Itchy itchy, bitey bitey jerks

[msmcknittington]

I just got back in from checking my garden, and the gnats are out in full force. I didn't think of putting on any Off before I headed out because they haven't been bad yet this year, and it's relatively cool out tonight, so why worry? I also don't like spraying myself with insect repellent all that much, but I'll cave and do it when I'm out in the woods or the long grass. But when I'm out in the garden for fifteen minutes, I don't want to have to cover myself with chemicals to stay unscathed.

I've got a bite on my elbow, three or four on my lower back where my t-shirt rode up, and a couple other suspicious spots elsewhere. I know we've got some Afterbite in the house somewhere, but I can't locate it, and I don't think my mother would appreciate it if I tore apart her medicine cabinet in pursuit.

About that ethics and LJ icons I mentioned in my last entry: This page of Austen/Bronte icons was posted by the author in one of the communities I'm a member of, and I went, "Ooh, pretties!" Unfortunately, I looked at the pages she had linked in the sidebar, and one of them was Ladies Against Feminism. Now, the name was enough to get my hackles up, because . . . how can you be a woman and be against feminism? Then I clicked on it, and saw it was led by Jenny Chauncey and I knew I didn't want to look at it. "Oh," you say, "but her sewing patterns are so wonderful! What's wrong with her?"

Here's why: I find the encouragement for women to wear "modest clothing" to be oppressive of women's bodies and their identities as women. I'm not saying that I think a plunging neckline is appropriate for every situation, but I also don't think choosing to wear that plunging neckline necessarily makes someone a less feminine or worse woman than a woman who doesn't. There's nothing inherently wrong with exposing an ankle or a wrist or a knee, and I can't help but feel that doctrines that teach a woman's body should be covered go hand in hand with doctrines that teach a woman's body is a temptation. That is, it's a woman's duty to control men's actions through their own, and that belief removes responsibility from men for their actions. If it's a man's responsibility to treat a woman with respect at all times, then what need is there for a woman to keep her collarbones, wrists, and ankles covered? (That's not written in the best way possible, but I'm sure everybody knows what I'm getting at.)

Secondly, Jenny Chancey is openly anti-abortion and anti-birth control, and I, well, am not. See the articles published under Hot Button Issues at LAF. I won't hash out the arguments for birth control and abortion, other than to say that it's nobody's business what a woman does with her body, and that I haven't seen a faith-based argument for a ban on abortion that held up. I don't feel that religion should be a deciding factor in decisions made by a secular government.

Thirdly, I find people who blame feminism for the ills of the world to be very tiresome. How can you blame something as diverse as the entirety of feminism for everything that's wrong in the world? That's just . . . wrong. Feminism to me is about men and women, not just women. It's about creating a world where both sexes can approach each other as equals, and not having women's work and men's work. I know I'm not the only one that believes that, and I would say that the majority of feminists are not the kind who call for a segregation of sexes or find specters of oppression lingering in their breakfast cereal.

So, those are all reasons why I decided a long time ago not to buy from Sense & Sensibility Patterns. I don't care how wonderful the patterns are. There are plenty of other resources for Regency patterns out there that I can buy from people who don't have world views that differ greatly and offensively with mine.

Additionally, I don't believe that Jane Austen would have been on board with these people. It makes me feel kind of oogy that they are such big fans of hers, when she was a woman who embraced a very worldly sensibility. Georgian England wasn't a simpler time than today -- there is no such thing as a simpler time; the world has always been complicated. If you long for yesteryear because you think it would be fraught with fewer issues of morality, ethics, or any other thing that concerns you today, then you are being foolish. The only way that works is if you were either too poor to have time to think about it or so rich you never developed a conscience.

