|
From ladiesagainstfeminism.com Comments and Letters Just a quick note before we begin: We get a lot of e-mail through our feedback form. On average, just over a dozen messages arrive each day, which adds up to between 80-100 each week. Roughly 70% of these are notes of thanks and encouragement from writers who do not request a response. About 10% are "scorching" rhetoric and also do not need a response. But the other 20% or so are often long letters full of questions. To be honest, it is simply impossible to answer these in anything approaching a timely manner. To put it into perspective, imagine coming home each weekday to find five very involved messages on your answering machine. To return one call would require an hour or two of heart-to-heart talking time. To answer all of the messages would be a full-time job. So, needless to say, while we might dearly wish to answer all of these letters, it simply is not possible. We get to them when we can and in "odd" moments of time (and when we're not answering FAQs!). The notes and responses on this page cover a two-year period. If you are seeking answers to pressing questions, let us refer you to the Beautiful Womanhood Message Forum, which is a private, moderated forum on the web with over 750 participants. If you are interested in joining the forum, please sign up for a username, then click on "Contact Administrator" to request admittance to the forum. Please keep in mind that the board is faithfully moderated in order to keep out flamers and spammers. Foolish, ugly behavior is not tolerated. But ladies from all walks of life are welcome to join. Please understand that no online forum can ever serve as a replacement for church or for relationships with others. However, we know many of you are not in a place where you can find answers or like-minded fellowship. If that is the case, we'd encourage you to use the board to seek out others who can discuss issues with you and perhaps connect you to people in your own area. Here we go again LAF ladies, let's see if I can get any kind of intelligent response today (this is the third email sent). Just a few thoughts: Firstly, I see that you ladies are not backwards in correcting any spelling mistakes that are in your various feedback paragraphs. Is this a cop out or what? Why don't you let people have the option of a spellcheck, surely you don't assume that all your followers (or critics) are rocket scientists? Also, I would like to leave you with this quote: "All happy people are grateful people and all unhappy people are ungrateful. If you want to be happy, be grateful for what you have. This does not mean you cannot search for more. It means that if you allow the search to dominate, then you will be unhappy". Marilyn Broomfield, Adelaide, South Australia. Translation: If you people are happy doing what you do, then why are you bagging the rest of us? Honestly, I couldn't care less about what you think is good and/or right, life is too short to rave on and on about whether you will stay at home/raise kids/be a homemaker, whatever. As long as you and your family are happy and content in life, what does it matter what you do and what you don't do. By the way, I have 2 children under 5, work part time (shock horror!!) have no outside family support and myself and my family are very happy. We are able to provide for our children EVERYTHING they need, even paying a Montessori tutor for our gifted 5 year old son. My children are happy and well adjusted, and, of course, they love their Mum! I could quite easily tomorrow choose to go on the pension (US welfare), but, as I have said in a previous email, what kind of example is that showing to my children? A reply would be nice, even courteous. Wendy D. Sydney, Australia Dear Wendy, Three times in the past I have written you a personal response. You have chosen to ignore these and continue to send angry letters in spite of proffered olive branches. Your response to LAF indicates to me that you are not reading carefully and thoughtfully. We have women writing for us who are currently in the workforce full-time. We have mothers writing who are working part-time and hope to be able to return home full-time in the future. We have single women from varying backgrounds who write for us. We have, in short, women from many different walks of life who write for LAF and offer a well-rounded perspective. We are not out to get single moms or out to hurt women. But we are also not here to offer a watered-down message on womanhood. The Bible is clear, and it commands older women to teach younger women to be keepers at home, obeying their own husbands, and loving their own children (Titus 2:3-5). St. Paul writes, "I command the young women to marry, bear children, and guide the house" (I Tim. 5:14 -- literally "rule the house" in the Greek). Every woman can choose whether she will submit to this or take another path. No one is passing legislation to force you to stay at home. Your decision is just that -- yours. We are simply here to point out the biblical fact that God has made women to bear children and has given them the responsibility to bring them up and guide the culture of the household. To men he has given the job of providing for the family and shepherding his children as they grow. LAF is not and never will be in favor of government welfare for single parents. In fact, we advocate the exact opposite: Christ's model of laying down our lives for others. When a woman is stuck in a difficult situation (abused, abandoned, widowed, etc.), the Bible commands the Church to support her if her family will not. This model is thoroughly scriptural and is the most loving thing Christians can do for women who have been left to fend for themselves. If you do not like this website, why do you continue to return to read articles here? No one is forcing you to adopt the Bible's teaching on womanhood. God calls you to it, but you are free to accept it or reject it. Why do you feel the need to repeatedly justify your decision if you believe we are just a bunch of harpies ranting and raving? Surely our opinions should count the least with you. You seem simply bent on disagreeing from the outset. As for why we do not spellcheck the letters we receive -- we state clearly on the Feedback page that writers need to carefully consider what they write and how they write it, since we will not alter letters in any way. People who desire to speak for themselves have the ability and time to check their own spelling. If they do not, we will not misrepresent their viewpoints by altering them in any way (including spelling or grammar). We also simply do not have the time. With over 100 messages arriving every week, it is impossible to publish every single comment we receive or to send a personal reply. We rely upon the Feedback service to help us determine what topics we should address and what FAQs we need to answer. For those desiring further conversation or counsel, we offer the offsite message forum (as I have mentioned before). Sincerely, Mrs. Jennie Chancey I noticed that you note the spelling errors in the e-mails in the category of Scorching Rhetoric. However, there are also spelling errors in some of the e-mails that you post under Gracious Encouragement, but these are ignored. To me it looks like you are trying to discredit your critiques by pointing out their mistakes and not pointing out the errors of your supporters. I think that consistency in your editing would add much to you Website :) Other than that - I think your site is wonderful and I visit you often. Thank you for the work you are doing - Judy Thanks for the note, Judy. If there are spelling errors in earlier comments that we missed, that was our error. But we've given up trying to note original errors in scorching notes with the standard use of [sic]. It is not worthwhile. Better to just let them speak for themselves. However, we will use the notation in cogent and gracious notes to show the author's original wording when necessary. Amazingly, those who actually take the time to think through their responses rarely misspell words. Even foreign correspondents seem to be far more careful with English than those whose acquaintance with it is lifelong! Thanks again for the kind note. Regards, Mrs. Chancey Do you actually realise how many of the sapient comments you have filed under 'scorching notes' should have been put into 'cogent commentary'? Many women do not agree with your viewpoints. It's important to show BOTH sides of an argument - and not to hide the things you don't like (like this note, for instance; I expect you don't like this note). I repeat that women have a choice to be workers or home-makers, and that the Bible isn't the only book in the world, though it may be the only book in your world. Why not read 'The Second Sex' by Simone de Beauvoir? I can strongly recommend it! Dear Cat, We do not categorize the incoming feedback. Each person who sends in a comment has the ability to select which category she feels best suits her message. With dozens of responses coming in each week, we do not have time to respond to all of the cogent commentary, but we do respond as we have time, and we publish the commentary that is most representative of what comes in. We also keep "themes" of feedback in special future article folders to help us steer the direction and content of the site to suit the questions and needs of our visitors. Kind regards, Mrs. Jennie Chancey I am writing with some questions about your unfeministic ideals. You state in your "What this site is not about" section of the site that you do not advocated domestic abuse, and you realize that single parent families do exist. I wonder why you don't offer more support to single parent families. I am also curious how you propose single mothers support their children, if they should not work? Additionally, if the only parent is working to provide for the children, does that make it ok for the child to go to public school instead of being home-schooled? Home-schooling brings up another topic, for I would like to know how you feel about Christians teaching their children about evolution? I feel this is a very important topic for children to learn, but I am cognizant that most fundamentalist Christians choose not to believe in this well tested theory. Do you not feel that children in these homes will be sorely lacking in their basic scientific knowledge if this subject is avoided by the only teachers these home-schooled youngsters have? Thank you for your consideration, Jocelyn J. Dear Jocelyn, Thanks very much for your note. We believe the support of Christian single-parent families should come first from the family, next from the local church. The Bible directly commands heads of households to support widows and orphans in the immediate family (this includes wives and children who have been abused and/or abandoned; not just those with dead husbands and fathers). If the family is not able (or refuses to) support the single mother, the church is commanded to step in. We have seen this work out personally within our own family and church circle. When my father died several years ago, my brother left his job in another state to return home to look after Mom's affairs and help her. This continued for two years until she remarried. In the case of another family member, all of the children of the lady in question have helped to support their mother and continue to look out for her so that she is not thrown on the mercy of having to "make it on her own." In another case, a sister church is completely supporting a young mother of four whose husband ran off with another woman and unlawfully divorced his wife, abandoning his children. This mother is able to stay at home with her children and teach them (as she had been doing) without having to worry about where the next meal is coming from. This should be common throughout the Church at large. Sadly, it is not, which is a testimony to the lukewarm/callous state of the Church in America. It is our prayer that more and more families will see their responsibilities and that churches will learn to step in when the family refuses to do so. This is living Christ's gospel instead of just talking it. On the matter of homeschooling, your question is easily answered. I was homeschooled, as was my husband, and we are now homeschooling our own children. Our eldest (age six) is utterly fascinated with dinosaurs, and we are pouring out all the information he wants to receive. We've taken him to a debate between a prominent evolutionist and a creation scientist. We have shown him the theory of evolution in textbooks (with pictures easy enough for a youngster to understand) and have contrasted this theory with Creation science. The fact of the matter is that both evolution and creation are belief systems--neither is observable science. No human being was present to witness the beginning of the universe, and the only way we can draw conclusions about it is to study carefully what we can observe today (the fossil record, genetics, probability, physics, astronomy, etc.) and gather from the wisdom of the past (and, in the case of creation, the Word of God). It is our belief that the evidence best supports the creation model. We do not cling to this belief out of a refusal to look into science or deal with difficulties in the creation model. Rather, we find our belief firmly grounded in observable, testable science. As homeschoolers, we believe our children need to see the various belief systems and weigh them in the light of absolute truth. Without a transcendent standard of truth, however, there is no way to come to any positive conclusions about anything that exists (see our FAQs for more information on this). Evolution vs. Creation is a huge topic and one we don't seek to address on our site. There are many excellent sites out there, and I'd also recommend a fantastic collection of essays on this topic, entitled In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, edited by John F. Ashton, PhD. The truth of the matter is that public schooled students--not homeschoolers--are the ones receiving lopsided training in science. With creationism/intelligent design banned from the classroom, students are not afforded an opportunity to contrast the two theories and compare the science behind them. This cannot lead to careful reasoning or logical analysis. Those who fear homeschooled parents will be "biased" in their approach to certain topics need to ask if there is a single place on earth where bias does not exist. ;-) We all approach topics from our own perspective (which we can work to broaden, of course); but, ultimately, no one can give an "unbiased" or "neutral" view of things--no matter what the topic. Government schooling has one agenda; parents may have others. Private schools may have still others. The key point is that parents have the fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children, so they are the ones best suited to choose the means by which their children will be educated and