Sweeping the Cobwebs has 11 great posts about Lydia Sherman. I would recommend all Lydia Sherman’s critics to have a look at both the posts and the comments following them.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Many people keep telling me this blog is Un-Christian in its attack of Lydia The Snotty. Well, we thought that we’d post here about what Christian ladies have to say about Lydia – who believes that the way to heaven is by licking her husband’s boots, hosting tea parties and making loooovely prairie-cum Victoria oddities – titled “dresses.”
June 25, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Well, believing the worst of one’s adversary is, unfortunately, part of our fallen human nature, and that bit with Lydia yesterday sort of brought this to mind. Lydia just naturally assumed that I said that SHE was “from the PIT” when I had plainly stated that it was her VIEWS that were evil.
She mistakenly assumed that I had demonized HER, and in so doing, did the very same thing to ME. Now, I didn’t like that very much, so I’m going to be extra careful not to do it to other people.
June 25, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Did I read somewhere here yesterday that Lady Lydia complained about women wearing flip-flops? I’ve been left with permanent, severe neuropathy post-chemo and can ONLY wear flip-flops, even in the dead of winter. I pull on a pair of boots, over barefeet and carry flip-flops in my bag. You would never know my medical hx to look at me though.
I received countless looks of disdain from clearly christian conservative ladies when my hair was supershort, post-chemo again. I wear long skirts btw, just because my butt and lousy varicose veined legs hide better in it. So I know it wasn’t because of wearing pants. But then I never thought flip-flops would be the culprit.
June 25, 2008 at 3:13 pm
“I want no part of Lydia Sherman’s religion”
Me either. Because that is what it is: A man centered religion. Ever notice how they rarely mention Christ? They mention God a lot but so does everyone else who has a made up religion. There is a reason that the Name of Jesus Christ is rarely mentioned in Patriarchal circles.
Cynthia Gee Says:
June 25, 2008 at 3:16 pm
“I received countless looks of disdain from clearly christian conservative ladies when my hair was supershort, post-chemo again.”
Why are they so hung up on hair? Sheesh…. the fact that hair comes and goes regardless of the virtue of vice of its owner ought to show them that having long hair is not a sign of virtue, anymore that having a big bosom is a sign of a good maternal instinct.
And, the fact that these hypocritical broads judge cancer patients because their hair is short shows us EXACTLY where their hearts are.
Come to think of it, one can judge a movement by its fruit, and the fruit of the modesty/dresses-only/long-hair movement is hardheartedness, haughtiness, judgmentalism, and disdain for the poor and the sick, all as described in Isaiah3. This pretty much PROVES to me that the movement is not of God.
Debbie from CA Says:
June 25, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Haughty, welcome aboard! You are obviously an on-the-ball and smart woman–so you fit in perfectly here!
About the patrio distain for short hair, I’d suspect they equate it with lesbianism. As others have said, patrios can’t get beyond the external to see the truth and heart of an individual. In their quest for “loveliness” they often miss the beauty within Christ-filled sisters who don’t fit their rigid mold.
Hugs to you, dear Anne2. There are some great flip-flops out there these days and I hope you’ve gotten yourself some slammin’ ones.
June 25, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I have a couple of questions which I hope someone will be able to assist me with:
a) Could someone point me in the direction to the post regarding the clothing of women leaving the devastation post-Katrina? I looked through Lady Lydia’s entire blog last night for it and couldn’t find it. Is it posted elsewhere?
I’m really curious to read for myself what the issue is.
B) With regards to the editorial cartoon of women voting — why didn’t they just bring their children with them when they vote? I realize it’s satirical in nature in that men back then did not take their children with them to the voting stations, ergo, why should women. But, even now, 100 years onwards there are still women who state they do not / cannot vote because they have children in tow. Why not bring them with them and let them see democracy in action? Perhaps there are some mothers here who could discuss how they venture through voting day with kids in tow.
41. Cindy K Says:
June 25, 2008 at 11:01 pm
When Joy gets back from her “girl’s night out,” she may be able to post the link to Lady Lydia’s post if she has not already deleted it. I can look for it in one other place, however and will.
In addition to this, she complained about how offended she was was and how her husband commented about poor old ladies at the local farmer’s market, walking around in shorts that made their bums look unattractive. My question was why Mr Sherman was looking at old women’s bums to start with, and why he couldn’t have been moved to find out if that’s all the clothing they could afford, offering to buy them something he found more suitable!
Hope they are never on a tight, fixed income.
June 25, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I read Lady Lydia’s article about the people on Antiques Roadshow wearing ill-fitting clothing, but that was a year or so after Katrina.
I would like to add to the Katrina clothing subject, but until I am able to actually read Lady Lydia’s article, than I am unable to reach a conclusion on this topic.
And yes I do agree with your comment that when one is on a tight budget, than all that is available to you are ill-fitting clothing. I was thinking about this earlier today while reflecting on her argument for Victorian Era clothing.
On a side note, there is contradiction with regards to her opinion on 1940s clothing. In one article she dislikes it for being ill-fitting and then in another raves about it.
When discussing clothing from particular eras I think it is wise to keep social conditions in mind. For instance, during the 40s, especially during the war years, fabric was rationed. It was patriotic to wear dresses with shorter skirts, as it contains less fabric. In England, women would often scavenge for parachutes or even barrage balloons as they were made of silk — they used this silk for their wedding dresses and other items.
Likewise, during the 50s you’ll notice that long skirts were back in fashion. This makes sense as fabric rationing no longer occurred.
Just some food for thought.
Cynthia Gee Says:
June 26, 2008 at 12:01 am
“a) Could someone point me in the direction to the post regarding the clothing of women leaving the devastation post-Katrina? I looked through Lady Lydia’s entire blog last night for it and couldn’t find it. Is it posted elsewhere?”