Also, this? (Bolding mine)

We are aware that there are blogs and websites out there that slam LAF and take great delight in spreading misinformation, gossip, and rumor about what we stand for. . . . Concerned readers often ask if we plan to do anything about gossip-mongers and slanderers. The long and the short of it is that we do not read these sites or seek them out. We aren't Googling them or watching them or paying attention to them. They are in clear violation of Matthew 18 and all biblical principles for confrontation and restoration. If anyone has a problem with LAF or any individual who writes for us, that person needs to contact the individual privately to attempt to settle the matter (you can always reach us through the Feedback Form). It is utterly dishonorable to air someone else's shortcomings to the entire world when no attempt has been made to speak with the individual personally or discover if the question at issue is even legitimate. If you aren't willing to go to someone privately when they offend you but are perfectly willing to villify that person or group or church online, then there is something seriously wrong with your own life. We have to be firm here. This is not something to play around with or brush aside. Those who slander, gossip, stir up contention, plant jealousy, and refuse to deal biblically with disputes are people Scripture commands believers to stay away from (Rom. 16:17-19; 2 Tim 2:16). And if you hear a rumor about LAF, please do us the honor of checking the source instead of spreading the hearsay. Thank you!

Oh, vomit. If you place yourself in a public forum, be it a newspaper or online journal or anywhere that is easily accessible to the public, and in that forum posit ideas and theories that will be contentious with a large section of society, then there are some things you are just going to have to put up with. Having people who are strongly opposed to your nonsense excoriate you or said nonsense is just part and parcel of having an ethos on the fringe. So man up and put on your big girl britches. (On the other hand, I would probably be unhappy if someone was gossiping about me online, though I probably wouldn't scold them for it.)

Also, expecting non-Christians to behave according to Christian belief is just all sorts of wrong. That severely limits your interactions with the world, and I believe it to be patently wrong and ridiculous. Of course, why am I surprised when it's something that Paul wrote in Romans? That man has messed up more people's lives with those letters than anybody else in Western history, probably.

I'm not really expecting anyone on my friends list to be in rampant disagreement with me, but there it is. Is it right to support, however little the gesture, someone whose world philosophy you are in complete disagreement with? Can I use icons in my LJ made by someone whose world philosophy I find offensive?

Comments

[tattycat.livejournal.com]

I pretty much avoid anything and everything that jenny Chancey is involved with, not the least reason of many is that I find her costuming to be. . . rather theatrical, shall we say, when what I want is clothes. The other reasons are what you outlined above (in short, I think she's a moralizing, self-righteous twit).

However, I think you have to decide the ethics of the situation for yourself. One barometer question would be how comfortable you would be seeing and icon that *you* know she made however frequently you happen to use it on posts. I'm easily aggravated, so I would probably have to take blood pressure medication in short order.

[msmcknittington.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's the other reason I haven't bought any of her patterns. They're obviously modern garments based on period silhouettes, made to be worn over modern undergarments.

I'm thinking I'm not going to use any of the icons, because the "ooh, pretties" response is outweighed pretty heavily by the "crazy woman" response.

[sarahbellem.livejournal.com]

Would it help if I made you some Austen/Bronte icons? Raging feminist that I am, you could feel completely secure knowing that your icons came from someone whose personal motto is "Fuck the Man". ;)

[beraht.livejournal.com]

I like your philosophy.

[msmcknittington.livejournal.com]

If you want to, Sarah, go ahead! I'm capable of making my own, but lazy and easily distracted.

*looks at the list of icons that she started to make and never finished*

[devikat.livejournal.com]

You know what. I heart you. I heart you even more. We live in the same city. (practically) Why have we not had tea yet? (besides my insane schedule)

[msmcknittington.livejournal.com]

Because I live an hour away and gas is over $4/gallon? Oh, yes, and I hate to drive.

[lindseyerin37.livejournal.com]

That LAF site hurts my brain. A lot. It does amuse me though that Regency fashion was a huge scandal in it's day and now it's being touted as "modest."

I seriously doubt Jame Austen, brought to modern day, would agree with a damn word. She was a WRITER in the days when novels were not quite proper. If that's not feminism, I don't know what is. Idiots...

