Itchy itchy, bitey bitey jerks
Jun. 9th, 2008 09:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
msmcknittingtonI 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)
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?
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?