Well, it used to be right here:
June 26, 2008 at 2:47 am
Molly had posted a link to the Katrina attire blog post on Lydia’s blog, and in the earlier threads there were links, but that page on Lydia’s blog is no longer there. It was published in September of 2005 and was called something like “Letters – Letters.”
The one where she publishes the “helpful” reader’s letter (she said she refused to post “unhelpful” and “unfeminine” ones, so she presumably thought this one was both) about how unsightly she thought the women at the local farmer’s market looked — referring specifically to “unshapely bottoms” and women in shorts looking like they had on “diapers” — is still there for all the world to see. Now THAT is gossip if ever there was any. Yet we who object to the gossip are gossiping about poor “Lady” Lydia? The hypocrisy in her own words is inescapable.
Cindy K Says:
June 26, 2008 at 3:09 am
I’m presumably doing bookkeeping. Ha! I have a 2 minute attention span tonight, apparently…
Thanks, Psalmist, for pointing that out and trying to find the post.
I read a number of posts there, and they seemed to all get worse as they went on, so I stopped. There was one nice post about a rose, but as far as how people SHOULD BE, I just didn’t see the point.
From a very young age, my mother taught me to NEVER make assumptions about the outward appearance of people and to consider the less fortunate. What she taught me has all the appearances of 180 degrees from what Lady Lydia speaks. I suppose that could well be just what the dregs and the socially impaired tell themselves to make themselves feel better, but I suspect I’d have a lot more fun and good fellowship with the diapered ladies at the flea market!
Didn’t mean to mix those two things up — I read them on the same blog visit and they seem, Oh so similar in my memory. That kind of thing makes feel embarrassed for Christians everywhere, because this is not who I know Jesus to be. He gave me beauty for ashes and failure and filth. Jesus got no deal when he chose me, yet He looked down where even I saw no value and saw something good and so lovable that He bore my sins while I hated Him and knew Him not.
Cynthia Gee Says:
June 26, 2008 at 3:14 am
“From a very young age, my mother taught me to NEVER make assumptions about the outward appearance of people and to consider the less fortunate. What she taught me has all the appearances of 180 degrees from what Lady Lydia speaks.”
That’s because your mother taught you Christianity, Cindy. If Lydia and the Pat’s views are diametrically opposed to orthodox Christianity, it begs the question WHERE ans IN WHAT they have their origin.
June 26, 2008 at 5:26 am
“In addition to this, she complained about how offended she was was and how her husband commented about poor old ladies at the local farmer’s market, walking around in shorts that made their bums look unattractive. ”
I believe the terminology was something like these ladies looked as if they were wearing “giant pullups”.
She reminds me of Betty Bowers.
June 26, 2008 at 10:41 am
Hi everyone, I’m a lurker who is interested in patriocentrism mostly from an anthropologist’s point of view as we don’t really have anything similar in my country. However my sympathies are firmly with those who have suffered from the movement and I wish you all good luck in getting people to examine it more closely.
As I’m an atheist feminist I can’t add anything contructive to the discussions on the biblical perspectives involved. I just wanted to say that Lady Lydia’s Katrina post can be reached through the Wayback Machine:
The text of all posts has gone white so to find the post search for “Katrina” and highlight the text around it.
(If it disappears from there I have screenshots).
Here is the text itself – the layout is confusing, but I think the first and last parts are Lady Lydia’s comments (the first references a previous post which has not disappeared form the blog and is accessible at http:***//homeliving.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-readers-respond.html ) and the middle is a reader’s comment:
“Re: this comment: My husband was commenting on the looks of the elderly women in a farmer’s market we visited today. They seemed to have no idea what their rear ends looked like with their pull-up pants and big shorts that looked like giant diapers.
You hit the nail on the head, Lydia. I have been wondering how to describe this ugly, ugly “style” and this is it. Combine this diaper-look with the nearly shaved hair of many older women and your word “creepy” is perfect. I cannot fathom why anyone would want to present themselves this way, even in the privacy of their own home, let alone in public. I’m sure you have been watching scenes from Katrina victims. I kept hoping I would see some lady fleeing the hurricane in clothes which looked presentable. Instead, the images I was presented were almost uniformly an ugly tee-shirt combined with these big shorts. Can you imagine having only those clothes on your back and nothing else? When will the women of our country wake up? No wonder marriages are falling apart.
Comment: What does the phrase “die with dignity” mean to us? We have let the modernists liberal define this for us, making it completely contrary to real dignity. I’ve heard people say “I wouldn’t be caught dead in that outfit.” As a people, we used to be concerned with the impression and the influence we left others at our passing. I’m not suggesting we get all dressed up for a hurricane, but if those clothes which provide dignity and coverings are the only thing in our closets and the only thing available to us, we won’t be caught in a storm with the big shorts, saggy tee shirts and flip-flops. Tragedies always bring scenes of ripped and dirty clothing, but I think it is very telling about our morals and values when we allow our women to trapse about in nothing but garments that would have been underwear a hundred years ago. What a sight we are presenting to the overseas telly-viewers. I’m so embarrassed that these scenes are perceived by Europeans who look up to our country and admire us, as representative of us!
People will buy what is available to them on the rack at the stores. Pray the manufacturers will quit putting this stuff on the racks, and that the stores will refuse to stock this junk. I stepped into a shop the other day that would have none of it. It was called “Maggie Rhoads” in Eugene, Oregon, and supplied April Cornell brand clothing, among other beautiful things.
posted by Lady Lydia at 7:23 AM”
72. TheNormalMiddle Says:
June 26, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I didn’t even realize that Lady Lydia had spammed my no-blog blog with her hateful comments until this morning. WOW! Talk about Christian decorum.
She left me a comment and said she had prayed for God to take care of me, and she was going to leave it at that. How do you compete with that sort of thing? I don’t even try.