prepared for adulthood. The state has failed miserably in the past century; it is surely no wonder that many parents are jumping ship and seeking other alternatives. Thank you again for taking the time to write, and we hope you'll explore the site further. There's a lot to ponder! Kind regards, Mrs. Jennie Chancey Good Morning, I just had a couple of quick comments now that I've actually read a fair bit of your site. I will not argue the fact that millions of women (well, billions if you go worldwide) entering the workforce has had an economic impact on North America. My problem with your comments is that it narrowly defines the issue of scarcity for single-income families as stemming from feminism.In reality, the main reason for the rampant worldwide poverty we see today is simply corporate greed.In the last thirty years, mainly due to the dismantling of governmental controls and interests,corporate thieves have robbed the world of economic autonomy.There are companies today worth more than entire countries.The average citizen in North America no longer has the power through the electoral process to ensure that the people's well-being is the government's first and foremost interest. Your government and mine are at the mercy of corporate avarice which, if left unchecked, will eventually consume itself and drag everyone else with it.Almost all of the topmost CEO's are men. You can talk all you want about the generosity and responsibility of the individual but if people can no longer find work there will simply be no money to spend. If you removed all the women from the workforce today you would not create a sustainable economy. Men in financial power would simply find a way to take it all back from the next generation of workers. These people don't care what sex you are. They want it all and they will stop at nothing to take it. Do I believe women who want to raise their children themselves are denigrated by the extremes of the feminist movement? Sure,I do, although personally, when I chose to homeschool my son no one argued with me because I could present my reasons in an intelligent and well-researched manner. The only way to do that is to be educated. If it weren't for early 'feminists' women would not be allowed to attend university. My doctor is a woman. I eventually chose a female doctor because I realized she would understand my body better than a man ever could. (I have actually been injured by male doctors during particularly 'indelicate' examinations. This has never happened with my female doctor.) She has two beautiful sons and delivers babies for other women. If it weren't for feminism (midwifery aside, previously outlawed by male doctors) I would have no choice but to see a male physician. Many of the issues around the women's rights movement involved the inequal distribution of political power. One would have to be naive to separate economics from political power. Can the poor vote? Sure. Can the poor afford to lobby? Not a chance. How could women even be heard in your Congress when they were not allowed to vote? My biggest problem with this whole issue on your site is that it seems to be based on sexism. The living wage that you refer to was a private offering by Henry Ford that was sexist in nature, especially by today's standards.Why should a woman have been forced into substandard living conditions simply because she was an unmarried female? Not everyone has the benefit of being able to live indefinitely with compassionate loving parents. If the world were ideal, maybe, but it isn't. I very much understand the need for single-income families to be able to provide since I originally came from one. The living wage was not in existence very long and I don't think you can blame women needing to work for its demise. The Depression hit soon after and men and women were horribly mistreated by their employers. I think this debate lends itself to classism more than evil feminists trying to usurp a man's right to earn a living. Only Ford adopted the practice and only bec ause he felt hap py workers would make him more money. My last comment here is about that old red herring, communism. It is not communist factions pushing for the redistribution of wealth in the world. It is capitalists. And they are redistributing all of the wealth to themselves. They are removing it from your country and mine and taking much of it to desperate countries that they've put into debt through nefarious loan schemes and exploiting the workers who will take any wage they can get just to feed themselves. Your own recommendation is for people not to simply take handouts but to find some industrious way to earn their keep. Or does that only apply to America? You can't have it both ways. As usual, it is rarely the poor, who now make up more than 75% of the world's population, who can afford to adopt all the well-meaning suggestions and ideologies of others, whatever their religion or political bent.America, despite what you've been told, does not have some God-given right to wealth and, in fact, some of the poorest people in the world live right in your backyard. (Well, O.K., not IN your backyard but probably not far from where you live.) As long as there is greed on this planet and the idea of entitlement by any element then there will always be poverty.It cannot be any other way. To eliminate poverty every human being on this planet would have to experience the grace of unconditional love. You yourself would have to believe that every beggar you encounter could be Christ. Would you deny Christ? Then how can you claim entitlement? As for feminists, they did not cap my husband's wage. They have not forced him to work overtime everyday this year in order to earn as much as he did last year without the extra hours.Thirty years ago his father made exactly what my husband makes now. Thirty years ago his family could afford to live like kings compared to the way we live now. And believe me, nobody knows how to stretch a dollar like the poor. Feminists did not create our current economy. Capitalists did. And they do it everyday by using people like yourself to divide and conquer. Us and Them. You vs.Feminists. Feminists vs. Traditionalists. And while everyone argues over who is at fault they get wealthier and wealthier while most of the rest of the world gets poorer and poorer. In a perfect world everyone would do the right thing and peace and harmony would reign. But it's not a perfect world. Hatred and greed, the two great dividers, are in charge right now. Your strident call against hysterical feminists does not bring people together.I read their vitriolic words which you so pointedly refer to as 'Scorching Rhetoric.' One man's rhetoric is another man's Truth. I've never felt the need to defend and justify my feminine qualities to others. But then, I'm neither a radical feminist nor a fundamentalist Christian. Lucky me, huh? Carolyn Dear Carolyn, The issue of economics is very broad and far-reaching -- in fact, it is too broad for us to go into great detail on our site, although I'm currently working on a companion article to my one on materialism, which will talk about the biblical alternatives to rampant consumerism and fiat money. These are definitely issues which touch families everywhere. We do not believe that feminism is the root of all economic evil. As you'll see in the article referenced above, economic hardship comes from a variety of wrong activities (debt-based spending, consumerism, etc.). Feminism is just one of the factors which has contributed to turning our economy upon its head. And since our site is focused upon the issue of feminism, we try to deal specifically with policies/laws/etc. which feminism has directly influenced to the detriment of the family. There are other sites on economics that cover other areas and examine them in more detail. LAF does not advocate the sudden removal of all women from the workforce. Such extreme measures will not work in an economy as far gone as ours. Because Christians have disobeyed the Bible's clear economic guidelines for several generations, we are reaping the consequences, and we cannot just expect to be able to end those consequences overnight. It is going to take a few generations of faithful reformation in the area of economics to bring things back around. We might be short-term pessimists, but we are long-term optimists! We do believe that we can gradually move away from materialism and its devastating economic consequences if we practice biblical economic principles and train our children to do so as well. It's certainly not going to be an easy task (especially since the Church at large has forsaken its duties to the poor, the widow, the orphan, etc.), but it is something we feel is vitally important and commanded of Christians. I'll go into this in some detail in my second article on stewardship. All of your other points about capitalism, socialism, globalism, etc. are very ably and thoroughly answered in the book, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators, by David Chilton, which was written in answer to Christian socialist Ron Sider's book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. You may obtain a free download of Chilton's book. Chilton presents a thoroughly cogent critique of socialism while not neglecting to point out the rampant problems created by materialism, out-of-control consumer debt, and skyrocketing inflation. I cannot recommend the book highly enough, as it presents answers to all of your inquiries (something I lack the time to do thoroughly). While they may not trumpet it widely, there are Christians working to relieve poverty through biblical means all over the world. My own husband serves on the board of the Persecution Project Foundation, which is working in the Sudan and other parts of Africa to fly relief to devastated peoples, build schools, train teachers, provide doctors, and more -- all while teaching the people to produce for themselves in the midst of horrible, deadly persecution (which comes from Islamic fundamentalists and the socialistic governments they run). As far as capitalism trying to redistribute wealth and communism being a "red herring," I can tell you from personal experience that I've witnessed just the reverse. In 1988, I lived for a time with my family in South Africa. My late father was there to work on a book project, and we traveled extensively all over that country during U.S. sanctions. We stayed with both blacks and whites and interacted with people from all walks of life (even going into the villages in northern South Africa). We had total control over where we went and what we saw. What we saw shocked us all, because we had been conditioned by the U.S. media to expect a heavy-handed white government oppressing the blacks and creating poverty. Instead of apartheid, we found blacks and whites living and working together in all of the cities (the far-flung villages are mostly black--and their separation even from other blacks had more to do with tribal rivalries than anything else). The cities were the cleanest we had ever seen and some of the most prosperous--thanks to a well-founded economy that allowed entrepreneurs to flourish and created the opportunity for hundreds of thousands of blacks to succeed in ways undreamed of in other parts of Africa. People of all walks of life credited their Dutch colonial heritage for their prosperity (biblical economic principles based upon hard work, saving, and the Church helping the poor rather than relying upon government welfare). But over and over again shopkeepers, restaurant owners, hotel managers, pharmacists, doctors, etc. (both blacks and whites) told us that U.S. sanctions were hurting them far worse than anything their government had ever dreamed of doing. They feared the coming takeover of the communist party government under Mandela (who was still in prison at that time -- but the U.S. was working for his release). First-hand, we learned that by cutting off South Africa economically, we were actually hurting the very black s we said we wanted to help. This short overview cannot, of course, give all the details of what we saw and heard while there. I could give hundreds of examples of the skewed view the U.S. media gave of South Africa. The results were devastating enough. Five years after apartheid had supposedly been destroyed by the U.S., my parents and younger sister went back to South Africa. The country had changed so dramatically for the worse that it left them speechless. They met many of the same people they had met the first time we were there, and they spoke of the extreme economic difficulties they now experienced under the new government regime, which had raised taxes astronomically and was spending all of their hard-won prosperity out from under them. Capitalism wasn't redistributing wealth; the communistic government was doing it quite handily. Fortunately (?), it didn't take many years for the government to spend away all of the wealth that had been built up in the years prior to its takeover. Now South Africans are trying to figure out how to rebuild what they had, calling for a return to sound economic principles built upon the Christian heritage that had enabled them to build a strong economy in the first place. It's certainly not a popular viewpoint, but I can attest to its truth. I was there. I saw it with my own eyes. Persecution Project is in Sudan many times a year. They are working hand-in-hand with the natives to rebuild a devastated people and country. The work isn't easy. It isn't pleasant. It has meant death for several co-workers, in fact. But this is what we are called to do. In the U.S., it is going to mean Christians repenting of foolish economic practices (debt, fiat money, materialism) and a return to Christian economic principles that both encourage hard work and reach out hands to the needy. It is being done--but quietly. Politicians love to get on TV to tout their latest programs that will supposedly end poverty and create wealt h. But wealth doesn't come from thin air -- and taking it from one man's pocket by force doesn't foster true charity. So, one person at a time, one family at a time, one church at a time, we must labor, even though the work seems too great for our hands. Again, much more could be said, but I don't have the time to go into great detail. I defer to those who have far greater knowledge and experience in this area and have logically and coherently passed their thoughts along to us (besides Chilton, I recommend George Grant's Bringing in the Sheaves for a biblical model of "welfare" -- Grant is well qualified, since he teaches in the inner cities and donates his time to start free schools for impoverished students). Thank you for taking the time to write, and may we all continue to study this subject and work where we are to help those in need and pass down a vision of faithfulness and stewardship to the next generation! Kind regards, Mrs. Jennie Chancey I really love your site, and I feel that it upholds many long lost