[msmcknittington.livejournal.com]

Ha. Have you looked at the dresses on S&S Patterns? Those necklines are a good six inches above Regency standards of decency. And what's a Regency dress without boobs?

I know. Jane Austen kicked all sorts of butt, in so many ways. The women in her novels are outspoken and intelligent (well, except for when they're dumb), and don't limit themselves to narrowly proscribed roles. Even more, Jane Austen helped support herself and her mother with her writing, at a time when that sort of thing was very scandalous.

Just argh. ARGH.

[lindseyerin37.livejournal.com]

Omg, I know! It was the first thing I noticed. They look all out of proportion. The boobs are so necessary for the look!

My best friend did a whole paper about how even Fanny Price, the most timid character in all of Austen's novels, as opinionated as the rest - she just expresses her opinion by keeping silent in protest. It fascinates me because Austen has so many different types of strong, female characters. Regency girl power. ;)

[msmcknittington.livejournal.com]

The late 18th and early 19th centuries are all about that boobs on a plate look. Unless it's a riding habit.

I know! A lot of people don't like Fanny Price because she's such a goody-goody, but she's actually quite a strong character, for as passive as she seems. I don't enjoy Mansfield Park all that much, but you can't say Fanny didn't have opinions.

[sbuchler.livejournal.com]

There are a number of high regency necklines that aren't riding habits - especially the working dresses... none of which look right without a corset to move the boobage up to the boobs-on-a-plate location ;-)... but many of the necklines are pretty high...

I can't say I ever thought of Fanny as opinionated... she drove me crazy with not acting when she ought to have...

[jennnlee.livejournal.com]

And what's a Regency dress without boobs?

Yup. That's why Morgan doesn't complain when I want to watch Pride & Prejudice for the kajillionth time. I get to watch Colin Firth in a wet shirt, he gets to see lots of girls in Regency dresses. Everyone's a winner!

Sorry I can't contribute more substantially to the discussion. It's early and I'm still on my first cup of coffee.

[beraht.livejournal.com]

My mom was disgusted that Hillary carried Tennessee and doesn't believe women should be allowed in the military. People are weird.

[msmcknittington.livejournal.com]

People are weird. It makes me mad sometimes, especially when it leads to them being offensive. But then I try to see things their way, and sometimes that works. And sometimes it doesn't. Most of the time it doesn't, but it usually calms me down a little.

[green-martha.livejournal.com]

You know, most of those guys who base their lives on the Book (tm) have serious problems with text-analysing. I hadn't come accross the LAF site yet, I think I'mm off to a good laugh :)

[msmcknittington.livejournal.com]

I know. Biblical literalism drives me nuts, especially when the text they're being literal about is a translation from Greek that's a translation from Hebrew, that has been transcribed who knows how many times. Every translation puts its own twists on the words, and the biblical literalists don't acknowledge that.

[cigarettes214.livejournal.com]

Ugh, I've accidentally stumbled on her site and works several times and always end up outraged at everything being spouted. I've encountered a fair number of people who think that all historical cosutmers are hyper religious and follow the things that are talked about on the LAF site. She just pushes that stereotype! Errg!

[koshka-the-cat.livejournal.com]

So I have her to blame for my page being listed on a page of links to "good Christian sites"?

The idea of LAF is so incomprehensible to me that I've never been to the site because it's such a repulsive idea. Really.

I have to say, I'm glad I didn't know about her views when I started sewing. It was her online Regency dress instructions that made me realize I could sew (I saw them, bought a pattern and a sewing machine, the rest is history), and I learned a lot from her message board before it turned into some sort of little freaky ultra-religious cult :)

[msmcknittington.livejournal.com]

Ha ha! I guess Mrs. Chancey isn't aware of your activities in the Democratic Party. I somehow don't think she supports Obama or Clinton in this presidential election.

I know what you're saying. I used her online instructions to make a boned bodiced petticoat. It no longer fits, which I'm happy about, because I don't have to wear it and think about her.