And yes, I’m thinking about blogging again. THINKING. Not sure yet. Fruitcake comments like I got from Lady Lydia make it oh-so-not-worth-it!!!
June 26, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Here is a comment by Lady Lydia (don’t Google her name, you get a lot of info on the “seattle dungeon”, BDSM and dominatrix services) from Stacy McDonald’s blog.
I don’t know where to begin but I do need to stop laughing so I can seriously pick apart the blatant lies and hypocrisy in their comments.
” ladylydiaspeaks said…
Stacy, being accused of a legalist is just a smoke screen for people who don’t like it when others take a stand, dress differently, have good manners, clean house, etc. They don’t mind if we do it but they are offended if they see it. We are supposed to be locked up in our houses, according to them, and not be noticeable at all with our children or our progress in life.
June 25, 2008 9:18 AM
stacy mcdonald said…
Hi Lydia. Interesting thoughts, but I think it goes even further. I think some of the loudest and most vicious critics of those who seem more conservative are people who were themselves legalists and finally gave up on their legalism. Since they were judgmental, they assume everyone is too.
Because just like anything done “in the flesh” it left them empty and weary. Any time we make any teaching or person an idol, we’ll be disappointed. And I think that’s what happened in the lives of a lot of these women.
When they see others living a life that “appears” to be the life they used to live, they ascribe false motives to others and assume they’re doing the same thing.
The conversation could look something like this: (And a similar conversation really happened)
Lady Kate: I used to be ATI too, and I lived just like you. But God showed me I was judgmental and legalistic.
Lady Jane: That’s very interesting. I’ve never been involved in ATI, though I know some very nice people who are. But I’m not sure why you think you “know how I live” or why you think I’m judgmental or legalistic.
Lady Kate: Well, I used to wear dresses all the time and thought pants were a sin. I know you think I’m a rebellious woman.
Lady Jane: I didn’t think any such thing. I barely even know you. And I don’t wear dresses because I think pants are sinful; I choose my wardrobe based on what I think is feminine and modest.
Lady Kate: Well, I can’t help feeling judged by how you live. Would you mind just keeping your convictions to yourself? They bug me.
I’m just using the dress topic as an example, there’s so many more. But I think that’s the underlying problem.
People spend their time living out someone else’s convictions, instead of seeking God for themselves; and then when they fall flat on their faces (because they were in fact just “going through the motions”) they blame their idols. And they blame anyone else who may appear to them to be doing what they used to do.
Does that make sense?
Someone told me recently, the most dangerous and horrible “heresy” is the one you “used to be involved in” yourself. I think it’s human nature.
So let’s repent of our own sins and stop ascribing false motives to others. Let’s stop slandering our brothers and sisters in the Lord and start working to build the Kingdom of God.
We have a real ENEMY to deal with (1 Peter 5:8) and I’m sure he’s quite pleased with all the backbiting and gossip that distracts us from what God has called us to do.
Let it roll off your back, Lydia. Don’t be distractd from what God calls you to do.
June 25, 2008 10:25 AM”
Stacy is wrong and she knows it. We don’t have a problem with wearing dresses or clean homes. She is blowing smoke…again.
Here is the problem: deceit, dishonesty, misrepresentation, extrabiblical teachings being pushed as “God’s way”, etc.
I don’t feel judged at all by Stacy’s or Lydia’s life or dresses. I am secure in my own femininity.
But, I do bet that the women who read their comments about “giant pullups” and black slave “June Cleavers” and women not dressed well enough while fleeing for their lives during Katrina feel judged BY THEM.
75. Mary in Tennessee Says:
June 26, 2008 at 3:02 pm
RE: Comment 62
Thank you for the link! I cannot get to it right now, but it’s an internet connection problem. I’ll try again later.
A note on Lydia’s correspondance about the short hair and the “big shorts”:
Big shorts and t-shirts– my guess is that it’s age. Specificially, it’s age and ill health. Arthritis (to name just one malady) hurts, and having to deal with zippers,buttons, and clothes that don’t slip easily off and on hurts.
Short hair: The same thing. Also, fine motor skills (like holding a hair brush) can be affected by age. Keeping long hair healthy and groomed can be very, very difficult. If body muscles are also weakened by age (I’m thinking of neck muscles here), it wouldn’t surprise me if the weight of the hair itself could cause pain.
June 26, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Yes, I realize that was a bit sharp…one of my bad habits.
On the beauty/modesty for older women topic: my grandmother has what these “ladies” would call “fuzzy, short hair” but she does her best in maintaining her health and hygene. She has had short hair since she was in her twenties, and was an incredibly beautiful and feminine woman. Contrary to what Lady Lydia might say, she is definately someone to look up to. My mother also has short hair and is a beautiful woman. She is pretty much in the exact age range of Stacy McDonald and co.
It is very sad, Corrie, that you were treated like that, since from what I’ve read here, you are both godly and intelligent, not immodest, immoral, or unkind.
I am offended by the gross generalization of women who aren’t like Pat wives. I think it was on LAF that I read the phrase “bitter and androgynous.” While I guess I am a feminist, it is not what I would introduce myself as. I wear pants and shorts, but enjoy a pretty dress as well. I am defininately not androgynous.
95. Corrie Says:
June 26, 2008 at 4:37 pm
“Stacy, being accused of a legalist is just a smoke screen for people who don’t like it when others take a stand, dress differently, have good manners, clean house, etc.”
People are having a problem because they are taking a stand? Dressing differently? Cleaning their house? Practicing etiquette?
She isn’t serious, is she? After all of these comments and this is all she gets from the discussion?
She is the one who lambasts others who do not dress like her. And then when people take a stand concerning her ungracious comments, she cries on Stacy’s shoulder who is guilty of the very thing?
