Tag Archives: Stacy McDonald

Lady Lydia, toilets & women’s voting rights

You thought that Lady Lydia could only appreciate nice, pretty, Victorian art pictures, which she can post on her blog for increasing her sales with online art dealers and allposters.com? Wrong! 

Lady Lydia can also appreciate pictures of toilets and women puking in it as long as it is anti-feminist. This comment is also interesting because she again mentions herwomen anti-voting” ideology.
To this ridiculous post written by a weirdo pastor, who dubs himself as Father Hollywood, she is all applause. 
Hooray for feminism! Remember the days when the exciting world of excessive drinking, vomiting, fisticuffs, incontinence, and generally making a public spectacle of oneself was a male bastion?

Not any more! 

Boy, women have come a long way since those bad-old days of Betty Crocker and June Cleaver. If only our grandmothers could have seen this great day of liberation (sniff).

I can hardly wait to see the next domino fall.

Next Follow Lady Lydia’s high-flown praise of the article. In the comments section…..

Lady Lydia says:

In spite of this, hoardes of young feminist girls continually mock and ridicule the idea of the homemaker and the June Cleaver model. Do they not think that one day this sort of return to Roman decadence might one day also be looked down on? Some of the remarks I receive indicate that they think that innocence and goodness are dangerous, or something. What kind of harm did the Betty Crocker types of the past, do to women? Yet, the young girls are trained from an early age to laugh at them or look down on them. The feminist ideals have not dignified women. They do not want to sew a pretty dress, say bedtime prayers with children, keep a house clean and safe, or bake a cake, things that were once highly admired and valued. Such things are scorned, in favor of more “sophisticated” things, which are the very things that bring them down. 
As the preachers of the 1930’s used to say, equality gives women the right to smoke and drink and behave worse than a man. They warned us of this many decades ago, and it has come true. This equality was supposedly for the right to vote. I’d give up the right to vote if it meant less threat for women to become addicted to substances or have so many emotional and mental problems.The right to vote hasn’t helped that at all.
Lady Lydia says:
About the connection between women’s rights and the current trend of a young woman’s head in the toilet: first of all the right to vote was already being considered in congress, as the nation grew to maturity. The feminists of the time were pushing the issue and taking credit. There are many sources available which show that women could vote before women’s lib, and that measures were being taken by the government to allow it to all women. This was before the “suffrage” movement. But the idea that women were “equal” to men may have given a lot of young women other ideas. They may have reasoned that a man gets to go to a pub and drink, so why can’t a woman. He can wear dungarees, so she should be able to wear breeches too. I do remember a time when women were not allowed in the bars, and some bars allowed it but only in a separate entrance. Women wanted equality so they observed that men “get away” with a number of vices, so why can’t they? Very young women today certainly would stick up for their right to drink like the men do. If a man can do it, why can’t they? So that is the false view of equality that I see them getting, which extended from the right to vote. It was not the message intended but none the less it may have come from that feeling of equality. 
Being equal to someone is not necessarily an advantage. In the “olden times” we knew that sometimes being at a disadvantage was an advantage and could use it as a stepping stone to something better. Modern feminism was a social engineering program designed to give women careers instead of families, in order to be “equal.” It has not been that great of an advantage, as so many of them now have to work. A hundred years ago most men would not have allowed their wives and daughters to go unprotected by the way they dressed or wandered about by themselves. Today we are seeing the result of the new freedom. It may not be directly related to the vote, but the mentality is there: she is equal so she should be allowed to do whatever anyone else does, even if it is bad for her. The scriptures speak of her as something special, which is a different picture than society portrays today.

Next Stacy McDonald also blesses Father Hollywood (cheap cry for attention and hence the nickname f0r this Lutheran pastor) for his wonderful comments on why women wearing skirts and with long, un-bobbed hair don’t get drunk.

Stacy McDonald says:
“Father Hollywood – Thank you again for your very insightful and well written comments here. Good stuff. Thank you for the time you take to speak the truth with such grace. My husband and I enjoy your writing. 
And for the record, my daughters and I wear hats or mantillas during worship.”

Ms Jennifer & Ms Anastasia tried to bring sense into the discussion, but had to gracefully exit because of the swollen, thick-heads around:
Ms Anastasia asked: Certain sorts of women have been misbehaving ever since Eve first did. So have men. But when women do it, our *right to vote* comes into question???
Your logic is a girl must lose her voting rights if she gets drunk. But there is no talk of *men* forfeiting their voting rights because of misbehavior.
Ms Jennifer objected to:
  • Making fun of women drunk or otherwise and those who have “bobbed their hair.”
  • Comparison of Female ordained Ministers as “barbies in skirts”
  • The dumb connection between intelligent women voting and immature girls getting drunk
  • Her being labelled a “feminist” for stating her valid arguments
Now why didn’t I include Father Hollywood’s views? Well they were too repulsive for me to even read! Ugh!

Leave a comment

Filed under Lady Lydia

Lady Lydia does not practise what she preaches!

