At her wonderful blog, Lydia Sherman promotes modest feminine clothing in a forum of engaging civility. She often recommends lovely, easy-to-make patterns for clothes to wear both at home and on special occasions for the homemaker who is pressed for cash. For this she has been the frequent target of breathakingly vicious hatred.

Yup. You heard me right. A woman who publicly honors home and family, who promotes domestic crafts and home-sewn clothes, who praises the tranquility of a well-kept house, is hated. She is hated with the sort of ferocity typically reserved for kidnappers, axe murderers or cruel, villainous dictators. 

Here is a comment Lydia received today from a feminist reader in Europe:

I’ve noticed that for you, working women equals badly dressed, as if you can’t tell them from men because of the way they dress. That’s strange, because almost all the women I know work, many have high-paying jobs and the overwhelming majority dress extremely well. Actually, we all love shopping and being fashionable, and of course because we have our own income we can afford to shop at luxury stores. We do wear dresses and skirts and make up and we have our hair done at professional hairdressers. In fact, we find the “feminine” clothes you promote old fashioned and ridiculous; in my country village women wear clothes like yours, not because they’re “modest” or “feminine” but because they’re old and can’t afford to buy new clothes. Right now I’m in my office with my beautiful, smart and fashionable co-workers, some of them in pants and shirts, but in any case more feminine and fashionable than you’ll ever be. Keep up the good work, your clothes and fashion tips have made us roar with laughter many, many times! With love from an office of European feminists, career women, wives, girlfriends, mothers and fashion victims!  

By the way, this is a relatively mild example of the sort of contempt unleashed upon Mrs. Sherman. Other examples are too vile to be aired here.

                                                                                       —- Comments —

Lydia writes:

Interestingly, this e-mail is from Romania. One of the reasons for such hatred from a formerly Communist country (I have encountered it often) is that women have to be in submission to husbands if they are homemakers. If you live in a modern welfare state, you never have to submit to a man or wash his sox or get along with him. You just get a check in the mail. You can take the communism out of Europe but somehow, it stays in the woman.

Karen I. writes:

I find it interesting that the vicious comment directed at Lydia was made by a working woman. I’ll bet the majority of her most vicious attackers are working women. [Laura writes: It is my impression that they are 100 percent working women.] I have been a housewife for over ten years and the nastiest, rudest comments I have heard about my career at home were made by working women. Men, for the most part, show me civility and consideration. The few men who did make comments made mild ones, usually in earshot of their working wives and I suspect they were doing so to please their wives. Professional men in particular seem quite respectful of my choice, probably because their own wives often have the same occupation, but even single men are respectful as well. 

Working women, on the other hand, treat me with outright contempt at times, even when they are at work and it is unprofessional. For example, I once needed to attend a meeting at school regarding one of my children. The child was receiving speech therapy and the law requires a meeting once a year to continue it. Professional women were in attendance, including teachers, the speech therapist, and meeting coordinator, who was also the school psychologist. All the women in attendance but me have a master’s degree or higher. When I walked into the room, the school psychologist announced, “Here comes the Stepford wife.” One teacher, a respected older woman who attends our church looked appalled, while everyone else giggled. 

I dress well, the way Lydia suggests, and I appreciate her observations, which are correct. The manner of dressing she recommends works for women of all ages and figures. It elicits respect from men and hatred or admiration from women.

Laura writes:

I have never witnessed homemakers treating working women with the open disdain Karen describes. The “mommy wars” are often one-sided. Women have always engaged in some degree of aggressive competition with each other, but feminism has  seriously damaged camaraderie and civility among women, as well as deprived them of shared experience.

N.W. writes:

I briefly perused Lady Lydia’s blog. I did not stay long as it was too saccharin for me. Is a reversion to Victoriana the only viable alternative to the current cultural status quo?

Laura writes:

Mrs. Sherman’s site has excellent essays on domesticity, mostly for women. She is wise and warm, as well as very perceptive about the war for home. Some of the most vicious attacks against her have come from Christians.

Victoriana is not necessary to fight our trashy, nihilistic modern culture. In this case, it is one woman’s passion.