treasures our society once held so dear. I have one suggestion; I would like to see an article on "waiting" for motherhood. My husband and I have been trying for 2 years to have a baby, and we're still awaiting this blessing. In the meantime, I haven't found any articles on God's plan for those who must wait for this special joy. I've found online support groups, but they're very time consuming. If you have any articles on your website, or can direct me to an article or book, please contact me. The waiting process is long and arduous (especially whenthe majority of those around me are expecting). Thank you for your help, and for your wonderful site! ~ Amy P. Thank you for the heartfelt note! We do have several articles on infertility and waiting for children, as well as a couple on being a spiritual mother whether or not you have children. For starters, I'd recommend Nancy Wilson's article at this link. We also have some new articles in the works by women in your same situation. One is going to discuss adoption; the other the pain of waiting so long for children. We need more articles from women in your situation, because it is very hard to find ones that are encouraging even while they discuss the difficulty of infertility. If the Lord leads you to write something, I would love to see it! Blessings in Christ, Mrs. Jennie Chancey While I do understand your viewpoint on feminine dress, what I don't understand is the ugly fashion sense you espouse. If you would take a look at the incredible(and yes, feminine) fahions this season in Vogue,W,etc, you would see that a woman can dress like a lady and with taste at the same time. Honestly, if I had only the choice between pants and the Baker Lane type of wear it certainly would not be the latter. The clothing is truly ugly!!! And as for those shoes-forget it!! If you want to motivate women to dress differently,offer more than the artless choices I see on this site and others. I am sure I speak for many other women. Sincerely, KC Dear KC, I would recommend that you look further than just the article on being graceful in dresses. Miss Newton creates historical fashions for her customers and was modeling in a reproduction 1810s gown. Mrs. Sherman has many other articles on dressing femininely that include photographs of modern outfits from catalogs currently in print. For starters, check her article on Dressing in White. Don't leap to conclusions too hastily after reading a single article. As we note in our theme articles on modesty, feminine dress isn't about a single style or pattern. It is diverse and beautiful and can cover any number of style choices and color preferences. There is no "uniform" for feminine dress. Women who like the old-fashioned styles can wear them. Women who prefer more modern lines can choose those while keeping them modest and tasteful. Modesty isn't about dozens of rules for ugly femininity. Quite the opposite! I'd invite you to explore further before passing judgment on those whose taste differs from your own. Sincerely, Mrs. Jennie Chancey I am in school and have an assignment to write a paper on whether or not i think the bible should be changed to be polittically correct. whether it should say he or she instead of just him or he. or say children of god instead of sons of god and etc.. i really do not know what side i take. when searching for websites on the matter i found this one. i am somewhat confused to what this website is? i do not understand are your for or against feminism. i see that it is ladies against feminism does that mean you do not agree with standing up as a woman? i got sidetracked and looked at your article on clothing. it interested me. i do not always agree with britney or christina or janets choice of clothing. i think they look very trashy sometimes. but as a 19 year old young lady i do admit i dont stay covered up. if going out with family members or going to church i would ussually wear jeans and something that was not low cut maybe a tshirt or turtle neck sweater or something not revealing. but to school or out with friends i wear more fun clothing. i like my body and i like being a girl. i wear mini skirts, halter tops, high heels and tight clothes. do i expose body parts no...i leave some to the imagination but i want to look pretty and feel confident. i love fashion and trends. would i wear britney spears t shirt that said" i am a virgin" on the front and in the bak it says"but this is an old t shirt" hell no. thats just wrong. but i have a t shirt that says hottie on it. i think the way i dress reflects my confidence but i also only were it when its appropriate and i definately do not wear provocitive clothes to get attention from the other sex i wear them because i feel good about myself. i thought your website was very interesting. i am in no way condemning you...for everyone has a right to thier own opinion. infact i would like to know your feelings to a politically correct bible. cuz i really do not know what side i take. this paper has me stumped. i have mixed feelings i think some of what the bible says about women and thier place is wrong. but i really could care less if it says he or him or man all the time. i think in a way the bible should not be changed it was around for so long and was written eons ago. i think gods messege was referring to all its just that the style of writing was different them. i dont think people should be focusing on he or she or him, they, we, man, woman, who cares. but unfortunately i dont kno w how i am going to write a whole paper on that..well i just thought id tak the time to write this thank you ~ Jasmine Dear Jasmine, If you'll take some time to read through the Theme Articles section of LAF, you'll find that we do believe women should have a voice, we do believe that women and men are equal before God, we do believe that women should be treated with honor and respect. We are also against wife abuse, rape, unjust inheritance laws, and more. You do not have to be a feminist to believe any of these things. But it is important to note that the radical feminist movement is tied directly to Marxism and socialism. Many people who call themselves feminists are either unaware of this or seek to distance themselves from the radical tenets of feminism. We simply seek to point out these foundational problems and show that no one has to be a feminist in order to believe in the worth and dignity of women. In fact, God's Word shows us that male and female are together the image of God (neither one is "better" than the other). To get to your question about the new "politically correct" translations of Scripture, we are against any "translation" that seeks to change the Word to "fit" our times. We do have a few articles on the site about this, but rather than have you spend lots of time seeking them, let me recommend the following websites: http://www.keptthefaith.org/ http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/genderneutral.php http://thesumners.com/bible/faqs/faqs2.html www.str.org www.reformed.org I hope this helps you as you prepare your paper for your class! Sincerely, Mrs. Jennie Chancey Dear LAF Writers, It is with some interest, and I must admit, a great deal of disagreement that I have been looking at your site. I may not agree with your site, but I do want to compliment you on how well it is laid out and the firmness to which you stick to your beliefs. That is a value seeming rarer and rarer these days. The only thing I did want to mention that is not a compliment would be a personal quip concerning the rape/modesty ratio that you have laid out. I was four. My father was 30 something. The sexual assault was brutal from what my mother told me. Do you suppose my training diapers were riding too low on my hips, or perhaps that my mother should have clothed me better? What are your and the Christian thoughts on children, modesty, and sexual abuse? Sincerely, Teressa Dear Teressa, The abuse you suffered from as a child was in no way, shape, or form your fault. This is not the point of any of the modesty articles on LAF. Men who prey upon innocent women and children should be given the utmost penalties the law affords. No question about it. The Bible does not countenance men taking advantage of women at all. Mrs. Sherman's articles on modesty seek to address the responsibility women have to dress modestly--not to blame those who suffer from abuse. The problem today is that feminists are saying a woman should be allowed to dress any way she likes (including like a paid harlot) and not be held at all responsible for what her clothing and attitude solicit. This is why we now have rape cases in the court where men are sentenced for rape when they thought they were entering into a consensual relationship. No matter how inappropriately the woman acted, she is to be let off the hook and the man held accountable. This is not just. The Bible teaches that a woman who openly plays the harlot or consents to the fornication is responsible for what happens as a result (Deut. 22:23-27; Lev. 21:9). The man is responsible, too, but the woman must also answer for her own actions. Feminists want a double standard in this area, pure and simple. LAF seeks to uphold the biblical standard. Men who commit crimes against women and children like your father committed against you are criminals and wicked, no questions asked. Nothing in Scripture puts blame on the victim in this type of situation. Thank you for writing and for your patience in awaiting a response. In Christ, Mrs. Jennie Chancey Wow! I am a single woman supporting five children. I suppose I should just quit my job because I am taking away some poor man's job who needs to support the wife and kids! I came here looking for support and all I find is blame and guilt. You have nothing positive to say to women who are single, widowed, or divorced. Undoubtably, you would blame us for our state. How convenient. BTW, as a Bible college graduate, with a degree in both Theology and Biblical Languages, I can tell you that your approach to hermeneutics with its less-than-accurate Biblical conclusions can only be from the pit of hell itself. Satan must be so pleased with this website. Your website though isn't totally a waste. It can always be used as a bad example of how NOT to do theology. Sorry, but you DID ask! Maybe you should rename your website and call it "Ladies Against Women" (LAW) Dear JJ, The blame and guilt is not upon you; it is upon a godless society that forces single women to fend for themselves. It is the job of families and churches to support women so that they are able to care for and bring up their own children--not have to hand them over to anyone else. The very feminists who claim to support "all women" and desire "basic rights" for "everyone" are the feminists who lobbied hard for over 30 years to erase the protective laws from our system that made sure a single woman would not have to fend for herself. The almighty welfare state isn't a product of wisdom, charity, self-sacrifice, or love. It is continuing to create the very problems we at LAF grieve over. The Church has fallen asleep at the switch in the past generation, and we are reaping the bitter results. Single women stuck in the workplace away from their children are never to blame. Our godless society with its woman-hating (not woman-"freeing" or woman-honoring) laws is to blame. And we all need to repent for that and get back to taking care of those who need us. Our family is part of a network of churches that provides financial care for abandoned wives so that they do not have to give up their children and fend for themselves. We also provide working food pantries for the needy in our communities. This is the answer to the problem, one family at a time. It is our prayer that more and more churches will come to see this need and respond to it. It is not the government's job; it is our job. Keeping a roof over the head of a woman whose husband left her with four young children is serving Christ. Caring for the elderly in our homes instead of shoving them into state-run institutions is serving Christ. Protecting children from want is serving Christ. This is the message of LAF; not that single women supporting their families are "evil" or "wrong." The hard, cold fact of life in our egalitarian, postmodern, individualistic culture is that it's "every man for himself." Who cares what happens to the next guy, as long as I have my TV and my junk food? But this isn't Christianity, and it sure isn't civilization. Building culture means caring for others, reaching out, helping those who need us. We at LAF decry the fact that the results of radical feminism have forced women wholesale into the workforce -- when 80% of them (according to three recent polls) would rather be at home caring for their own children. This isn't "equality;" it is slavery. This isn't "choice;" it's forced labor. If you will take the time to read through our site more carefully, you will see that we have multiple articles addressing the care of widows, ailing family members, etc. You will not find a single one picking on divorced moms or women who are having to work to keep food on the table. The shame is on the men and politicians; not on the mommies. I'd also encourage you to peruse our FAQs, where we give ample scriptural proof that families and churches--not the state--are to provide for widows and orphans. The ladies of LAF give liberally to real charities in real towns that are really doing work to help poor families and those stricken by divorce or death. We also encourage women to do their utmost from home to "extend their hands to the poor." Our biblical hermeneutic is classical, reformed, and presuppositional. We accept all of Scripture in its context -- we cannot advocate the "pick and choose" approach of modern theology. To toss out one part of the Word puts the entire Bible (God's Word, Who is Christ) in question. If we have no foundations upon which to build, then our faith is "foolishness," as St. Paul said. For more on this, see our FAQs section on why we believe what we believe. Logic and rationality must be based in something transcendent that never changes; not in man's imperfect "reason." And, just in case you enjoy a laugh on us (we do -- we have a sense of humor!), run a Google search on "Ladies Against Women." It's there. The spoof is sillier than a horned toad, but it's a free country. If others want to misinterpret our intentions and beliefs, that's their prerogative. ;-) Regards, Mrs. Chancey Ok, This isn't exactly a 'scorching Rhetoric' but as it certainly isn't encourgement I thought this letter would be best suited here. I was bored and browsing the net when I came across this site - wasn't exactly surprised as I doubt there is nothing you can't find on the internet..... I have to admit to not agreeing to anything on this site - I have a PhD in computer science, am married (My Husband took my name) and have, from the begining told him that I am not having children as I want a career (which is is completely