![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
First Thing: In answer to Hyel's Shakespeare quotations: "Lord what fools these mortals be..."
Largely because it's so true. :-)
On with the post:
Had a lovely time with Ami_B yesterday afternoon. :-)
She brought me seeds (Whee!) and a copy of Dancing on the Edge of the World.
I fed her tea and pie. :-D (Mmmmmmmm, pie... :-)
She foiled butterflies for her mirror.
I sewed an over-skirt for a Really Odd late-1700s "inspired" dress (that will be made from damn cheap fabric, largely polyester). More on that in a moment. :-)
Dancing on the Edge of the World is a book of essays by Ursula Le Guin. I am impressed. :-D
I have read the first two essays in the book and, so far, I'm quite happily impressed. :-)
"Crone Space" is a nifty look at menopause and what it means, and what it could mean, and what it doesn't mean, given the way our society looks at women. She suggests (this was written in 1967, I believe, so during the sexual revolution) that, since virginity is no-longer valued (but seen as something to be gotten rid of as quickly as possible) and fecundity/pregnancy/fruitfulness can (and is expected to) be avoided, that menopause *can't* have a Meaning. When both virginity and post-fecundity are relegated to "waiting rooms" (as she puts it), one for the Beginning of Real Life (sexual life) and one for death, because after one is no-longer sexually desireable, one is basically dead anyway, isn't that right? She suggests that the Triple Goddess wears only one face, now: That of Marilyn Monroe.
I found that this whole idea was quite resonant with me -- not from personal experience, but due to the experiences of a bunch of my friends. I have a couple of friends who are over forty and who have had the unplesant experience of being "put on the Crone Shelf", as one of them put it, who have been informed not-so-subtly that a woman over forty who has an active sex life, and who would like to keep it that was, is 'slightly distasteful' at the very least.
Which brings me to a couple of thoughts. In this society:
1) Women are only valueable as sexual objects/beings
2) Women are only "allowed" to be sexual beings/objects (or are only considered as sexual beings/objects by the General Populace) between the ages of, say, fifteen (or whenever puberty finishes) and forty.
Food for thought, that.
"Is Gender Necessary" is the other essay I've read so far.
It's a discussion of her book, The Left Hand of Darkness. For those who don't know, this is a book about a planet of people who spend most of their lives as androgynous and non-sexual but who, for a week every month (IIRC) go into oestrus (kemmer) and, provided they have someone else (also in oestrus) with them, will develope sex organs and attempt to breed. The sex organs they develope could be male or female, and wouldn't be the same every time. So you could parent/conceive half a dozen kids in your life, let's say, but you might mother half of them and father the other half.
She wrote this, apparently, because she wanted to see what "human" was when you took away the gender rolls and biology-based subjugation of one sex by the other.
I think I may have to hunt up that book and see what it's like.
I confess: I think her use of masculine pronouns as the 'default' for ungendered, unsexed people is a bit... hm... ineffective. I'm rather glad that she thinks this, too. :-)
Anyway. I'm still rolling this stuff around in my head and mulling it over. Suffice to say, for the moment, that I think it's really smart stuff and am looking forward to discussing it more. :-)
***
And now for something completely different: A sewing Question:
Moria, Maudlina, Torrain (if you're reading this), and anyone else who knows what they're doing when it comes to stitcheries:
I was originally not going to bother making a lining for the over-skirt -- although I was going to put some interesting coloured (purple 'chinese' pattern fabric) trim - about six inches wide - on the underside of the skirt so that *if* it billowed a little there'd be something interesting to look at on the underside.
I have since decided that it would be nice to be able to tie up the over-skirt so that it can look sort of poofy and cinderella-like, if you know what I mean. (No, really. Do you know what I mean?)
I am not using a pattern to make this. At all. (The bodice is another story -- that'll be based on the bodice-pattern for my wedding gown, but with extra strips of matterial added in order to make off the shoulder sleeves and stuff)
So.
In order to add an appropriate lining, could I just:
Sew my lining out of broad-cloth (trimmed on the open-sides with this patterned stuff), stitch the edges of the lining to the edges of the over-skirt (inside out, of course, and leaving the top and bottom open), then gather the top edge of the lining enough that (A) it adds a bit of extra poof to the overskirt and, more importantly, (B) it is the same width as the overskirt, and then stitch the top edges together before turning everything right-side out and stitching along the bottom?
Would that work? (Would it be good enough for government work, at least?)