“They don’t mind if we do it but they are offended if they see it. ”
Silly. Just don’t call people names because they don’t dress like YOU do, get it???
“We are supposed to be locked up in our houses, according to them, and not be noticeable at all with our children or our progress in life.”
No, according to YOU, you are supposed to be locked up in your houses.
And what is this “our progress in life”? Huh? What is that referring to? Isn’t this violating the whole intention of the “those who drive faster than me are maniacs and slower than me are idiots” teaching?
Believe me, you are not being taken to task because of any “progress” in your life. You are being held accountable for your WORDS.
Hopefully that will clear up their confusion.
99. Cally Tyrol Says:
June 26, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Here is how Lydia’s “Katrina” comment looks today:
“My husband was commenting on the looks of the elderly women in a farmer’s market we visited today. They seemed to have no idea what their rear ends looked like with their pull-up pants and big shorts that looked like giant diapers.
The tops were usually ugly horizontal stripes in different shades or brown or gray, that reminded one of fallow ground with no color. Their short hair that was stickery and in clumps only made their wrinkled faces look harsher. The men look fairly normal, but the women—-I just can’t talk about it any more right now. It breaks my heart. Young girls grow up yearning for grandmothers that are the ultimate in femininity and grace, and these little girls look up to bare, wrinkled knees, dimpled skin, and thighs laced with blue veins. What a view to inspire the next generation.
How in the world do we expect a multi-generational relationship to occur with the younger generation being mentored by the older, if the older ones look so creepy that the younger ones avoid getting near them. The same could be said of the younger ones, who create a barrier by the way they dress, too. I have no idea what is to be done.
I suppose, in a small way, we ought to be the best example possible. Ask ourselves, “If everyone was as careful about they way they dress as I am, what would the women today look like?” In the religious world, we realize that we have a responsibility to draw others to our message of Christ and Biblical principles. ”
She totally edited out the Katrina stuff. I found this yesterday as I was looking and kinda felt like I’d found it, but without the Katrina comment, I wasn’t sure.
But Lydia’s not guilty of gossip. No siree Bob!
102. Cynthia Gee Says:
June 26, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Maddening as her comments are, I think that we ought to pray for Lydia – I believe that she IS a Christian, but she’s obviously up to her ears in what our more Penecostal brethren would call “spiritual bondage” — to clothing, appearances, social mores, and vanity. No one can read the New Testament, especially Luke and the Beatitudes, without seeing that her views stand in direct opposition to the the teachings of Christianity regarding such things, and Lydia seems to be so far gone into delusion that she is blinded and can’t see it for herself, and as she herself has stated prefers to believe lies in order to hang on to her erroneous notions.
It’s just a shame that so many non-Christians will read stuff like hers, and think that we are all a bunch of judgmental hypocrites.
105. thatmom Says:
June 26, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Cally, you are welcome to use it. I am so disgusted, first at these comments by older women who ought to know better, and secondly by their dishonesty and lack of integrity by taking things down and not apologizing or admitting any wrong doing. I am telling you, they all go by some play book.
Cynthia Gee Says:
June 27, 2008 at 9:18 am
“….perhaps Lady Lydia is speaking from that cultural perspective. But to assign a measure of spirituality to that is something we HAVE to challenge.”
I think that Lydia’s cultural perspective is one that has been with us for a long, long, time.
When I was a little girl, women were often stereotyped as being silly, superficial beings, concerned mainly with clothes and shoes and hats (or, at best, with beautifying and looking after their homes), and who would resort to all kinds of manipulative tactics to get their men to buy them nice things, a la Lucy Ricardo.
Women were criticized because of these “inborn” failings– shallowness, vanity, selfishness, and impracticality, and a tendency to be concerned more with superficial matters than with the nuts and bolts of life — and were encouraged to instead focus on adorning what Peter and Paul called the “inner man”; and yet, their failings in this area were also seen as an endearing proof of their femininity — women who actually embraced the teachings of 1 Peter 3:4 and who cared mainly for the things of God (or for books and ideas) were seen as spinsterish creatures best suited for a lifetime of singleness and teaching school (nowadays we just revile them as being feminists.)
Lady Lydia is a holdover, I think, from the day of social rigidity and high tea, and she appears to have elevated the stereotype of the superficial woman into an icon, holding her forth as a rallying point and a proof against what Lydia sees as the Christian “feminism” of our time — IE, women who see PEOPLE as being more important than pretention, who value compassion and practicality over prettiness, and who care more for how GOD sees them than for what the neighbors might say.
153. Fiona Says:
June 27, 2008 at 10:06 am
Even down to the fact that she calls herself “Lady” Lydia, it’s clear that she has not only embraced the fashions of the Victorian Era, but the social predujices and class envy as well.
European History being my “thing,” I wonder if Lydia considers that in the nineteenth century, cities were generally filthy and hygene was bad even in the middle classes. Women were belittled to frivolous being, and rarely received medical care because health problems in females were often boiled down to “Hysteria.”
Poor women who had to work in factories cut off their long hair for safety reasons: hair could get caught in dangerous machinery, causing severe injuries and sometimes death.
Women were not supposed to enjoy sex, but to use it as reproductive means only. Prostitution and STDs ran rampant.
Oh, but the dresses were pretty!
155. Cynthia Gee Says:
June 27, 2008 at 10:31 am
“I wonder if Lydia considers that in the nineteenth century, cities were generally filthy and hygene was bad even in the middle classes.”
People have poined this out to her, but she refuses to listen, claiming that she KNOWS that her paradigm is right, even though the facts of history show otherwise. To this end she even maintains that the plain, verifiable facts of history are quite likely a lie, suggesting that black slave women lived happily in their cabins caring for their husbands and children!