happy about) I also have to admit to being agnostic and not believeing in God... HOWEVER, people are different , if you ladies on your site wish to stay at home, raise children and do all the cooking then that is your choice, I don't understand why - but obviously people have different goals in life. Therefore although I don't agree with anything written , I wish you ladies the best of luck with whatever you do and hope that even if women/men don't agree with the views... we can all agree that it is not as bad as 'racism' and blatently ignorant sites that just incite us to hate each other? ~ Holly W-S Mrs. Chancey: I have been an ardent supporter of LAF for quite a while. I truly "believe" in LAF's cause and wish I could join the ranks of happily-married ladies. Unfortunately, I am not, and may never be, married again. This brings me to my point. Mrs. Chancey, being single again (not by choice), I must work to support myself. I am valued in the workplace for my skills and my intelligence/thinking. I also teach at a local junior college as an adjunct professor in my chosen field. I have no husband to lean on. Does this mean I am unfeminine? The message I continually "see" in the LAF is if you are not married, you are not as good as the rest of us. That I am a second-class person. I grew very angry about this and did not access the site for weeks. I still feel a hurt inside. I resent not having someone I can depend on other than myself. But I MUST take care of myself now, and maybe forever, who knows? I am still a feminine woman, I have the same desires as other women, and I have the same feelings as other women, perhaps a little more so in some ways (more sensitive to certain words/slights/etc.). I wonder what message LAF intends to give the single woman? I know what message I have "heard". I don't like it. Please give me some guidance on whether or not LAF will accept and encourage the single woman like you already do the married woman. Thank you. Kathy Dear Kathy, Thank you for the heartfelt note. We do, indeed, have a heart for single women, and we've posted several articles just for them (use the search box and check for "single" to find them). But the truth is, we need more single women to write for other single women! It is very difficult for married ladies and mothers to talk heart-to-heart with single women and address their needs. This is an area crying out for ministry! If you ever feel lead to write, we'd appreciate anything you can send! God's economy calls for both single and married women (and men!). You are by NO MEANS a "second class citizen" if you are unmarried. We know that our modern society has been slowly restructured to force women out into jobs in order to support themselves (which is a sign of shame upon families and churches, who are supposed to care for women who do not have families to support them). It is entirely possible to be in the workforce and maintain femininity and a gracious manner. It isn't easy, but it can be done. Helen Andelin speaks about this on the Fascinating Womanhood site and in her books. She encourages women who have to work to seek employment that builds on their feminine strengths rather than asking them to behave "like one of the men." That only degrades everyone involved. Now, that said, the majority of the articles on LAF are aimed at married women and mothers for the simple reason that all of our writers are married women and mothers! We've sought to attract more single women to write for us, but no one has stepped forward yet. I do have one young lady who wrote extensively prior to her marriage and will be submitting several articles on living single and preparing for beautiful womanhood. Not sure when those will come in, but we eagerly await them. We also tend to focus on moms with children at home for the simple reason that our society has a strong bias against mothers who stay at home with their children. The push is to put children into pre-school or daycare and "get back to work" -- as if the work a mother does at home means nothing and can be done by any stranger. However, there is just as much pressure on young unmarried women to forego marriage and get into a career as quickly as possible, so we do want to provide encouragement to young women who desire a different path. And for those, like you, who find yourself "stuck" in the workforce without an alternative, we want to offer support and encouragement to remain feminine, to behave in a seemly way around men, to cultivate intelligence and womanliness at the same time. Now, because Scripture so strongly encourages men and women to marry, most of our counsel to women in the workforce is going to be geared toward preparing for marriage and actively praying for their future. We believe that the unmarried lifestyle is rare--it is actually a gift to be celibate, as St. Paul says. Not many people have the gift to remain single forever and be totally and completely content. St. Paul says you have to essentially be born a "eunuch." Now, on the other hand, there are many women who desire to marry, but they see no prospects at hand. Where are all the godly men? The Lord had to "import" my husband from over 700 miles away -- and we met at the office after I'd graduated from college and was working full-time! So the Lord can work in mysterious ways. Another gal I know worked in a ministry until she was 44--then the Lord brought her husband. We just don't have a way of knowing the Lord's timetable. I thought I was an "old maid" at 24, and I was humbled by the contented, happy attitude of the 44-year-old lady who knew the Lord wouldn't give her a desire to marry unless He planned to fulfill it in His time! At any rate, we have NO intention of slighting single women at LAF or making them feel inferior. We just need more single women to write for us! It has been like pulling teeth to get anyone to write for us, and, thus far, no single women have come forward. We keep praying they will. We need their perspective! We need yours! I hope this helps, and please don't ever hesitate to share your thoughts with us. This is what helps LAF grow and change! Blessings in Christ, Jennie Hi! I am glad to hear from you. My question is pretty basic and recently I have been getting more and more guidance in this area but I will ask anyway. I am a twenty year old woman who is going on twenty one and I have recently ended a 1 and 1/2 year long relationship. I am now back in the official "single" category and I find myself floundering as to what I as a Christian woman should do in order to tend to my "spiritual garden". Is there anything to be done aside from daily quiet times with the Lord? I also do not want to be a woman on the hunt in that I want to be married and often I find myself "hunting" for the right guy and in my mind composing a list of qualities that I want in my husband according to what I see around me. But my heart, decietful as it may be knows that my satisfaction is meant to only be found in the Lord and in no body of flesh. I suppose my essential question is how do I continue sprinting on towards godliness when I keep getting caught up in the web of the world and in my natural desire to have a husband? To let you know I have read recently and am presently reading Elisabeth Elliot and this has helped considerably not to mention it has turned me on to the idea of courtship and of not dating at all and trusting whole-heartedly in the Lord and His will and provision for me. I hope you understand my questions and I will greatly appreciate any advice or books to read that you can offer. In HIM, Amanda K. Dear Amanda, I know the single years so often feel "in-between" -- I was there once! It is hard to know how we are supposed to behave in a culture that has only two options for singles: 1) relentlessly date until you "hit it off" with Mr. Right, or 2) get into a career and forget about marriage for a good while as you pursue "real life." Composing a list of qualities you would like in a husband is certainly not a "wrong" idea. The problem comes in when you focus on that list and start measuring every available man against it! I locked my list away for years after committing it to the Lord, and I think that, while it stayed in the deep recesses of my mind, it didn't "haunt" me constantly as it would have sitting out in the open (or in my Bible!). The chief purpose you want to fix in your mind and heart is the desire to live wholeheartedly for the Lord, committing this precious single time to Him without reservation. I know there are dark days when you just feel you'll never marry (at 23, I was sure I'd be an "old maid" for the rest of my life!)--but those days are truly a flash in the pan when all is said and done. I've even known women who remained single throughout their twenties without falling victim to a "why-me?" mentality. But it is all the grace of God. The Lord would not give you the desire to marry and be a wife if He was not going to prepare you for that and prepare the man you are to marry. Trust Him for that! He "gives you the desires of your heart" in more than one way -- first He puts the desire into your heart, then He brings it to fruition in His timing. The key is learning to rest in His timing by focusing on how you can serve the Body of Christ, your family, and your community now. The needs are many! Single women are the forgotten "secret weapon" of the church. They are often available to come alongside as helpers for young mothers with lots of kids, to visit with the elderly, to minister in a tangible way to the sick or poor, and to create a beautiful atmosphere of peace and joy within their own homes and among their own family members. Instead of shuffling "singles" into peer groups, we should be encouraging them to "salt themselves" throughout the congregation! How we need them! As just one example, I've had unmarried girls come to stay with me after the birth of a new baby or during times of illness when I needed another pair of hands. The blessing has been immense! I've not only had the help, but I've had the sweet fellowship of a godly young woman who enjoys being an edifying presence in the home! Seek out ways that you can cultivate a spirit of peace, beauty, radiant joy, and love in your own home and family. Extend that into the Body of Christ in your local congregation. You will soon find that you are most definitely needed -- and that there is no "blank pause" in the life of a single woman before marriage. This time is meant to be filled with care and concern for others. And doing this is "cultivating your spiritual garden," just as you said! Christ, the Perfect Husbandman (gardener) is working in you to bring you ever closer to His image and to nourish those beauties which will make your garden a precious and special place for the man you will one day marry. You asked about recommended books. I always have loved Elisabeth Eliott's Passion and Purity, but I also recommend Josh Harris's book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, which not only covers courtship but also discusses wholehearted singleness. Jennifer Lamp's book, His Chosen Bride, also gives a good perspective on Proverbs 31 for single women (learning to put all those incredible qualities to work as a single). Besides books on dating vs. courtship, I recommend diving into rich, challenging reading about the faith, church history, God's providence, and the Lord's desires for families (like Be Fruitful and Multiply, now available from Vision Forum). You want to equip yourself to bless the Body, your family, and your future husband by loving the Lord with your mind, too! There are many excellent resources out there (definitely look at www.visionforum.com) to help you prepare for life as a godly helpmate and daughter, sister, cousin, etc. :-) In fact, I'd love to send you a copy of Homemaking if you don't already have it. Just let me know your snail mail address, and I'll send it right out! Know that this special time in your life is in the Lord's hands, and He is preparing you perfectly for His purposes. He is a loving and gracious father, and we can trust Him to mold us! May the Lord bless and encourage you as you serve Him! In Christ, Mrs. Jennie Chancey I enjoyed visting your site and trying to understand the point of view of the authors. I just don't understand why you feel that you need to be so anti-public school and daycare. Both can be perfectly good for the working mother. Some women will never be happy being only a mother and wife. Many would like a career to be part of their lives. It is imporant to them. If the school/daycare is safe and is teaching the children, why allow them to go there? ~ Laura Dear Laura, Thank you for your note and for taking the time to visit LAF. We understand that many women have to work in today's anti-family society. This is a sad reflection on where we have gone as a culture (and on the Church, which is failing to support widows, orphans, and abandoned women). We also do not make the point that women should be forced to stay at home in any way. Each person must choose her path, but we believe the best path is the one God laid out from the beginning (man as provider; woman as helper; both as nurturers of the next generation). As we continue down the path of individualistic lifestyles and pursuits--where home is just a place for unconnected individuals to sleep and park their things--we will continue to lose cohesiveness as a culture and as a society. A short glance into history's pages and our current materialistic culture make this all too obvious a conclusion. We do believe that both daycare and government schooling are harmful to children. This is why we have so many articles posted about these two forms of institutional childcare. Brian Robertson has written an excellent expose' of daycare called Day Care Deception: What the Child Care Establishment Isn't Telling Us. He is not the first to demonstrate that daycare is harmful to children, however. There are hundreds of resources out there. It is our belief that we need to return to a model of families caring for their own children, and, when there are hardships, extended family members and churches need to step up to the plate instead of shirking their duty. When a family needs help with childcare, we should be there for them--not the government with its one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter approach. We need to open our eyes, read our history, and examine where we are going and how we got here. As human beings, we are called to love and support one another, building strong families with meaningful relationships -- not just "making do" and shuffling from one activity to the next. Our vision at LAF is multi-generational--meant to encourage families to think long-term and out of the box of our consumerist culture. There is such richness and beauty in lives lived for others and in community with others! It is our hope that more and more people will come to realize this as our society drains itself of meaning and people grow more and more