Ah, hospitality. Now wait a minute! Are those servants on the far left and far right? Yes! They are! Methinks said hostess is not doing her own cooking and cleaning here.... Does learning about hospitality include learning to manage servants?!?
Also, just out of curiosity, what year are we in here? This looks like hospitality circa 1880. Can you say out of date?
"No dad! It's mine!"
The Wise Woman's Guide...by a man. Enough said.
Also, the date is no longer 1790, and if the info on the CD is geared toward that year, as the cover seems to suggest, I'm really concerned about its relevance.
First, he must be headless. And one-legged. And have a certain part of his body discretely covered up, apparently.
Or...is the guy standing there supposed to be the dad, guarding his daughter with his firm stance and muscled body, ready to fight off unworthy candidates with sheer force if need be?
Bring them home...and dress them in clothes from the eighteenth century?
Since this is yet another CD about fathers vetting their daughters' prospective suitors, I have to wonder, does he have to own a castle? Because personally, that's the message I'm getting. Talk about setting standards high! No wonder poor Jasmine Baucham isn't married yet!
Because all truly feminine women rub noses with their mothers! Duh!
Also, written by a man.
Because the Pilgrims get the tables and the Native Americans get to kneel in the back.
O_o
Maybe it's just me, but I missed the part where Jesus talks about commanding armies.
Wondering what armies this CD set looks at, I foolishly checked the information:
In Victorious Christian Armies Commanded by Courageous Men of God, learn about Huguenot leaders Admiral de Coligny and Henry of Navarre from the "Wars of Religion" in France. Discover the story of General Oliver Cromwell, his New Model Army, and the overthrow of King Charles I. Meet Major Henry Berry, Colonel Adam Murray, and the other Scots-Irish defenders of Derry under William of Orange. And see how God protected Andries Pretorious and his fellow Voortrekker commandos during their struggle against the fierce Zulus of South Africa.
Oh nos! We brave white Englishmen must fight the fierce Zulus! Why are they so angry? All we did was take their land! ... Also, those French "Wars of Religion"? Just as an fyi, we're talking about two to four million casualties.
Thanks for humoring me. I hope you enjoyed this little excursion as much as I did! It may have to become a regular feature here.
Priceless!
ReplyDeleteLOL!! Love it. :D
ReplyDeleteVision Forum Ice Cream Maker:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu4y_ROPeGM
That is all.
Oh.My.God. How in the name of all that is sacred can *anyone* look at that stuff and see anything but a SNL skit taken far, far too seriously?
ReplyDeleteROTFLOL! Expert analysis. Bravo!
ReplyDeleteNo doubt Vision Forum materials represent one big invitation for spoofing ... and you have done so very well! But I also think what we see here is an instance of "dueling excesses." You see all the excesses in their romanticized view of history and relationships and you call them to account for those--yet they are reacting to the excesses of a feminist-infused vision of modern life, and are calling you to account for those. Culture wars, play on!
ReplyDelete"...yet they are reacting to the excesses of a feminist-infused vision of modern life..."
ReplyDeletelolwut
If the ancients had treated their women as equals to begin with, perhaps we wouldn't be seeing "the excesses of a feminist-infused vision of modern life". 'Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteThis "excesses of a feminist-infused vision of modern life" thing is actually crap. I mean, point to something. The sexualization of women? Um...that's something feminists are working AGAINST. The difficulties women face in balancing children and work? First, that's not a result of feminism - women have ALWAYS worked - and second, that's actually something feminists work to mitigate. But no sense in arguing about this here. I'm actually writing a post on it.
ReplyDelete'Not sure who's addressing who, but I just want to clarify that I put Anon 7:20's statement in quotes just as he or she stated it, because I believe it's crap, too. And this isn't a "culture war"; it's a war on legendary, superstitious thinking, as far as I'm concerned.
ReplyDelete"I have to wonder, does he have to own a castle?"
ReplyDeleteThat actually looks like an old prison or mental hospital to me!
Just curious but what exactly are the "the excesses of a feminist-infused vision of modern life?" Equal pay for equal work? Equal educational and professional opportunity? A justice system that effectively deals with rape and domestic violence? A safer world in which women don't need to constantly fear being raped and abused to begin with?
ReplyDeleteTell me, which of these are excessive?
Oho man. I am still raging over "The Accolade" painting that appeared on a CD they were selling. It was severely altered to VF's liking so that the solider was above the princess, not the princess knighting the soldier (as it is in the original painting. Who got away with that copyright issue?!)
ReplyDeleteThis post though, makes me shake my head with a sad chuckle. It's upsetting that this is happening. Why are they so obsessed with this imaginary 1800 romantic style of living?
Anonymous. I have to disagree. Vision Forum found the TRUE painting. The original work. The one you are referring to was a fake, transcribed to show a woman in power when it was originally a man. It is clear, looking into the historical record - which is held at Vision Forum Headquarters - that a feminist princess by the name of Damsel Seymore Johnson had the painting changed by her lover, Sir En Mypanz.
ReplyDeletePlease do your research in the future.
Dear Libby Anne,
ReplyDeleteSomething else you might want to think on - Oliver Cromwell was *such* a popular success as a leader that on his death, the English invited Charles I's son back to be king. And when that son, Charles II, did what Charles I tried to do (ie dissolve parliament and be absolute monarch) they let him... at least in part because the alternative was so fresh in everyone's mind.
People who hold Oliver Cromwell up as some kind of hero kind of forget he turned into a tyrant.
Christine
"This 'excesses of a feminist-infused vision of modern life' thing is actually crap. I mean, point to something."