There is a book by C.S.Lewis called “That Hideous Strength” ** which describes an attitude of denial similar to Lady Lydia’s.
Near the end of the story, as the villains are recieving their comeuppance, one of them decides to commit suicide, and as he dies it occurs to him that he just may have been wrong in following the course that led him to his situation. Truth, and with it the opportunity for repentance, are presented to him, and he harden’s his heart, preferring instead to die in his lies:
Still not asking what he would do or why, Frost went to the garage. The whole place was silent and empty; the snow was thick on the ground by this. He came up with as many petrol tins as he could carry. He piled all the inflammables he could think of together in the Objective Room. Then he locked himself in by locking the outer door of the anteroom. Whatever it was that dictated his actions then compelled him to push the key into the speaking-tube which communicated with the passage. When he had pushed it in as far as his fingers could reach, he took a pencil from his pocket and pushed with that. Presently he heard the clink of the key falling on the passage floor outside. That tiresome illusion, his consciousness, was screaming to protest; his body, even had he wished, had no power to attend to those screams. Like the clockwork figure he had chosen to be, his stiff body, now terribly cold, walked back into the Objective Room, poured out the petrol and threw a lighted match into the pile. Not till then did his controllers allow him to suspect that death itself might not after all cure the illusion of being a soul — nay, might prove the entry into a world where that illusion raged infinite and unchecked. Escape for the soul, if not for the body, was offered him. He became able to know (and simultaneously refused the knowledge) that he had been wrong from the beginning — that souls and personal responsibility existed. He half saw; he wholly hated. The physical torture of the burning was not fiercer than his hatred of that. With one supreme effort he flung himself back into his illusion. In that attitude eternity overtook him as sunrise in old tales overtakes and turns them into unchangeable stone. [From That Hideous Strength]
**For those unfamiliar with the story, a group of scientists – Wither, Frost, Filostrato and others – believe that their self-appointed mission is to make the world “a better place”. To this end they subvert an ancient university and join forces with a peer of the realm, Lord Feverstone, who clinically describes their as “Quite simple and obvious things…the sterilisation of the unfit, liquidation of backward races, selective breeding
would certainly be more difficult than wearing ski bibs or pants.
159. Corrie Says:
June 27, 2008 at 11:41 am
“Another reason is that really girly stuff can look downright silly on a big-boned (OK, fat, LOL), nearly-50 part-Indian grandma with waist length hair. I blend into the background better in “saggy Tshirts and shorts that look like giant pull-ups.””
I totally get you and your various different outfits that FIT the activities that YOU enjoy doing.
When I run in the mornings (or go work out), I wear appropriate clothing. If I ran down the street in a skirt and blouse, people would think I was running from an attacker or that I totally have lost my mind. Many patrios would say that this is an activity that I shouldn’t be doing since I cannot dress “modestly” while doing it and I gave up running and lifting weights at the gym.
Instead of lifting me up in my goal to be a stay at home wife/mom, I felt crushed by them because I wasn’t at home yet. I felt so judged and I just knew they thought that I must be working because I’m selfish! I even e-mailed and commented on Lady Lydia’s blog asking advise on how to obtain a lovely home and keep up on my homemaking while I’m working and it never showed up on her blog. I guess she doesn’t want to hear from us working women.
All in all, I can see through their sugary sweetness and see the haughtiness that lies beneath. I can tell that they only care for their agenda by how they treat women going through difficult pregnancies. What was I thinking when I wanted to be just like Stacy, Jenny and Lady Lydia?
January 3, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Happy New Year everyone! I hope everyone had a restful vacation. We are staying with relatives at the moment. So many great comments! As ever I am in awe of you ladies.
I am still waiting for LAF to update with the next part of the girl from South Africa’s story. I showed the article to my husband (who worked in rural South Africa for a year) and he agreed the writer is almost certainly from the wealthy minority. He had other thoughts – I’ll save them for when the promised second part comes out.
There is a really strange new article from Lady Lydia’s ‘Guard The Home’ blog (devoted to adult children who are ‘rebelling’ against their parents). I have been checking it regularly ever since that time she counselled an anonymous commenter to consider turning her 16 year old ‘rebellious’ son out of the house. I hope it’s ok for me to comment on it here. We do jump around so much!
I was just going to link, but given that Lydia has revised articles that we’ve commented on, I’m going to copy it all out so there’s no confusion.
For Youth at Home: Who Really Controls You?
Parents should not be fooled by the claim that their young lady or young man at home is isolated and without communication from the world. This is simply untrue. I grew up in a wilderness area, with homesteader and pioneer type parents, and our lives were always busy with other people. The only time we were really isolated was when we were snowed in or sick. Having homeschooled my children clear through high school, I can tell you frankly we were not home as much as we would have liked.
Sometimes the children got tired of having to go somewhere else for something we needed to do or learn and begged to stay home. “Can we just stay home today?” they would ask, first thing in the morning. However, I suppose when this truth becomes known, the doctors and therapists who are suspicious of home education, will conclude that all colds, flue, tiredness, etc. will be a result of too much running around and not enough confinement to a desk at a school.
The fact is, that most homeschoolers have cars and access to the world outside the home, and use it freely. The homeschooled students are even less isolated than their public school counterparts who are inside of the school campus during school hours and home doing homework after school hours.
Homeschool children are not the isolated people that many doctors and psychologists claim. Yet there are people who will believe these so called experts when they say that every illness comes from isolation or parental control. This is simply not proven, nor is it researchable to a satisfactory level.In order to prove it, every homeschooler in the country would have to be interviewed. These conclusions seem to be only after seeing those homeschool children who have to go to the doctor, and does not seem to include the vast majority of homeschoolers who are healthy and happy at home. In order to be fair, these doctors need to interview all the healthy and happy homeschoolers, too.