dissatisfied with what the world offers as "riches." The only long-lasting treasures are the ones we build into our relationships with others (parents, children, grandparents, extended family, church members, friends, etc.). Thank you again for writing, and have a wonderful day. Kind regards, Mrs. Jennie Chancey This website made me want to cry it is so sad to see women against something as beautiful and wonderful as feminism. When you say ladies against feminism you are saying ladies against stopping rape, you are saying ladies against ending anorexia in young girls, you are saying ladies against african american women receiving proper medical care because these are all products of patriarchy the very thing feminism is against. I know these may seem like obscure suggestions to some of you but if you analyse the world logically and critically you will see that feminism is a very valid system of reason. Feminism is the most beautiful form of womanhood. Truly I found this website to be very disturbing and sad. Dear Kelly, No one has to be a feminist to stand against rape, female genital mutilation, abuse, anorexia, or any other legitimate ills which plague women and society. Please take the time to read "What Is Feminism?" and "You Don't Know Feminism" under our Theme Articles section. You will see that we do not need a movement based in Marxism and socialism that has harmed women in the name of equality in order to stand against things that truly do hurt women and have no basis in biblical "patriarchy." Thank you for your time. Regards, Mrs. Jennie Chancey Hello, I am a lady who works but would love to be able to come home again. The one thing I'm concerned about is medical insurance. I would be interested to know how your family has handled that, since these days it becomes increasingly difficult to obtain quality health/dental insurance at a reasonable price without a lot of exclusions. I find your site very helpful, and my hope is to be able to come home within a year. Lord bless you, Michelle Dear Michelle, This question has come up more and more lately as parents with older daughters try to figure out how to support them at home when their insurance "expires" at age 18 (or 22 in some states). In discussing this problem with another family, we found out that most insurance providers have an exception clause for stay-at-home daughters whose families have a religious belief that opposes women having careers apart from their families (this is called the "Mennonite clause" in some states, including ours). If you belong to a church that is willing to take a stand on this issue, you can still be covered under your parents' insurance plan as long as you live at home and your parents submit a letter from a church elder explaining your family's beliefs. I'm not sure this works in every state, but it is certainly worth a try. If you do not have the support of parents or a church, it is, of course, harder to answer this question! Unfortunately, too many families and churches these days do not believe they have any obligation to support young women (or even widows!). The thinking is that single gals don't really have a role in the Church or the family, so they should just get out and "be useful." I cannot tell you how this grieves my heart. One of the best secret weapons of the Church is Her single ladies! I can testify personally to this, since I have benefited from the spiritual mothering and encouragement of older single ladies who work to support young moms and families. I have enjoyed the help of godly single daughters who want to bless other families by helping with the children, making meals, and helping keep house on a weekly or monthly basis. Having these single ladies an active part of my life has blessed me tremendously, since I've had the privilege of learning from those older than me and teaching and encouraging those younger than me. Mothering isn't just for married ladies with children! Families or churches (in the absence of a godly family) are to support unmarried women until/if they marry (and Paul does exhort young women to marry and "guide the house"). This doesn't mean an unmarried woman cannot earn anything or do any work outside of her family! As a single girl, I ran a home business with my mother, making soft sculpture dolls and costumes. I also did craft shows and fairs with mom and enjoyed selling handiwork. My sister did graphics design for a couple of our father's books while a teenager and still does that at home as a help to her husband, who is in web design. I know single gals who run catering businesses, do wedding consulting, create calligraphy art, paint, design websites, write music, sing, teach music lessons, serve as midwife's assistants (and even as midwives themselves), care for the elderly, run errands for shut-ins, and more! The home is a starting point for so much that can benefit the family and generate an income as well. When my husband was self-employed, we purchased our health insurance through Christian Medi-Share, which covers major medical. For all else (dental, vision, etc.), we saved up and budgeted carefully. It can be done! Coming home can be a scary thought when you look around at the way our consumerist culture is organized (double income perks; tax penalties for families who don't use day care; etc.). But it is possible to do it. I'd recommend getting hold of the books Miserly Moms and Frugal Families, both of which give concrete advice on a number of issues related to coming home. Also see if you can find copies of the excellent Tightwad Gazette books (compilations of the newsletters by the same name). All of these resources are probably available through your local library, and all of them have advice about insurance and budgeting for a single income. May God bless you as you seek to make your way home! In Christ, Mrs. Jennie Chancey Dear Mrs.Chancey, I have recently read your two articles (Letters from Jennie...and On not Going Away to College Part Two) and I would like to ask your opinion on attending a local community college. I understand your position on "going away" to college and I am in full agreement with you. I am homeschooled and a junior in high school. I still have some high school credits to finish, and I want to know your position on acquiring the necessary credits at a local community college. I am sure that you have been asked this question before, and you may have written an article on it that I am not aware of. If you have one,I would love to read it. My desire is to be a Godly wife, mother, and homemaker. Therefore, I am not interested in getting a "college education". Your wisdom on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Many Thanks, Dana C. Hello, Dana! Thanks for the lovely note, written in such a gracious tone. :-) I see no problems with young women obtaining a higher education locally while still living at home. The big trap in going away to college (like I did--over 300 miles from home) is that it teaches you total independence from your parents and trains you for life on your own as chief breadwinner. I have zero objection to young women furthering their education, but the problem is the modern mindset that the only "real" education is one obtained far from home in a "big" university. There are many new books out debunking the "university myth" (even for men!), demonstrating that a real education is lifelong and broad -- not narrowly confined to a 16- or 20-year timespan. I earned a full scholarship to college and graduated summa cum laude with honors. Does that make me a successful person? Far from it. I also graduated a full-fledged feminist who had decided never to marry or have a family. I looked down upon my (college-educated!) parents and felt I was superior to them in wisdom and knowledge. What folly! I thank God He broke me out of that lying worldview over the two years following my graduation. He is gracious! Learn all you can and prepare yourself to be a wise and knowledgeable wife and mother--but don't fall for the line that a college degree indicates that you've somehow "arrived" in the "real world." Far from it! If you read, read well, and read widely (asking questions and talking to others as you do so), you can learn anything you set your mind to! I've learned more in the past eight years of marriage to my husband than I could have learned in 12 years of college. He doesn't even have a college degree, but his father urged him to read, read, read and think, think, think through his homeschooling years, and he is far wiser than I am! "In [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:3). He must be our starting point for any branch of study, and anything that doesn't give God the glory is folly and worse than useless. May the Lord bless you richly as you seek to continue your lifelong education for His glory! In Christ, Mrs. Jennie Chancey I became aware of Mrs. Chancey and her views through articles in various magazines I had read. I was concerned however with the way she signed her name. Until recently women who signed their their own names preceded by the title "Mrs." were generally understood to be widows. I am sure Mrs. Chancey wanted to honor her relationship with her husband, but it did cause some question in my mind as to whether she was identifying more with current or traditional views concerning social titles. In continuing to see and read her articles I am sure it is the latter, but it was still a concern to me. In traditional correspondence a married woman may sign her own name or use her husband's name preceded by "Mrs.", or the first followed by the latter in parentheses. In our current day when women want recognition of their own individuality we have seen the increased use of "Ms." and "Mrs." followed by a married woman's own name. Initially, both of these were frowned upon by proper society. As I look at your beautiful and thoughtful website, I see that you want to honor others and be gracious in all that you do and encourage others to do the same. In regard to traditon and the way things have been done in the past it appears that you don't want to follow tradition blindly, but neither do you want to let the the grace and courtesy of bygone years slip by. I thought I should let you know of the confusion I experienced when I was first aware of your writings. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of those of us who want to use our femininity to further the cause of Christ. ~ Mrs. Marcus M. Dear Mrs. M., Thank you so much for this graciously worded letter. :-) There is a reason I sign my writings "Mrs. Jennie Chancey" instead of "Mrs. Matthew Chancey" -- my husband asks me to do so. :-) Because he is a published writer and has a professional role in public relations, his articles often appear online and in archives for various newspapers. In today's world of cyber-publication, if someone ran a google search for "Matthew Chancey," my articles would be pulled up with his if I published under his name. So he requested that I publish under my own name to prevent confusion. Simple as that. I love the time-honored tradition of using one's husband's name and have that on all of my personal stationery and use it to sign checks and formal correspondence. But in the online world, I use my name per his request. I think we're going to see some interesting changes to etiquette as a result of online correspondence and publication. While I have a twinge of regret that it must be so (because I am so old-fashioned myself!), I can understand the need to adapt to the high-tech world we now live in. But thank you for sharing your concerns. I will be sure to post this to the LAF FAQs, since others may have the same question! Blessings in Christ, Mrs. Matthew Chancey (Jennie) Please forgive me for not scouring the articles to grasp your customes, in time I will. If you would bare with me a moment: Is a wife who works outside of the home a categorical sin? Or might we say that a wife who works outside of the home, may be in sin depending upon the circumstances? Thank you for considering this question and working so hard to promote love in our homes and country. Be strong in grace, Cal J. Dear Mr. J., Thank you for your note. If you'll continue reading on LAF (and check our FAQs section), you'll see that it isn't "work" that is the problem, but for whom the woman is working. A woman who works outside the home for someone other than her family (father or husband) must serve two masters. This is very stressful and makes it difficult to focus on the duties God has given particularly to women (the keeping of the home, training children, providing hospitality to saints and strangers, reaching out to the poor in her community, running her own home-based business to augment the family income, etc.). A lot of the problems we face today did not exist before the industrial revolution, because families ran their own businesses and did not have to send their members out to work in factories and cities. Today we are seeing a return to that household-based economy as home business and "tele-commuting" opportunities boom (the Internet has helped that tremendously). Materialism also sidetracks Americans into the "two-income" trap, as we are constantly bombarded with images and ads that tell us what we "need" (based upon what companies want to sell us today--and that could change tomorrow). Our desire is to see more families check out of the "buy now, save later" mentality and focus upon what is more important: strong, healthy families and long-term goals. All women work. It isn't a matter of working or not working. Rather, it is question of what we are working for and why. As many people are waking up to realize, it is not worth handing a generation of children over to parent substitutes (like day care, extended school hours, psychotropic drugs, etc.) in order to pursue the double-income "American Dream." We believe that God created a beautiful division of labor at the beginning of time, giving Adam a partner in Eve--not a competitor. Together, men and women are mankind, and when they put their strengths together, they can accomplish much more. God has given women greater abilities in nurturing, hospitality, empathy, and other areas, and we should seek to use those gifts instead of subordinating them to a paycheck. Similarly, God has given men stronger bodies and greater drive to enable them to provide for and protect their families. Put together, you have a winning combination for successfully bringing up the following generations. Thanks again for writing, and I hope you'll continue to read! Sincerely, Mrs. Chancey Dear LAF, I was indeed happy to find a sight that is against feminism. I am a stay at home mother, 21 years old with one daughter. My husband and I were married in August of 2001 and reside in Front Royal Virginia. I attended a catholic college, Christendom college, which is entirely faithful to the magesterial teachings of the Church, both in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, handed down thru the apostles. While at Christendom I took a class on Pope John Paul II's theology of the body. This is a compilation of a series of Wednesday audiences that he gave in his papacy meditating on the first few chapter's in Genesis as well as the beatitude "blessed are the pure of heart," Paul's meditations on the glorified body and numerous other biblical passages dealing with the human body, the marital act, men and women and redemption. The pope in his sermons has theorized that all the problems of immodesty, fornication, contraception, abortion, and divorce, can be traced to the problem of the human person not being accepted as a gift to the loved but as an object to be used. I find that this has special bearing on your site's focus on modesty of dress. For, as women, modesty is not about putting a ruler to our clothing every time we get dressed, but about wether when we look in the mirror what we see is a whole person, who reflects the glory of God, the creator and who deserves to be loved and cherished. . . or an object to be used only for pleasure and then flung aside. As a christian women, I strive to dress modestly and inspire purity in others by my dress. I apprecitate your sight and would encourage you to read the Pope's theology of the body as it offers more of a "why" rather than a "how" for modest dress. Thanks again for a wonderful sight and you are in my prayers. Your sister in Christ, Anna M. H Dear Mrs. H., What a beautiful, thoughtful note! Thank you so much for taking the time to write. Your comments are so completely on target and reflect exactly what we are trying to get across in the Modesty section. Our postmodern (and post-Christian) culture is so intent upon "de-constructing" truth, art, beauty, and all things sacred that they are tearing the human body limb from limb--both literally (abortion) and figuratively (in clothing and movies). We are called to reflect Christ's Body -- glorious, spotless, beautiful, and whole. As the Holy Spirit continues His indwelling work in our heart, others can see that beauty shine through, and it will naturally affect what we desire to wear, say, and do. Your points are very timely and very helpful. I am a Protestant and do believe that Scripture gives us beautiful guidelines from beginning to end for our health, wholeness, and happiness, but I can still appreciate Pope John Paul II's reflections on the created order and the beatitudes. Lovely! May we all continue to be transformed "from glory to glory," as St. Paul wrote. With Christ as our focus, all other things fall away into insignificance. Blessings in Christ, Mrs. Jennie Chancey This is an interesting sight, but it sadly discounts why feminism occurs in the first place. I have difficulty with the concept that women have to depend on men and use their appeal to get success. Why can't women have the same opportunities as men to compete and be what they can? Why are we restricted by gender? Back in the "good ol' days" women were treated badly and misused. Why go back to it? Those Victorian dresses are awful and very uncomfortable... not to mention the chastity belts. This is a forum that can be a dangerous alternative to progress and allows women to be taken advantage of again. ~ Pat Dear Pat, Thank you for your comments. If you'll read the article "Is This a Victorian Site?" you'll see that we do not advocate returning to the "good old days" at all. We advocate returning to the "good old paths" of Scripture, which guard a woman from bodily harm, harshly condemn rapists, protect a woman's rights of inheritance, and give us an "ideal woman" of strength, dignity, honor, intelligence, ability, and more. We also do not advocate a return to Victorian fashions (including "chastity belts" or anything of the like). We use the inspiring paintings and portraits of women of the past in order to show how women have enjoyed their femininity and expressed it in beautiful ways (unlike our modern-day androgynous or hyper-sexual fashions). You will also never find anything remotely advocating sensual dress on our site. It is utterly ironic, however, that this is exactly what many feminists encourage women to do--climb the ladder of success by flaunting their sexuality. Helen Gurley Brown's book, Sex and the Single Girl, has just been reprinted with a "feminist classic" label. Feminists hail Ms. Brown for her "ground breaking" book, which encouraged women to use their sex appeal to earn job promotions. That's "using their appeal to get success," as you say, but it isn't what LAF advocates; it's what "classic" feminists advocate! Sadly, this attitude cheapens the sexuality of all women. No one can take an honest look at history and say that women are treated better today than they were even 50 years ago. Harsh penalties for rape are gone from our law books. Pornography is no longer considered a crime. "Date rape" is a term that had to be coined in the 1980s; not in the 1880s. A cad was called a cad prior to 1950, and prior to 1850, he could be shot for such horrendous behavior. Today he is called a "wolf" or a "hottie" and excused with the line "boys will be boys." Wife abuse is up exponentially; unwed motherhood has risen sharply; child abandonment is more and more common. This does not make the world a happy place for women--or men! What LAF advocates is protection and honor for women--as women. We are different, and we glory in our differences. They are not anything to be ashamed about or hidden. They are to be celebrated and enjoyed--not exploited or harmed. Women who are protected by strong, chivalrous men are safe from those who would take advantage of them. Those of us who began LAF are married to just such men, and it is a glorious thing; not a restrictive or abusive lifestyle. When men are called to be protectors of womanhood, and when women cherish their own differences and do not cheapen them, the world is a beautiful place. We have the witness of our parents and grandparents to prove it. Not that their world was sinless or perfect by any means, but they had the privilege of living during chivalry's last stand, and they confirm that it made life beautiful. Sincerely, Mrs. Jennie Chancey My friend and I are both born-again Christians. We have looked at the pictures of the women in their modest dress. We are wondering as to the purpose of showing such pictures. It's as if to say, "Look at us! Aren't we modest and Godly?" This seems to us as a pride problem rather than a matter of the heart between a Christian woman and the Lord. Such matters of conviction should be personal and not something to advertise like a model of virtuosity. There are plenty of fine Christian women who dress modestly (but not in homespun dresses) who would never think of putting their picture on a website as if to advertise themselves and their spirituality. ~ Marla Dear Marla, The reason for the "Through the Week" feature is to demonstrate that women can live practically in feminine attire. This feature came about by "popular demand" when visitors to our site wanted to see how it was possible for women to function around the house, garden, town, etc. without resorting to jeans, sweats, or overalls. In particular, many feminists who visited our site claimed that clothing has been a "prison" for women for centuries and a way of holding them back and forcing them into "docility." The Through the Week feature is up simply to demonstrate that feminine clothing does not equal restriction or imprisonment in the slightest! :-) The ladies who supplied photo journals for the section did not do so out of a desire to show off or portray themselves as better or "holier" than anyone else. Rather, they desire to share with their sisters in Christ that it is not only possible to live in feminine attire throughout their day-to-day tasks, but that it is beautiful, uplifting, and even fun! We've received dozens of letters of thanks for this section from women who thought feminine dress was a nice ideal but not at all practical. Now they are excited to begin putting it into practice, implementing their own personal tastes and styles and enjoying their femininity in a new way. Kind regards, Mrs. Jennie Chancey Good Morning, I do not truly have a comment but, more of a question. I am a 21 year old, Christ serving, newly married, wife. My husband is a full time student and until september, worked for the Forest Service. I am employed almost full time and will continue my full time employment, until such time as he is able to continue his work with the forest service.Inspite of my being employed, I am able to provide him with a home cooked meal every evening and always make sure my time is his. He has expressed his appreciation for my sacrifice of working so he can attend school. After reading your articles on women staying at home etc. I am curious what you might have to say about a situation like ours. Any thing you have to say would be interesting to me. Thank you. Also thank you for your God glorifying site, I am encouraged every time I visit Melissa W. Dear Melissa, Thank you for the kind note, and thank you for your patience! It often takes a while for Mrs. Sherman or for me to answer notes, and we appreciate the longsuffering on the part of the writers. :-) Your situation is not an uncommon one. My mother worked while my father completed college (she graduated two years ahead of him). She scheduled her hours so that she would be able to put a meal on the table for him and help him with his studies in the evenings. She did this until my dad graduated and got into his job, at which time she quit. The doctors had told her she'd never have children, but four years into their marriage, I surprised my parents! ;-) But I believe the Lord used that time without children so that my mother could help my father finish out his schooling and get established. In retrospect, my mother says it would have been wiser to wait to marry until Dad was totally out of school, but she feels the Lord used that time for good (just as He promises in Romans 8:28). Another friend of our family helped her husband through law school during the first three years of their marriage. She did this even while pregnant with their firstborn, working from home to supplement their income until her husband passed the bar. She says it was a tough row to hoe, but that she is extremely glad she could bless her husband while he was completing his studies. While we don't believe it is ideal to have to work while your spouse is in school, it certainly is not wicked or foolish! In fact, the Lord can often use this time to demonstrate to wives just how important their supportive/at-home role is to their husbands. Most of the women we have heard from in your same situation have stated that they do all they can to make sure there is a home-cooked meal at night so that hubby can sit down to a civilized, unhurried supper and unwind after the day's studies (and so that they can enjoy a more relaxed evening as well!). This often involves great sacrifice on the part of the wife, who is working during the day and therefore doesn't have the luxury of time that a full-time, stay-at-home wife might have. This can make it all the more difficult, or you can choose to view it as a healthy challenge and come to enjoy creating this special "bubble" of time in the evenings for you and your husband. It sounds like this is exactly what you are doing, and I commend you for it. These early "marriage-building" years are so important, because they set the tone for the years to come. We might not be in an ideal situation from the start (wife able to stay at home full time, etc.), but we can make the most of the time we do have and work to bring beauty into our marriages in spite of the time crunch. God bless you as you continue to work to bless your husband and build your marriage. Every bit of effort is worth it, because a godly marriage is a beautiful, wholesome thing. I've been married nearly eight years now, and I can tell you that every year is better than the last, because you are spending your time getting to know and help your closest friend. I watched my parents loving marriage for 30 years before my father died, and I know it only improves with time when both partners are committed to loving and serving one another! Blessings in Christ, Mrs. Jennie Chancey I have very much enjoyed reading the articles on your site. However, have your writers ever thought of exploring your themes, ladylike behavior and dressing, homeschooling, care of home and family, and so-on, from a non-biblical perspective? Not that exploring it from a Biblical perspective is wrong, but there are those of us who feel the way you do and yet are not Christian. It might be an interesting perspective. Thank you. Mrs. Annie C. Dear Mrs. C., Thank you for sharing your comments and the interesting article link. Pretty soon, children will just have to bring themselves up, at the rate we're going! I find it immensely amusing that about 90% of the so-called experts are researchers who have no children of their own. Anyone who has ever shouted, "STOP!" to a two-year-old about to step into a busy street knows this is not child abuse but a mother's protective instinct! Same thing with a hot stove or any other potential hazard. While we certainly agree that yelling shouldn't be the norm for child discipline (children need to learn to respond to a normal tone of voice), there are absolutely going to be situations where raising your voice is imperative! I'd like to see some of these psychologists spend an entire week in a house with three young children, electrical outlets, appliances, sharp objects (all the normal stuff you have around a house) and never once raise their voices. I bet they'd change their tune or just give up.... ;-) As for writing articles from a non-Christian perspective for the site, it would be pretty much like trying to stop breathing. LOL! Our Christianity is so much a part of what we are and what we do that we cannot step outside of it. In fact, as you'll see in the FAQs (under "Foundations"), we feel that without a firm foundation upon which to build these principles, they can just come and go at whim (which is what is happening in our culture now). However, we do have a few non-Christians who have written for us, and we have many links to articles outside the site that are from non-Christian sources. We try to provide a variety of viewpoints so that what we have available for others to read is well-rounded. Still, Mrs. Sherman and I are definitely both coming from a Christian background, so our articles will naturally deal with things from a biblical perspective. :-) We appreciate you taking the time to write, and we hope you'll continue to enjoy LAF! All the best, Mrs. Jennie Chancey Regarding the feminism article-- There are some great quotes by the early feminists on abortion at: http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm Consider Elizabeth Cady Stanton (pictured in the article): "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library Thanks, Heather L. Thank you for sharing the URL