start with, but their chosen attire (perhaps actually concealing diapers and possibly all they could afford or manage if they were debilitated) was offensive. This was all bathed in a message stressing the importance of Christian decorum.
I could hardly believe that Lydia had written such things, so I continued to read a few more posts, considering that I may have been looking at the worst of the worst and that Lydia’s pious judgementalism was atypical. The more I read, the more offended I became. Lydia explained to me online at True Womanhood (soon before the posts about her appeared here on WWF), stating that I had misread everything and distorted the meaning and intent of her post. Well, if 10 people read something and 9 of them walk away with a particular understanding that considered to be a misrepresentation of what was written, who has the problem? The readers or the writer? Everyplace I’ve gone to school and even online, I’ve been taught that it is the writer who is in error. In my opinion, having read this public material, I immediately formulated my own impressions about what was written, particularly because it was represented to be Christian from a woman who represents herself as a Titus 2 older woman and teacher on Ladies Against Feminism. That kind of thing may fly at Miss Trudy’s School of Southern Charm, but it is not Christian.
I did read one nice post about a painting of a rose. But this was the only one of several that was not pious and judgemental, and I took this into consideration with what I read of hers on LAF and in consideration of the fact that she is identified there in the manner that she is.
Frankly, from what I’ve read — perhaps material that is no longer available or a focus — I can easily see that same kind of piety extended towards Mary, the mother of Jesus, if she were to have shown up on Lydia’s doorstep. If she has no compassion for old women and people in absolutely devastating circumstances, how would you expect her to respond to a girl who has likely been sexually impure and improper? Taking off articles of dress is far more serious of a matter than wearing the wrong or improper dress for a Christian woman. So this is not a big stretch. The patriarchy movement is all about birthing God’s elect, not about evangelizing or helping sinners. That is also a major consideration when evaluating what Lydia writes.
So Kaye, it seems odd to me that you keep repeating that you see nothing wrong with Lydia’s blog. When I looked at it, I found quite a lot without having to look very hard. I saw it in her writing at LAF when I reviewed material there. Consider also that she has deleted and/or altered the original posts that we discussed, so they are no longer there for you to review in order to formulate a more rounded view of what Lydia represents.
This has been said many times in many forums. Those of us have knowledge of this movement and many of these people because we were either right in the religious movement along with them or we were in very similar and related ones. There is plenty of Christian material there, but there are also beliefs intertwined in them that are very much non-Christian, unChristian and destructive. We know about these people and these websites because we were so much like them before they refined some of their very sharp edges. We were one of them in one manner or another. We just didn’t start trolling for people to harass and some drum to beat.
Kaye, this was a comment in response to something you said on another post. I took the comment and made it into a post. Sorry for the confusion.
You claim to know what Christians should represent or say. Yet the apostle Paul was quite pointed in his instruction to women to be modest and he often used examples of people around him, warning Christians not to be like them. If Stacy, Lydia or Jennie do this, though, you claim they are not “compassionate.” Yet the apostle Paul and God himself were quite pointedly firm about not following the the world in the way they dressed, and even named names, and God condemned entire nations by name. Cretes were called liars and people’s names were included when immorality was condemned. (see Dueteronomy regarding nakedness).but is it not okay then for women to point out that these fashions are not just immodest but dangeous to their safety? It seems like women’s fashions promote that immodesty these days. So if the apostle Paul can name names, cannot women name names and point out atrocities like this or is it just you people that are allowed to point out and name names? Just a question.
My gosh, Cindy: you never cease to amaze me with your knowledge and precise analysis of these folks. I feel like you’re an undercover detective who just emerged from the mafia!
“Jenny is far more interesting of a character to watch”
How so? I’d love to know your thoughts.
It’s a matter of interpretation? Gads.
This reminds me of the people who used to sing louder during the church service so they couldn’t hear the cries of the people being hauled off in the trains to the work camps.
It seems like Kaye Smiley Face believes that whatever she thinks, therefore it is. She doesn’t think that her beloved Lydia was making fun of people so therefore she wasn’t.
Case closed.
“I read that you lightheartedly noted that you like to consider yourself Queen of your domain, but you did not indicate whether you are knowledgeable at all about the patriocentricity belief system.”
There are no Queens in patriocentricity, just Kings.
[...] Another Good one by Corrie [...]