There are several ministries which I will label only by initials,which once claimed the Bible teaching about parents being the teachers and trainers of their own children, and children honoring the parents and willingly complying with the family for their own good and protection. The SMD, IBLP and NGJ ministries have all reneged on this and are now following the words and beliefs of psychology instead. Having no ready scriptural answers to prodigals, they try to find other reasons for their behavior other than the rebellion that Proverbs talks about. Our answers can all be found in the Bible, but having a scarce knowledge of the scriptures and lacking the heart to put them into practice, many ministers turn to psychology.
The ministers in these ministries would all deny that they use psychology, however, there are key words that show a strong influence of psychology: abuse, and damage, among many others. This language has entered the churches and ministries via the training manuals and courses that ministers study in order to become counsellors. It was sad to see that many churches now hire preachers on the basis of their degree, rather than on their soundness in scriptural knowledge. A degree almost always means that a course in psychology has been taken, and it is this kind of belief system that these ministers bring into their lives and the lives of others. Psychology, the study of human behavior, at first glance, may sound quite logical, but when compared to the scriptures, it can be shown as robbing the proper authorities of their rightful domains. One example is their tendency to take over realms of life that do not belong to them.
The roots of psychology claim that any problems people have are a result of their parents and their disadvantaged childhoods. These teachings take away the entire meaning of parenthood and give power to the children to do as they feel, because, after all, feelings are more important than principles, and happiness reigns over doing what is right. These ministries have bought into this psychology because they have not been effective, and are looking for ways to retrieve youth without losing their following. Many of these ministries are tied into the state youth detentions centers, where it is advantageous to keep youth in a perpetually troubled or rebellious condition, in order to justify having them there and to insure continued funding, much like the way public schools get their funding through the numbers of students and the length of time they are there. I have no objection to Christians being involved in redeeming wayward youth, or preachers preaching the gospel to the lost, but their involvement in these detention centers, often called “ministries” has taken a completely different turn which has caused too much heartache in homes.
One particular ministry has an online newsletter and message board where they constantly discuss atrocities that the Bible says should only be talked about “in the dark.” They keep people hyped up about parents and they claim to be rescuing children from abusive parents. I have seen true abuse in drug infested homes, where the neighbors will bring in the government authorities to remove the kids or put the abusive parents in prison. These abused children exhibit completely different attitudes than those whose parents have been falsely accused. Many of the parents are falsely accused, and yet no charges were made. Still, it has had a profound impact on the father’s businesses or the mother’s reputations in their local communities. Once the label “abusive” or “controlling” has been levelled at a parent, the stigma is difficult to get removed. It deflates the impact of the family.
The ministries that automatically accuse parents of abuse if they have any kind of trouble with their children, are in error if they do not call the police. If they truly feel that the parents are illegally abusive e, they ought to call the proper authorities, which are also Biblicly ordained ministries, according to Romans 13 verses 3 through 5.
If these religious ministers truly believe that parents are conducting themselves unlawfully, they need to call in the rightful ministers of the government rather than taking matters into their own hands by maligning the parents and putting the children in so called “ministries” or turning then to further rebellion. It is simply not scriptural to let parents get away with something illegal while supposedly rescuing the kids. These ministries have no business claiming that the parents are “abusive” while not levelling legal charges at them. My suspicion, from what I have seen, is that there is no abuse going on but the ministries side with the rebels so that they can use them in their ministries. It is free unpaid labor for them.
The reason I write about this is that many nice parents who trust ministers, thinking they have some wisdom (after all they are suppose to have studied the Bible) find themselves in worse trouble. They trust these ministries and they never see their children again. Some of them send them to a ministry for just minor problems, to help them grow, and then the ministry accused the parents of “abuse” and never encourages the children to return home.
I have written many articles in the past to show how effective parenting used to be before the psychologists took over child-rearing. Later, people like Dr. Spock publicly admitted his teachings and his books had done more harm than good to parents, by taking away their authority and substituting ineffective psychological techniques. The Bible says children are to obey and honor their parents. It is not always fair, but wise parents of old would tell their children “I know it is not fair, but I am the parent. When you are a parent, you can be the guide and authority.” This gave us, as children, a hope of being promoted.
When I have more time I will write about how effective the old paths of parenting were. They were in fact, so effective, that parents did not even have to consult a ministry for help with a rebel.
Be careful of the ministries you put your trust in. Just trust in God and read the Bible. Like Dr. Spock, these ministries will eventually have to make some public statements regarding their error.
For the children at home with complaints, you have to take a good look at who is really controlling you. You might say you do not want your parents to control your life, but if you reject their care and protection, you end up being controlled by someone else. The army will certainly control your life if you join it. A ministry has more restriction and control than even a home. In any institution, your choices will be extremely limited and your individuality, although lauded and promoted through their shiny brochures, will be severely diminished, as they really want you to blend in more with “the group”. Even college and careers have more control over people than the average home.
Homes operate under a lot more freedom and leniency than man made institutions. As for control, it is the job of parents to teach their children how to control themselves, and they do this by placing limitations on freedom until the child has shown responsibility.
The girl who complains that her parents wont let her go anywhere, is not admitting that she took off on her own in the middle of the night, when she climbed out the window. This caused her parents to put restrictions on her, not because they hated her or were “controlling” but because they were doing their job of protecting her and teachingher how to use her freedom responsibly.
The young boy whose parents restricted his use of the automobile, did not tell the whole story, preferring instead to make others think his parents were bad old meanies without any sense. They restricted him because of careless driving and an incident that involved putting the lives of others in danger. They restricted him because he used the car to go somewhere he had no business going, and because he had people in his car he was not supposed to be driving.