Somebody help me? :-D
Note to self: Get more broad-cloth (or find something else with-which to make the under-skirt)
Yes, yes, this is *really* low budget. :-)
- TTFN,
- Amazon. :-)
Largely because it's so true. :-)
On with the post:
Had a lovely time with Ami_B yesterday afternoon. :-)
She brought me seeds (Whee!) and a copy of Dancing on the Edge of the World.
I fed her tea and pie. :-D (Mmmmmmmm, pie... :-)
She foiled butterflies for her mirror.
I sewed an over-skirt for a Really Odd late-1700s "inspired" dress (that will be made from damn cheap fabric, largely polyester). More on that in a moment. :-)
Dancing on the Edge of the World is a book of essays by Ursula Le Guin. I am impressed. :-D
I have read the first two essays in the book and, so far, I'm quite happily impressed. :-)
"Crone Space" is a nifty look at menopause and what it means, and what it could mean, and what it doesn't mean, given the way our society looks at women. She suggests (this was written in 1967, I believe, so during the sexual revolution) that, since virginity is no-longer valued (but seen as something to be gotten rid of as quickly as possible) and fecundity/pregnancy/fruitfulness can (and is expected to) be avoided, that menopause *can't* have a Meaning. When both virginity and post-fecundity are relegated to "waiting rooms" (as she puts it), one for the Beginning of Real Life (sexual life) and one for death, because after one is no-longer sexually desireable, one is basically dead anyway, isn't that right? She suggests that the Triple Goddess wears only one face, now: That of Marilyn Monroe.
I found that this whole idea was quite resonant with me -- not from personal experience, but due to the experiences of a bunch of my friends. I have a couple of friends who are over forty and who have had the unplesant experience of being "put on the Crone Shelf", as one of them put it, who have been informed not-so-subtly that a woman over forty who has an active sex life, and who would like to keep it that was, is 'slightly distasteful' at the very least.
Which brings me to a couple of thoughts. In this society:
1) Women are only valueable as sexual objects/beings
2) Women are only "allowed" to be sexual beings/objects (or are only considered as sexual beings/objects by the General Populace) between the ages of, say, fifteen (or whenever puberty finishes) and forty.
Food for thought, that.
"Is Gender Necessary" is the other essay I've read so far.
It's a discussion of her book, The Left Hand of Darkness. For those who don't know, this is a book about a planet of people who spend most of their lives as androgynous and non-sexual but who, for a week every month (IIRC) go into oestrus (kemmer) and, provided they have someone else (also in oestrus) with them, will develope sex organs and attempt to breed. The sex organs they develope could be male or female, and wouldn't be the same every time. So you could parent/conceive half a dozen kids in your life, let's say, but you might mother half of them and father the other half.
She wrote this, apparently, because she wanted to see what "human" was when you took away the gender rolls and biology-based subjugation of one sex by the other.
I think I may have to hunt up that book and see what it's like.
I confess: I think her use of masculine pronouns as the 'default' for ungendered, unsexed people is a bit... hm... ineffective. I'm rather glad that she thinks this, too. :-)
Anyway. I'm still rolling this stuff around in my head and mulling it over. Suffice to say, for the moment, that I think it's really smart stuff and am looking forward to discussing it more. :-)
***
And now for something completely different: A sewing Question:
Moria, Maudlina, Torrain (if you're reading this), and anyone else who knows what they're doing when it comes to stitcheries:
I was originally not going to bother making a lining for the over-skirt -- although I was going to put some interesting coloured (purple 'chinese' pattern fabric) trim - about six inches wide - on the underside of the skirt so that *if* it billowed a little there'd be something interesting to look at on the underside.
I have since decided that it would be nice to be able to tie up the over-skirt so that it can look sort of poofy and cinderella-like, if you know what I mean. (No, really. Do you know what I mean?)
I am not using a pattern to make this. At all. (The bodice is another story -- that'll be based on the bodice-pattern for my wedding gown, but with extra strips of matterial added in order to make off the shoulder sleeves and stuff)
So.
In order to add an appropriate lining, could I just:
Sew my lining out of broad-cloth (trimmed on the open-sides with this patterned stuff), stitch the edges of the lining to the edges of the over-skirt (inside out, of course, and leaving the top and bottom open), then gather the top edge of the lining enough that (A) it adds a bit of extra poof to the overskirt and, more importantly, (B) it is the same width as the overskirt, and then stitch the top edges together before turning everything right-side out and stitching along the bottom?
Would that work? (Would it be good enough for government work, at least?)
Somebody help me? :-D
Note to self: Get more broad-cloth (or find something else with-which to make the under-skirt)
Yes, yes, this is *really* low budget. :-)
- TTFN,
- Amazon. :-)