for the quotes, Heather! FFL is doing great work, particularly in Hollywood, where abortion is practically a synonym for "woman's first right." Sadly, the early feminists were mistaken in thinking that getting women the vote would put an end to abortion. We have the radical feminists of the 1920s and 1960s to thank for the easy passage of Roe v. Wade and subsequent pro-abortion laws. The early proponents of the women's movement would be horrified to see what happened when their high ideals were derailed as feminism married itself to radicalism and socialism (which it started to do in the 1850s with some of the more strident feminists of the time). Human life is precious and isn't a "woman's" issue -- it's a "human" issue. Only when we understand that all rights come from a transcendent (unchanging) God will we come to understand that such a fundamental right as the right to life cannot be tossed aside at the whims of a few judges. Our current fad with "evolving" law can only lead to chaos and more death for innocents. Men and women together must take a stand for the right God has given to every human soul: the right to be born alive. Thanks again, and have a great day! Kind regards, Mrs. Chancey i came accross your site after searching the net for things to help my research for a presentation i am giving on feminism and many people's misconceptions about the concept. Your site was perfect as it is clearly misinformed. Your tirade against feminists and love of all things tradtional and religious is so unbelievably old-fashioned. Feminism is in fact a fight for the equality of all individuals, not just women. feminists are not man haters or lesbians. They believe that this obsession we have with 'men should do that' and 'women should do this' is all down to the constructs of society. It is about human rights, not oppressed females. its says it isnt natural that boys should wear blue and girls pink, but also it doesnt deny that women are different to men, or that some women want to be home makers and have babies with their husbands. you do not have to be female to be a feminist. It is about freedom for all individuals, regardless of sex, gender or sexuality. i just wanted to make that clear. Please read "You Don't Know Feminism" and our other theme articles, which will demonstrate that we do not stereotype feminists as man haters or lesbians. Your note seems to indicate that you gave our site little more than a cursory glance instead of taking the time to read our views, leading you to stereotype us as simply "traditional" or "old-fashioned." You claim LAF illustrates misconceptions about feminism. Your letter indicates that you also possess misconceptions about those who do not support feminism or feel that it represents women fairly. Taking the time to read articles on our site will demonstrate that intelligent, well-read, educated women can disagree with the tenets of feminism without resorting to stereotyping or misrepresentation. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Mrs. Chancey for LAF Dear Jennie, Thank you for your reply. You are right, i have not read all of your site, but what i did read indicated the points i mentioned in my feedback. The name of your website alone says it all: Promoting beautiful womanhood. You imply that feminists cannot be beautiful or feminine, which i find pretty well offensive. My loving boyfriend would argue that i am beautiful and feminine, and i am a feminist. You could even call my boyfrind a feminist, as he believe in the rights and equality if all individuals. One artical i read was about campus feminists 'lying in wait' for students to warn them of 'femininity, art, literature and science', and that feminism is a cult. How can that be anything other than prejudiced and misinformed. Yes, there are women who crusade for the rights of oppressed females in a male-dominated world, but they too are misinformed- this is not the true concept of feminism. I thought it was (and did not consider myself a feminist) until i studied it as part of my degree at university, and now i understand the true meaning. i do not consider the members of your site unintelligent or uneducated, i just believe that anyone against (true) feminism deny the need for all individuals to be seen as equal by society. yours sincerly, Jo. Dear Jo, Thanks for the response. I just wanted to send a brief note to encourage you to see that when LAF promotes "beautiful womanhood," we do not therefore state that anyone who disagrees with us cannot be beautiful or feminine! That would require some mind-bending logical leaps. ;-) In fact, we have non-Christian women and women of all backgrounds who have written for us about femininity and modesty. They might not agree with our religious convictions, but they do agree that femininity is wonderful and something all women can embrace and enjoy. There are beautiful, unique women from all walks of life all over this world. There are feminists who are just ravishingly beautiful and feminine. When we talk about "beautiful womanhood," we are specifically inviting others (of any background) to consider whether or not there is a transcendent standard of femininity (one that doesn't change with time or shift with the cultural sands). Why is the concept of femininity rooted in such diverse cultures? Even when it is suppressed or oppressed (as in Islamic countries where the burkha is de rigeur), women find ways of expressing their femininity "beneath the veil," so to speak. Why is this? If men and women are totally and completely equal and have no significant differences, why do the vast majority of women choose to enjoy their unique femininity and express it in ways that cross cultural barriers and transcend fads and fashions? Our belief is that, because God created humanity male and female, our distinctive roles have eternal significance and a beauty that will not change with time. As for treating all individuals equally in society, it simply will not work, no matter how much we might wish it could. I am definitely not equal to an Einstein in mental capacity. But Einstein could never have held a candle to me when it comes to designing clothing patterns from scratch (I run a home business selling my designs). Does this make me inferior to Einstein? Not as a human being, but definitely in my mathematical capabilities! Does this make Einstein inferior to me? Again -- not as a human being, but certainly when it comes to pattern design. ;-) I would never expect to be treated equally with Einstein at a Physics convention; I would not feel insulted if no one valued my opinions on the theory of relativity. This does not lessen my value as a person or degrade me in any way, however. Egalitarianism is simply not workable. If we're going to raze the standards and declare that everyone is "equal," we're going to have to lose what makes our diverse society so fascinating and enjoyable. This doesn't automatically mean that LAF advocates treating women as lesser human beings or as "inferior" creatures in any way. It isn't about "better" or "worse" -- it is about being free to be different and to be valued for our differences. Together, male and female constitute what we call humanity. To erase our distinctives does harm to humanity as a whole. We need to complement one another--not struggle over who is most important. The truth is that the human race cannot survive without gender distinctions. And that should be cause for celebration and delight rather than for taking offense and insisting we're all the same. Finally, let me get back to the question of feminists teaching in the universities. I've read more women's studies seminars than I care to recount, and I can attest to the fact that there are almost as many definitions of what constitutes "true" feminism as there are feminist professors! If you try to get your mind around all the various definitions and credos, you come away with a tremendous headache. Feminists of different stripes just don't agree with one another. Equity feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers are brushed aside as "right-wing nuts" by the very professors who claim that all women have a right to express their opinions unhindered! I'd recommend reading Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women by Hoff Sommers. She provides excellent insights into the world of the feminist academy and demonstrates that the gender feminists are actually setting thorough, well-rounded education back several centuries with their fact-suppressing tactics and their unwillingness to confront controversy in a cogent, honest manner. I don't agree with all of Hoff Sommers beliefs, either, but I do feel that she has done an excellent job of exposing the hypocrisy within the feminist movement. Definitely worth reading and pondering. Thank you again for writing, and I hope you'll continue to read and think about this issue! Kind regards, Jennie Chancey I noticed today the summary for the article about radical feminists going to UNC. It is very true that radical feminists welcome absolutely NO opposing views. The message board rules for Ms. Magazine, for example, stress that absolutely no anti-feminist users are welcome. The two founders of Feminists for Life were thrown out of NOW back in 1972 for their pro-life views. What's so funny is that liberals were screaming that their First Amendment rights were being violated last year when the war with Iraq was starting up. Yet they turn right around and do the same thing to conservatives. Apparently to liberals free speech only counts when you agree with them. ~ Alexandra Though I don't agree with the opinions addressed on your site, I can see your desire to put forth a rational argument. One way in which this site is lacking is that there is no mention of who writes your content (is it all Lydia?) or how many people are involved in the production of your site. If you are to be held accountable for your opinions and want to be respected for your opinions on this subject, it would seem like you would want to claim them as your own or those of an identified, specific viewership. ~ Carmencita Dear Carmencita, Thank you for your note. The information about who manages LAF is in the "About LAF" section. There is more detailed information about Mrs. Sherman and her family at the top of the "Lady Lydia Speaks" section. I write regularly for several offline publications and also have another website at www.sensibility.com, so information on who I am is also readily available to those who would like to know more about my background. We have a wide variety of ladies and gentlemen who write for LAF, and they provide their own bios. Many do not wish to include a lot of detailed information due to Internet privacy concerns. All the details of what we believe and why we believe it can be found in the "About LAF" section or in the FAQs. Thank you for asking! Kind regards, Mrs. Jennie Chancey I wasn't sure whether to put this under "Helpful Suggestion" or "Cogent Commentary", since it is both. I thought you might like this article: On the Privilege of Being a Woman- A tad dated in some examples, but still interesting. The commentary is this:While I find the articles on pro-life issues, chastity, and modesty helpful, the emphasis on practical domesticity is, for me, depressing. Reading about sewing and recipes is discouraging to those of us who can't sew a hem to save our lives, and have cooking skills that are close to nil. (In one particularly unfortunate episode, I ended up setting fire to the kitchen curtains!) A bit of sympathy for the domestically clueless might be helpful. ~ Donna Marie Hello, Donna Marie! Thank you so much for the note. :-) Your words convince me that we need to start a series of articles called "Homemaking 101." We've heard from other ladies who are totally clueless about homemaking, since they weren't brought up to do it and really don't have the mentors (or are afraid to ask!). I wasn't sure if we could really make such a series work, since we don't want these ladies like you to feel inferior or looked down upon. Far from it! There are so many women in this boat today, thanks to feminism, that teaching is really needed. Mrs. Sherman has mentioned to me before that we ought to do "Basic Training" for homemaking on the site. What do you think? Thanks so much for your feedback. This is what makes LAF grow! Blessings, Jennie Chancey While I understand the intent of your site, I believe that it is in fact doing the exact same thing that radical feminism is doing- going to extremes. Until the Industrial Revolution, women did work, as it was very much a cottage industry: women could be creative, could work, and raise children, without the hassles we have today. To bring back womanhood, you must bring back the cottage industry, or help change our post-industrial world to incorporate mothers back into the fold; to make a society where women can be be creative and raise their children; where women can be educated and learn, and still be "good" mothers. I doubt this message will be deemed as important by your group, as it neither scathing rudeness nor unlimited support, but hey, I wanted to drop in my two cents anyways. ~ Sally Bingo, Sally! You hit this right on the nose. This is precisely what we are talking about here at LAF -- women going back to "queendom," which means rulership of the home (as Scripture puts it, women are the "despots" of the house!). We're all for cottage industry, families working together, moms having lots of creative outlets, etc. I grew up exactly this way with my father self-employed and all of us involved in his work. My mother was also extremely creative and designed the house we built, reupholstered furniture, made and sold dolls, taught sewing, and sold other handiwork from home. We all got involved in her endeavors, too. If I die half as talented as my mother, I'll be happy! :-) This is precisely why LAF has articles on home business, education, reading, family industry, etc. We're all for the family-centered model of society -- and we reject the modern, lock-step materialism that is driven by the media and forced schooling (see www.johntaylorgatto.com). So thanks for the two cents, and I hope you'll keep reading! Warmly, Mrs. Jennie Chancey Beloved Sisters: Thank you for your encouraging site, it blesses me greatly. As a conservative Christian woman living in Manhattan you can not imagine how much your articles mean to me, and my young daughter. I read on your site that your considering or are in the process of opening a shop at cafepress.com. I am very interested in how you will use this site. Perhaps your unaware that cafepress.com has a history of accepting any artwork regardless of message. I am sure as a lady I am not required to go into detail. Would you please explain why it would be acceptable for me to support your site by purchasing your items from a larger site that support those groups or organinzation I find offensive as a Christian? Thank you for your time and consideration, I look forward to your response. In Him, Mrs.Heidi J Dear Mrs. J. Thank you so much for the wonderfully thoughtful note and your concerns about CafePress. Let me see if I can give the answer in a nutshell: 1. We quit using Amazon.com because of their refusal to remove a pro-pedophilia book from their online store. We did not want to be "unequally" yoked in a business relationship with a company that ignored thousands of Christians who requested that they stop carrying the book. 2. We continue to buy books. ;-) There is a point where we can draw a line and point where it would be impossible to do so. Every major publisher out there prints books that are ungodly and immoral (HarperCollins, Holt, etc.). Buying the good books doesn't make us a part of the profits for the bad books. It would be literally impossible to totally boycott the book manufacturers -- and, for that matter, we'd also have to boycott the paper manufacturers who sell to the book companies and the people who make the printers and ink, etc. Many good, excellent, praiseworthy books (including Bibles) roll of the same presses that produce pornography. The way we "vote" for the good, true, and noble is to buy those books and not the others. And we can, of course, also write the publishers to express our disapproval for the wicked books. 