Both the boy and the girl were guilty of gossipping about their parents to their friends and neighbors and were consequently restricted from communications of phones and the net. They subsequently reported that their parents had locked them in their rooms and would not let them use the internet. In truth, bedrooms have locks on the inside of the doors, not on the outside, so if these arrogant children were locked in, they most likely locked their doors to keep their parents out.
These are just two samples of the whole story behind the problems of youth. Most of the time you hear only one side of things because the children are busy verbally covering themselves by accusing the parents of being abusive or controlling. In actual fact, girls, when you sneak out the window, someone or something else is controlling you. The lure of parties and other people and night life can be very strong and it is controlling, indeed!
Young people, you should know that Satan hates families and will reign with confusion and arguing in order to get you to reject your parents and family. You should also know that relatives of nice families are always looking for ways to break it all up because they are jealous or because they think your parents are too strict or too extreme. Beware of all these tactics and stay where the Lord put you. You will be glad in later years that you dont have a “past” to overcome or explain, or that you dont have to go back and make it right with your parents when you get in your right mind.
I know numbering my thoughts is sloppy writing, but it really helped me with the Africa article so I’m going to try it again now.
1) Confusingly, I think this is actually two articles, combined together for who knows why. The title and the last 7 paragraphs go together. The first part of the article is really about a separate topic.
2) About the title and the last bit first. So many sentences here leap out at me as being really, really odd. “In truth, bedrooms have locks on the inside of the doors, not on the outside, so if these arrogant children were locked in, they most likely locked their doors to keep their parents out.” I wonder how Lydia knows so much about these peoples lives as to know about the locks on their bedroom doors. I couldn’t tell you about the lock on my relatives’ door, and it’s across the hall and I’ve been here a week. I wonder does she have permission to use these peoples’ troubles as blog material? And we see very confusing language – the people at fault are ‘children’ (okay – children often need to be confined to places when they’ve misbehaved). Except the previous paragraphs make it clear that the people being punished this way aren’t children at all. They are old enough to drive and sneak out at night to go partying (not that that behaviour, if true, is appropriate) – they are ADULTS.
“You should also know that relatives of nice families are always looking for ways to break it all up because they are jealous or because they think your parents are too strict or too extreme.” Again, this is just so bizarre. It makes me wonder what on earth the situation was she had in mind, that she would write something like this. You know, I think I have a quite nice family, and I can’t think of one time a relative tried to ‘break it all up’. How completely strange. And surely if one had such a lovely family, it wouldn’t matter if some crazy person tried to disrupt you? And how are you a ‘nice family’ if you have relatives like that anyway? So strange. So sad.
3) The main part of the article is, I think, Lydia’s response to the Pearls, mixed with her continuing complaints about ‘ministries’. In previous articles, she’s written about how ministries are actually all out to steal your children away from you.
4) “There are several ministries which I will label only by initials,which once claimed the Bible teaching about parents being the teachers and trainers of their own children, and children honoring the parents and willingly complying with the family for their own good and protection. The SMD, IBLP and NGJ ministries have all reneged on this and are now following the words and beliefs of psychology instead.” So this is about the Pearl’s article. But we can’t say that, because the one thing VF and LAF NEVER do is link to Christians politely disagreeing with them. They will show us raving mad abortionists – our delicate sensibilities can apparently handle that no trouble – but reasonable debate, backed up with Scripture? Never. In all the articles ‘addressing’ debate, I can only think of one (Jennie Chancey’s response to Andrew Sandlin) which actually acknowledges where criticism has come from. This site, with everything on it, is completely verboten. We are gossipers (MacDonalds) or silly women (Lydia) and the issues we raise are dealt with at a comedic distance.
And the comedy continues with Lydia using initials to indicate who she disagrees with. Why oh why? They make it perfectly plain who she means. Tapping them into Google will straighten it out if there’s any uncertainty. Why not be a grown up and write down plainly who you disagree with?
5) “The ministries that automatically accuse parents of abuse if they have any kind of trouble with their children, are in error if they do not call the police. If they truly feel that the parents are illegally abusive e, they ought to call the proper authorities, which are also Biblicly ordained ministries, according to Romans 13 verses 3 through 5.
If these religious ministers truly believe that parents are conducting themselves unlawfully, they need to call in the rightful ministers of the government rather than taking matters into their own hands by maligning the parents and putting the children in so called “ministries” or turning then to further rebellion. It is simply not scriptural to let parents get away with something illegal while supposedly rescuing the kids. These ministries have no business claiming that the parents are “abusive” while not levelling legal charges at them.”
This is, I think, her response to the Pearl’s articles about how hyperpatriarchy hurts children. So ludicrous. (Isn’t it interesting that the Botkins seem to have decided to respond by almost agreeing with the Pearls – writing their own articles about how homeschoolers need to grow up – neatly sidestepping the fact that their book about daughters is greatly responsible for the whole problem). (Isn’t it also interesting how quickly she advocates for the ‘rightful ministers of the government’. Goodness gracious. Remembering patrios responses to the Texas polygamists debacle…)
6) The strangeness continues as she suggests these ministries are actually interested in hurting children for their own nefarious gain:
“My suspicion, from what I have seen, is that there is no abuse going on but the ministries side with the rebels so that they can use them in their ministries. It is free unpaid labor for them.”
“Many of these ministries are tied into the state youth detentions centers, where it is advantageous to keep youth in a perpetually troubled or rebellious condition, in order to justify having them there and to insure continued funding, much like the way public schools get their funding through the numbers of students and the length of time they are there.”
Is there any particular case that she could be referring to here? I have never heard of anything like this. It seems paranoid in the extreme.
7) Some final thought about clear factual errors in the piece. We’re used to these – this is after all the person who wrote about how Christian slaves were able to keep house for their husbands in their huts.
Later, people like Dr. Spock publicly admitted his teachings and his books had done more harm than good to parents, by taking away their authority and substituting ineffective psychological techniques.
