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 her “women 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!