3. CafePress is a printer. We will use them to print good, true, noble, and praiseworthy items. But we will not hesitate to tell them we disapprove of any immoral items they directly promote on their site. The user agreement for CafePress Shops says that store owners may not print or offer obscene or pornographic images. That is a good start! But if homosexuals use the press to create "pro-gay" shirts, the answer is not to stop printing pro-biblical womanhood materials -- rather, it is to continue to send the message that God's Word is true and the gospel is Life. As Christians, we are to live in this world. That means buying from grocery stores even when all of them carry sensual magazines. That means living in cities that host "Sex Fest" (as our university town does every fall). We cannot remove ourselves from this world, but we can "redeem the time, for the days are evil." We redeem the time by making our voices heard, standing for Truth, and using even places or businesses set aside for wicked purposes to promote the Gospel (just as Paul did when he challenged the philosophers in the Aereopagus with pagan altars all around). I hope this helps, and thank you again for your kindness and thoughtful words. In Christ, Mrs. Jennie Chancey Dear LAF, I was disappointed to read that you will not be updating your site more frequently. I understand busy schedules and household duties, and the reasons you made this decision. In the past, I checked your site everyday and always looked forward to the current articles. However, I no longer visit your site. I do not like having to constantly check to see if there are any new articles. Maybe if I new what day you updated your site I would visit again. Sincerely, Allison Hello, Allison! Thanks for the note -- and your frankness! Computer time is definitely limited in a household with five little children and a homeschooling schedule. LOL! My aim is to update LAF at least once each week, and it is most likely I'll be doing that on weekends (Saturday if not Friday night). I've been trying to figure out if there is a way to put a neat little notify feature on the site where you can sign up to receive an alert whenever something new is added to LAF. I know sites that have this (fully automated, of course, and the e-mails are totally private -- I wouldn't even know who was on the alert list!). So I'm looking hard! I know this would be very helpful to others who don't have time to check and who wonder if they might have missed an update. Thanks for your patience and understanding. LAF is truly a labor of love and not a full-time "ministry" or business. It would be hypocritical of Mrs. Sherman and me to spend hours and hours working on it while neglecting our families, but we will add to it just as often as we can! Blessings, Mrs. Jennie Chancey Regarding the recently posted article, "Why Not Women," the author makes a statement that can be badly miscontrued, something to the effect about "women in ancient pagan times before Christ...." Does she imply that the Hebrew nation was pagan? They existed before Christ! And by that statement, she also ignores well-documented anthropologic studies that have proven women in pagan times were matriarchs of the family, passing down titles, property, etc., through THEIR side of the family, owning property, etc. Celtic research has proven this. It was not until the patriarchial religions came into being (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) that women became "chattels", losing their rights such as those listed above to men. Even in those times, the times of the early church of Rome, women were traditionally the healers, midwives, etc., and these "rights" were forcibly removed by the church in order to install men in those positions. The women were called "witches". After all these women were killed, men were firmly installed in positions of authority. I feel that your author needs to be more careful in her choice of terms here. Thank you. Kathy C. Hello, Kathy! Thanks for the comments. I am the one who actually inserted "ancient pagan" into the sentence, because as it stood, it made it sound like no culture prior to Christ had treated women as anything other than chattel. The Hebrew culture was an obvious stand-out, because it did give property and inheritance rights to women (and, of course, Christ was a Hebrew!). The pagan cultures surrounding Israel did treat women as property. Greco-Roman culture was horrendous in its treatment of women (especially wives and prostitutes). While the Catholic Church did many terrible things in the middle ages, not every individual church in the world followed its excesses, and Christian cultures have always been marked by their respect and honor for women (again, there are always exceptions -- but they are not the rule). The "witch" trials were also marked by folly, but, thankfully, they are again not the rule and practice of the Church at large! However, the notion that there have been matriarchal societies which passed on inheritance through the female line is actually not supported by anthropological evidence. A fantastic book about this myth is Goddess Unmasked by Philip Davis (Spence Publishing). The feminists who invented these fables even admit in print that they aren't backed by any evidence-- but they say, "We choose to believe they are true anyway!" Thanks again for dropping a line. I'll see if I can clarify that article to make it work better! Blessings, Jennie Dear ladies, As a feminist Christian I feel compelled to tell you that your group and your self-description do not match. Since the most basic definition of feminism is the belief that men and women are equal, and you also espouse this belief, you are hardly against all forms of feminism. In fact, difference feminists and many radical feminists believe that men and women are different but equal. Perhaps you could rethink the true purpose of your message and define yourselves positively rather than against something. ~ Kim M. Dear Kim, Thanks for taking the time to write. We chose the name for a reason: to provoke interest and thought. It certainly has done this, because most visitors want to know why any sane woman would oppose feminism. ;-) When they take time to read through the site, they come to understand that feminism isn't what they think it is and that what we are promoting (complementarity, rather than competition, between the sexes), they often write to express their agreement. I would recommend that you read the article "You Don't Know Feminism" at for just a glimpse into the real meaning of feminism. The feminist movement has its roots in Marxism and Communism--not in God-given complementarity or the strengths of men and women as they were created. Woman is not intrinsically inferior to man; she is his co-equal before God and represents the image of God together with man. You do not have to embrace feminism to believe this; in fact, if you read feminist writers, it will not be long before you see that they are opposed to complementarity and desire all-out war in order to make woman first and best. And, as you'll see if you continue to read, we often stand shoulder to shoulder with difference feminists who are seeking to reverse the damage radical feminism has wreaked upon our culture and our society. We aren't against feminists, per se. But we believe it is important to reveal the unseemly historical undersides of the feminist movement to show that it is wiser to refrain from embracing a term or a movement unless you are willing to accept all of its baggage, its credos, and its manifestos. Thanks again for writing, and I hope you'll continue reading! Regards, Mrs. Jennie Chancey Mrs. Kelly S. found herself a Christian wife who desired to reproduce over anything else in her life. When she found out she was infertile she was devastated. She felt empty, isolated, and depressed. She longed so badly for child she allowed her childlessness to take presence over her spirituality. Yet there is no mention of adoption anywhere in her two articles on dealing with being sterile. Do I have it right so far? Given these facts, I find myself wondering what happened to the opportunity for adoption that the Anti-abortion community presses so greatly for. If a Christian mother who desires nothing more than to be fruitful isn't willing to adopt, who is going to adopt all these babies that you don't want aborted? Any ideas? ~ L.A.H. Thank you for taking the time to write this. LAF is very pro-adoption, and we currently have three childless women who are writing about their experiences adopting children in the US and abroad. Not every woman who cannot conceive is in a position to adopt, especially with the incredibly high costs associated with both foreign and domestic adoptions. And other couples are daunted by the entire process, which is under the oversight of so many government agencies and involves prying into every aspect of your financial life and more. I don't think the fact that an infertile couple hasn't adopted is an indication of a lack of spirituality. There are far too many factors involved for anyone to judge someone's individual situation. But I do agree that we need to promote and praise adoption. It is our belief that the Christian Church needs to start adoption funds and other adoption-friendly programs to make it possible for more godly couples to adopt children. In my own community, our local crisis pregnancy center helps direct girls to adoptive parents who are willing to pay for the expenses of the prenatal care and childbirth as well as all legal expenses. This is a wonderful "loophole" in the adoption system that not all couples know about. There are a number of pregnancy centers that help in this capacity. We've been in touch with pregnancy centers as far away as Texas that are helping godly couples adopt children who would have otherwise been aborted. It is our prayer that more and more churches will help support ministries like these so that more children will get into godly Christian homes. I would really like to post more articles about this topic on LAF, but it is very hard to locate people who have successfully adopted babies this way and who are willing to share their story (even with their names changed). If you know of any, please send them our way! Or if you are aware of any articles on the Internet, please direct me to them. LAF is a group effort. We get dozens of article links and submissions every month from people who track different stories on the Internet. This is how the Body of Christ is meant to function -- each member using her gift to bless and help the others. LAF would never function were it not for the hundreds of readers who share theif gifts with us. We always appreciate their viewpoints and their assistance. Thank you for taking the time to share yours! In Christ, Mrs. Jennie Chancey Hello LAF, I've recently read the article posted on your site entitled "Musings on the Will of God". I was eager to hear what this writer had to say about her walk with God and learning to follow Him. What I was not in anyway prepared for was the dive she took when she said "There are some things that I do know can and cannot be the will of God; this is one of them. I do not believe that it could ever be God's will for me to live on my own, independent of my family and/or husband. Certainly not in a foreign country. Certainly not under the very low security and little support this teaching position would provide..." Am I to understand that this author believes that missionaries are out of the will of God? Not only that, but that SINGLE people would NEVER, EVER be called to go onto the mission field? This concept blows my mind, since the large majority of missionaries in the world are women, and many of them single. The international church would be a great deal smaller and many, many fewer would be greeting us in heaven if brave, single women hadn't faced insecurity and danger to follow God where it wasn't safe. I was glad to read that the author doesn't desire to impress people with a facade of spirituality. However, I feel I must plead with you to tell me this author is joking when she says that it oculd never be God's will for her to be in an unsafe place? Is she willing to live at home with her parents if she doesn't marry for 20 more years? Is her ability to pray about future direction on hold until she has a husband? As a Christian I'm alarmed that these views would be printed on your website. I don't know where in the Bible God speaks of His highest is for us to be safe, or even married. Rather, I see a God who is passionate about us and EVERYONE around the world knowing Him. One who talks about His kingdom advancing forcefully. I don't see this God represented well in this article. Please let me know if there has been some sort of error or typo on this article, or if this is truly your belief, where in the Bible I can read about it. Thank you... Sincerely, Wendy Dear Wendy, Thank you for the note -- and your passion for the Lord's will! I appreciate both. Miss Nyquist did not mean to imply that God does not send single people into the mission field, but she did want to make it clear that the biblical model for foreign missionaries is male. When Jesus commissioned the 70 to go out and share the good news, they were all male. When Paul went to spread the gospel, all of his companions were male. I think it is clear that all mission preachers must be male (just as all authority and eldership in the church is male). However, this does not take away from the fact that women are called as "fellow workers" for the sake of the gospel and that single women can and do often serve alongside godly missionaries on foreign fields. The difference is that women are helpers--not lo |