ReplyDeleteWay to welcome different viewpoints to your blog. Sure, I will point to something. Abortion. On demand. To the tune of tens of millions in the last few decades. Abortion has done more to aid the devaluation of women than any other social initiative since the 1970's. Male responsibility now ends at the door of the abortion clinic. All they guy has to do now is shell out some money and problem solved. The woman is left to manage all the physical, emotional and moral ramifications by herself.
Don't you think abortion is high on the list of Vision Forum's sense of the "excesses" of a feminist vision?
My comment is far from crap.
Abortion is a big improvement over "baby farming" and foundling hospitals - which were plenty popular in Vision Forum's beloved Victorian age. It was basically prolonged infanticide for most babies who ended up there. Educate yourself: http://www.jstor.org/pss/190492
ReplyDeleteA man's responsibility to prevent unintended pregnancy begins where it always has - when he takes his pecker out of his pants.
Believe it or not, abortion was not invented by feminists. There was plenty of abortion before it was legal, including in the Victorian era--unsafe, back alley, or self-induced abortion which often resulted in death, injury or infertility for the woman. You know what else there was a lot of in the Victorian era? Infanticide. Women giving birth and then killing their babies because they couldn't care for them and believed that a quick death would be kinder. There are even accounts of women trying to give their dead children proper Christian burials, stories which would break your heart.
ReplyDeleteA lack of safe, legal abortion does not stop abortion from happening and it certainly does not cause men to act more responsibly. History tells us there were plenty of cases of unwed mothers with no fathers in sight. It wasn't uncommon at all. What DOES make these situations more rare is the wide availability of birth control, educating kids about sex before they start having it, teaching boys to have respect and regard for the women they have sex with, and also teaching them that they are as responsible and fit for parenting the children they create as women are. All of which are feminist endeavors.
Anonymous 20 Sept 11:24 PM, are you blaming abortion on feminism? The two countries in the world where abortions are most common are India and China.
ReplyDeleteIn both, almost all abortions is on girls. Why? Because excessive feminists are fighting for women's rights? No! Because of the very different expectations (gender roles) society have of girls and boys, parents find it wiser to kill girls and keep boys. Feminist ideas of equality are actually decreasing abortions in parts of China!
As for abortion causing that " Male responsibility now ends at the door of the abortion clinic. All they guy has to do now is shell out some money and problem solved.": Many jerks have traditionally ended their responsibility when the woman was pregnant. It happened in all eras, and it still happens. Are you suggesting that these very same guys with no moral or emotional qualms over dropping their girlfriends at an abortion clinic, would have taken responsibility for raising the baby? (By the way, do you believe in legally forcing a guy to pay child maintanance?)
Don't get me wrong: I am pro-life. But I do not get your argument.
Anonymous - I do welcome different viewpoints, but I'm also okay with people speaking their minds. I suppose I could have used a different word from "crap," but the import would have been the same: I disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Flora, PP, and Retha are right. There is a good deal of evidence that abortion was actually MORE common during the Victorian era than it is today, believe it or not. The difference was that abortions were often illegal and dangerous, so thousands of women died from them. Second, believe it or not, Roe v. Wade was decided the way it was because of changing medical opinions (and concern over maternal deaths) more than because of feminism.
But there is a bigger point to be made here. As I point out in this post, the way to decrease abortion is decidedly NOT to ban it. In fact, the countries where abortion rates are lowest are those where abortion is most legal. The answer is rather sex education, birth control, and welfare/medicaid to help support poor new mothers, all things that pro-life advocates are generally against.
If you think feminists are all "yay, I can't wait to get an abortion!" you're sadly mistaken. Feminists believe that women should be able to control their own bodies, and to make decisions about their bodies for themselves. No feminist "wants" to increase abortion rights, rather, we want to have control over our own bodies.
Finally, you may believe that personhood begins at conception, but there are plenty of people - like myself - who disagree. I don't think that an embryo, zygote, or fetus in the first trimester is a person because it does not have higher brain function, and most people link brain function to personhood (see the term "brain dead"). Therefore, I see nothing wrong with a first trimester abortion, and this is actually when something like 97% of abortions occur. THIS is where the disagreement comes in, and THIS there is such a split on this issue.
Also, believe it or not, there are feminists who call themselves "pro life."
ReplyDeleteI really think people need to stop arguing about abortion and stop trying to ban it and instead focus on sex education, birth control, and support for mothers who choose to keep unwanted pregnancies. Trying to ban abortion is silly, given the fact that there has always been abortion and banning it has never worked. And, as I said, pro-lifers and pro-choicers should be able to agree on sex ed, birth control, and supporting new mothers, that is, unless being "pro-life" is not about "saving babies" but rather about punishing women for having sex.
Pedantic of me, but the fashion in the Hospitality CD illustration is not ca. 1880s. It's kind of hard to tell given the size, but it looks Regency/Empire, 1815 or so (older woman in a wig, high waistlines, men's waistcoats and pantaloons -- "'one could always tell what a young man was thinking"-- etc.). Not even Victorian; it was the general debauchery of this period that probably spawned the Victorian reforms of manners and morals.
ReplyDeletelol @ Joy. I'm also kind of a pedantic nerd about historic fashion etc. I'm guessing Regency too, from the empire waists and the men in knee breeches. Jane Austen times.
ReplyDeleteJoy - I am glad to be corrected! I suspect, upon a second glance, that you and Petticoat Philosopher are right. Now my Jane Austen-loving self will go sit in the corner...
ReplyDelete