Lady Lydia does not believe in following what she says.   

So, when people like Jennie Chancy, Stacy McDonald, Lydia Sherman, and of course, Doug Phillips stand up to lead a church, to write books, to start public blogs, then they ought to expect not only criticism but scrutiny. Not only should we be looking at what they preach but also at how they live it. It is the old adage, “they can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk?” Could we go too far in investigating their private lives? Of course. Everyone deserves privacy. However, when a person preaches a particular way of living, it is only fair that they are held to their own standards. Should we go dig up dirt about these men and women from their past? No. But neither should we let their theology, comments, or actions go by without any accountability.

Here are some little known facts about the family:
Debt & Finance:

The private circumstances of any individual is no concern of others you might say. But when Lady Lydia preaches that women going to work only causes more expenses and the way to frugal living is through housewifery; then we feel bound to shatter some of the myths she has created around herself.
  • Lady Lydia and her husband are in huge debt. They have no savings and they still haven’t cleared their debts (So how dare she talk about frugal living?)
  • Lady Lydia or her family does not own any house or land. The property that they are so fond of photographing and putting up on their blog is a rental, property of the Church of Lancaster (So how dare she writes article after article on how responsible Christian parents must leave an inheritance – house/land/money – for their children?) 
  • Lady Lydia does not have any insurance; not even health insurance. The reason her daughter had all four babies at home was because they didn’t have health insurance, couldn’t afford to go the hospital and had to have a mid-wife. (So how dare she says the state health care system is bad, when its obivous she can’t afford it?)
  • Lady Lydia’s husband does MLM, but is quite unsuccesful at it. Lady Lydia assists him in his MLM activities, including visiting clients.
Lollybeth & Living on charity:
  • Lady Lydia’s daughter Lollybeth and her husband stay with them, because they couldn’t afford a place of their own after the son-in-law lost his job (So how dare she writes articles criticising other men, whose wives work?)
  • The son-in-law still hasn’t got himself a job. So he does MLM marketing part-time and preaches occasionally. (What right has she to preach her one-income lifestyle is better, when her family affairs are in such shambles? And when her own son-in-law is in college though he can’t afford it, why is it bad and unaffordable for girls to be in college?
  • The Bumpfries cousins on The Unpleasant Times are actually the Merman family themselves. Lollybeth says: “the Bumpfries live below poverty level.” (And yet look at the snobbery and racism….My, My)
  • Lollybeth and her husband are in huge debt and live on the charity of close relatives and friends. (Very manly, isn’t it? The head of the house supported by charity?)
  • Lollybeth’s husband (father of 4)  is studying a full-time course in Architecture, financed by his parents. He does not hold any full-time job. He has also taken student loans, which he has not repaid. (Nice, not only does someone take care of his family, someone also foots his college expenses and takes care of those loans. How manly is that?)
  • Lollybeth lives on the charity of near and dear ones. The expenses to run her family of six is meted out by her parents and in-laws. 
  • Lollybeth and her family of six stay in the garage of her parents’ rented house (for which they don’t pay the rent, but the parish does.)
  • Lady Lydia’s two sons are indepedant and live away from her; contrary to her principles of adult children staying with the family
  • Lady Lydia herself at the age of 18, chose to stay a single women in America when her entire family left for Australia. She chose to attend Bible classes and marry someone, totally unknown to her parents. (So what right does she have to say “women shouldn’t go to college,” “women should stay at home” or “courtship/betrothal is better than dating?”)
Lady Lydia’s business activities:
  • Lady Lydia is a woman of merchandise. Though she does not want other women to engage in the sordid world of commerce, she holds jobs and earns money. She also acts as PA fo her husband’s MLM activities.
  • If you thought all the pretty pictures at LAF and Homeliving are for decoration, you are wrong! Lady Lydia, Lollybeth and Jennie Chancey have consistently promoted Victorian art, because they have signed up with online art dealers. They have posted more than 2,000 pictures all in all…so look at the amount of money they make with each click.
  • Lady Lydia and Lollybeth have had to support their husbands through their sewing business, affiliation through Allposters.com, online shop at CafePress and as speakers for SAHM-patriocentric conferences.
  • Lady Lydia likes to pride herself as an author, but not more than a dozen books have been sold and of the three reviews the book received at Lulu.com, two were planted.
  • Lady Lydia has no savings, only debt, but lives a hedonistic, consumerist lifestyle. There are four cars in their garage, four computers, TVs, even a swimming pool...just about everything – and all of it is still unpaid for. Lady Lydia is a firm believer in installments, so they just keep buying more stuff and pay the lowest installment on it.
  • Lady Lydia has made many racist remarks about black slaves in America, snobbish remarks about the state of undress of the victims of Katrina, on KOOPs – other people’s kids and has labelled the women at White Washed Feminists, TrueWomanhood as “silly women.” When there was controversy about her posts, she immediately deleted them but evidence of them can be found in other sites.


Filed under Lady Lydia, Self-promotion