Like Dr. Spock, these ministries will eventually have to make some public statements regarding their error.
Wikipedia (I don’t want to link because that will send this post to moderation, but it’s very easy to Google) says no such thing. I cannot find any reference to Dr Spock ever saying his practices (suggesting babies should be cuddled when they cried, instead of being left alone outside in their pushchairs as infants – this used to happen to my father in law!) had ‘done more harm than good’ or anything else.
And finally, there is the very concerning disdain for science (and apparent ignorance of how one obtains a college degree) throughout the piece.
“Psychology, the study of human behavior, at first glance, may sound quite logical, but when compared to the scriptures, it can be shown as robbing the proper authorities of their rightful domains. One example is their tendency to take over realms of life that do not belong to them.
The roots of psychology claim that any problems people have are a result of their parents and their disadvantaged childhoods.”
What utter nonsense.
“A degree almost always means that a course in psychology has been taken”
I did not study in America, but to the best of my knowledge, this is completely inaccurate?
“there are key words that show a strong influence of psychology: abuse, and damage, among many others.”
And now ‘abuse’ and ‘damage’ are dirty, unbiblical words. Cindy, I am reminded about what you have said about controlling language. In fact, lots of things in this articles reminded me of that. Like the use of initials to signify those you disagree with (those in the know will understand the meaning, those who are not must have their access to such information controlled). And the strange references to personal experiences, like the disruptive relatives and the bedroom door locks – though that, I believe, may just be a quirk of her writing style.
Wow! With the length of the article and the length of my super-waffly thoughts, surely this must win some sort of longest comment prize?
January 3, 2009 at 7:13 pm
—-”There are several ministries which I will label only by initials,which once claimed the Bible teaching about parents being the teachers and trainers of their own children, and children honoring the parents and willingly complying with the family for their own good and protection. The SMD, IBLP and NGJ ministries have all reneged on this and are now following the words and beliefs of psychology instead. “—-
OK I know NGJ is No Greater Joy, but what is SMD and IBLP? Also, what is she specifically referring to regarding what these ministries have reneged on?
379. Andrea Says:
January 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“Many of these ministries are tied into the state youth detentions centers, where it is advantageous to keep youth in a perpetually troubled or rebellious condition, in order to justify having them there and to insure continued funding, much like the way public schools get their funding through the numbers of students and the length of time they are there.”
Is there any particular case that she could be referring to here? I have never heard of anything like this. It seems paranoid in the extreme. – Claire.
Michael Pearl does work with juveniles. He preaches the good news to the prison population. I could be wrong – but I doubt that is Micheal’s motive!
On a side note – I’d LOVE to know how Michael would respond to that remark!
On a side note :
As far as I’m aware – Dr Spock DID retract some of his earlier advice. I know he did advise to keep children off ALL dairy products for life because of the health risks involved.
Somehow…I don’t think that is what “Lady Lydia” was referring too.
January 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I found that IBLP is the Gothard stuff, but I still can’t find SMD, other than info on something called a Surface Mount Device and then a text messaging acronym that is too foul to repeat here!
Debbie from CA Says:
January 4, 2009 at 3:02 am
Just a little snippy aside from me here. For a woman claiming authority as a patrio female on high, “Lady Lydia” certainly is no great writer. Multiple errors and commas inserted at random made for tough reading and comprehension.
Perhaps I was spared.
Cynthia Gee Says:
January 5, 2009 at 12:44 am
Look at this site to which Lydia links:
January 14, 2009 at 10:37 am
It is apparent that Lady Lydia likes to read here or that she has friends who do and report back to her.
One thing that was funny to me is that she seems to think that she is the “older woman” and the rest of us know nothing. First of all, I think I am older than she is. Secondly, Lady Lydia doesn’t understand the principle of one anothering. I am so grateful to the wonderful women on this blog, many of you the age of my children, who have been willing to share your lives and have taught me so much. We have some true Bible students among us and they have enriched my life. I am sorry that Lady Lydia is so unteachable and afraid to open her heart and her mind to the important things of the Word of God and has chosen to concentrate on those things that are temporal and not really important in the grand scheme of life.
Call Tyrol Says:
January 14, 2009 at 6:53 pm
If the original source is cited, I fail to see what all the fuss is about. Blogs are public. People discuss them all the time elsewhere. What “Lady” Lydia doesn’t like is when people point out her historical revisions and poor attitude. I would hazard a guess that she wouldn’t mind if people were quoting her blog in praise.
January 14, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Lady Lydia says, via Cynthia Gee:
“Do not copy original articles, quotes or portions of writings by me without permission. Do not paste any portion of my writings on any of my blogs into your blogs or websites or online spaces,hard copies of any of my original writing, or vocal broadcasts, without my permission.”
The law of the land, however, permits copying portions of others’ writings under the “fair use” guidelines of copyright law. Permission from the author is not required.
To wit, the law says, “Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered ‘fair,’ such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
So, I would say that the readers and posters here are fully within their legal rights to post excerpts from those public blogs for those purposes. Lady Lydia doesn’t really have a legal reason to cry foul.
January 14, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I meant to add, how uncomfortable it must be for folks like Lady Lydia to be held accountable for their own words. In my opinion, that is often why they claim nobody is allowed to copy and discuss their work elsewhere.
Many people have asked us as to the level of literacy here at Living at Home (or whatever new title & graphics Lydia comes up with).
So, we want to explain that the bad grammar and misspelled words are intentional. We just thought we’d copy the original Lady Lydia Sherman ditto.
But that doesn’t mean we are insufferable know-it-alls and claim better proficiency at English than the unschooled Lady Lydia. We are just trying to poke fun at a lady, who takes herself too seriously, and can’t recognise a joke even if it danced around naked wearing Dobby’s tea cosy 🙂