N.W. writes:

Granted, of course, I’m hardly the target audience of such a blog. I must admit that I’m not completely immune to Victorian sensibilites. Men today could learn from the sense of duty and honor exhibited by the British Army of this time and aptly demonstrated in the film Zulu, and I admit that Helena Bonham Carter is quite attractive in A Room With a View, (though Where Angels Fear to Tread, Wings of a Dove and Sweeney Todd cured me of any ill-formed crushes.)

I am wary, however, of succumbing to the promises of bowdlerized bygone eras, whether it be 19th century Victorian England or 1950’s suburban America. It seems to be another manifestation of the common belief in our society that we have no future. Since this is the accepted state of things, traditionalists revert to a bunker mentality where they try to recreate the past. This mindset is most visibly apparent (and socially acceptable) in historical preservation groups who all seem to be convinced that we shouldn’t knock down old decrepit buildings strictly on the grounds that they’re old buildings. Now, we all know that whatever replaces the old building is almost certain to be functional and ugly (at best) but childishly clinging to a dysfunctional old building will not solve this problem. What is needed is an original and contemporary interpretation of the old forms.

My apologies if I appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

Laura writes:

If it made a fetish out of any period in history, traditionalism would be a joke. But a certain amount of romantic preoccupation with the past is healthy. Lydia looks to the Victorian era to prove her point that civility and domestic order are possible. She likes the Victorian aesthetic too, but I don’t think she believes that’s a necessary part of “home living.”

People who become intensely preoccupied with a specific era help recall the good and maintain a connection with the past. Most Civil War reenactors return home when their mock battles are over to live the lives of 21st century men.

Karen Wilson writes:

I have some reservations about Lydia Sherman. I am always suspicious of non-titled people who use titles and Lady Lydia Sherman did not get such an honour from the Queen. Why the title of Lady? This suggests delusions of grandeur. Even the Queen does not refer to herself in such terms. On reading Lydia’s sites I felt something synthetic about them.

Lydia says: You can take the communism out of Europe but somehow, it stays in the woman.

This is true but not in the way she thinks. People from the former Eastern bloc have an ability to see through propaganda in a way in which many in the capitalist West have lost. As Westerners we are gullible and naïve. I think the Romanians have picked up on something, as did the commentator NW. As I looked at her other blogs, I determined that she is possibly a sales woman, a commission agent. She is creating the Victoriana image to sell the posters from the site to which her’s is linked. This means that she gets a commission from each reader of her site who gets enticed to buy a poster from allposters. Similarly she has another blog which promotes a type of English branded tea for which she and her husband are the distributors in Oregon (or claim to be). She has similar links to a face cream selling website.

She is pretending to be a homemaker when in reality she is a commission agent and she is using a bogus title. People who use bogus titles and claim to have special knowledge are dangerous. It’s a trick to prey on the vulnerable. She is the steel fist behind the velvet glove. Be wary!

Laura writes:

Karen is making wild accusations based on the facts that Lydia earns money at her site and refers to herself as “Lady Lydia.” Lydia’s use of the title struck me as tongue-in-cheek. She is playing a character for her audience. She is not seriously presenting herself as a British aristocrat. I can understand someone finding that un-amusing or distasteful or not liking that sort of play, but I don’t see it as fraudulent. Nor does she seem to be concealing the profit (I doubt it’s substantial) she makes from the posters or her book sales. She has mentioned it on the site. 

There is nothing wrong with a homemaker making money, whether it be through babysitting or selling homemade clothes or her paintings or her writings or her jam.  Is a housewife a slave? Is she a fraud because she earns extra money from home? Would you say of a judge that because he makes money his opinions are necesssarily corrupt and fraudulent.

The fact is, Lydia does offer things entirely for free: wisdom and encouragement for homemakers. There is nothing phony or self-promoting about her advice. The relevant question is this: Is it true? Is what she says about the life of a homemaker and the choices presented to women accurate. I believe it is. Many women have no one to counsel them, no mothers or aunts or grandmothers who can pass on to them assurance and practical advice. I’m sure Lydia has saved some of her readers hundreds of dollars in psychotherapist fees by telling them to relax, to love their husbands, to trust in God, to create peace and order in their homes, to reject the stupidity and nihilism of public schools, to have the confidence that they can teach their children themselves. I hope she gets some material reward for offering such simple and homey wisdom. I imagine it will earn her a pittance. Again, the important thing is whether what she says is true. If it is untrue then it doesn’t matter how she presents herself because it’s of no value.

There are many money-making enterprises on the Internet and yet they do not engender the sort of hatred Lydia encounters. Why? If people find her site kitsch-y, that’s one thing. That’s cause for ignoring her and moving on, for refusing to buy what she sells. But it does not seem cause for the venomous attacks on her character; these I believe stem from the nature of her message and from rank elitism toward a woman with simple taste, the sort of  elitism that drew the “Oh no here comes the Stepford wife” comment mentioned by Karen I.  Women who would never think of expressing this sort of contempt for a burglar or a drunken beggar readily express it toward a middle-class homemaker.

Mark writes:

Laura wrote, “Victoriana is not necessary to fight our trashy, nihilistic modern culture. In this case, it is one woman’s passion.” 

Not to make this about Lydia, who has a right to her passion for Victoriana. But it does seem to be the case that many of the websites that sell modest female attire are pushing clothes that, in resembling the clothes reflected in the artwork on Lydia’s site, can only be called “costumes.” they’re just not viable for women in the early 21st century who are not Amish or members of some other tight religious community. (I know there are exceptions like hannalise.com, but I’m making a general observation.) 

And I’m not talking about careerist or feminist-minded women. My wife is a stay-at-home mother who seeks to dress modestly out of Christian principle. As a general rule she does not wear pants, and doesn’t buy clothes that show off cleavage or her upper legs, etc. She is appalled by the low-cut skirts worn by some of the women in our church (who really should know better, but no one has the guts to say anything for fear of “making rules” – God forbid). But she finds the Amish-wear and Victoriana that is advertised on the Web to be frumpy. We’ve ordered from some of these websites, and have been disappointed to find the clothes make her look freakish in our environment. It’s one thing to be modest and cover up; it’s another thing to draw attention to oneself by dressing like a person from another century.

 Clearly, it would be ideal if my wife learned to sew, and hopefully she will be able to one day (circumstances currently make it very difficult). But is that the only option for those who want to dress in a way that is both modest and somewhat contemporary? 

None of this is to criticize women who participate in cottage industries where they sell what they love to wear themselves. But I’m amazed that there is not a larger attempt at manufacturing and marketing a line of contemporary yet modest clothes for women. (Men don’t have the same issues by and large). Why is that? You’d think that there would be a huge market for this, given what people profess about their religious beliefs, but the churches by and large seem to be filled with two sartorial groups of women: frumps and feminists (even among those who would reject the label). Is this just my own unique impression or have others noticed it, too?

Laura writes:

I agree with Mark about the frumpiness of many clothes marketed as modest alternatives. At the other extreme, I don’t think there’s going to be a big turnaround from large manufacturers anytime soon. There’s hope in independent retailers on the web and in the slim pickings in the stores. I don’t sew and it’s probably too late for me to learn given my other interests. I do manage to find modest things in the stores, you just have to look harder. The hardest thing is to find good-looking clothes for working around the house. 

Lydia Sherman writes:

The word “lady” is used by a lot of  bloggers, especially those who love Jane Austen culture and go to all the Regency dances and Victorian teas. In invitations, we call each other “lady” not as a title, but as a courtesy. Its wildly popular in the U.S. among both young and old. For a long time I had a list of homemaking blogs on the side bar, and each one was “Lady.”

I don’t know what Karen Wilson is saying regarding money. I made $20.00 last month with Allposters.com, as I only get a percentage of the sales. With my other sales on the Internet, altogether I made fifty dollars extra this month, but it is mostly my husband who does the work, as I am so busy at home. He loves this kind of thing and the freedom it gives him to be flexible and not punch a clock or fill out a time card. 

Homemakers make money without even trying. I have a neighbor who has chickens and sells the extra eggs. It helps her buy feed for the hens. She grows things and sells them also, and teaches her homeschooled sons a business that way.

Please follow and like us: