Tuesday, July 01, 2008

"Ranch Wear"

Leave it to the fundamental LDS polygamous to turn lemons into lemon-ade.
Apparently, during the time CPS had their children, the sister-wives of Warren Jeff's YFZ Ranch decided that idol hands were the devil's plaything. So, direct to you for only $69.95, you too may dress your child as a sister-wife in training. Size 2 and up!

An article, that can be found here, gives more details.

The FLDS hopes to raise money through sale of the clothing to help support
families from the Yearning For Zion ranch who now live in rental homes in cities
like San Antonio and Austin. Some families have returned to the ranch, but many
have not.

Based on the different message boards for the FLDS, I'm not sure this is accurate. But, whatever...just another day of bleeding the beast.

The Web site sells a wide array of clothing for children, from the "Teen
Princess Dress" for $60.65 to the "Baby Dress With Bloomers" for $48.07. Both
items, along with most others for girls, are available in a rainbow of pastels
from pink to yellow or lavender. Items for boys include denim overalls for
$65.93 and cotton-polyester shirts for $23.69.

Wow! It's pricey to look like a prairie muffin. Seriously, though... when P1 and I were doing civil war reenactments and 49er stuff, it cost me about $40 to make her dress and apron and hate. This isn't too bad. But, this is...

The web site said the clothes are made to meet the "FLDS standards for modesty and neatness." And all of the clothes are hand-made "with joy and care" by the FLDS women.

I'm going to quote Kathy Griffin on this one: "Burka bad!" Apparently, the FLDS standard for modesty is to leave no patch of skin, save the countenance, uncovered. What is with these fundy groups? You know, it is possible to dress your child modestly without setting her up for a Vitamin D deficiency. What gets me is that there are layers of protection on these girls. Dress it up in prairie garb and claim the holy high road if you want - you're still pimping your daughters out for sex with old men at age thirteen. That kind of negates my idea of purity.
(EDIT: I'd hat tip this to a reader, but I don't know which of you goes by that e-mail address and I wouldn't feel right directing christian dating sites to your blog by posting said address.)

For more shits and giggles, go check out the Atheist Experience blog. In summary: what happens when you make the computer scan through a news article and change the word "gay" to the word "homosexual". It works great until you have an Olympic bound athelete named Tyson GAY.
"Asked how he felt, Homosexual said: "A little fatigued."
(Apparently, this is on PZ's blog as well).


Milo Johnson said...

I'm pretty sure their definition of "purity" means "safeguarding your virginity until the right middle-aged man can take it."

Anonymous said...

Ha! You're probably spot on. I just don't get it. Where is the biblical justification for covering a woman from head to toe? It's not about God. It's about guys. Of course, quite a bit of religion is about patriarchy, but still...this is all about men wanting to own a woman (body and mind). What makes me angry is that I've talked to ex-FLDS girls. I count two as good friends. Both were married off in their teens and have shared how horrifying sex was because they were so uncomfortable with their bodies. They spend fifteen years covering it. They're told it's sacred. They're not told about their parts or what they're for. They're never, ever told was sex entails. There's this bizarre doctrine that tells them they'll have to submit to their husbands, but they have no clue as to what that means sexually. One of my friends wasn't sure how babies were made until she found herself pregnant at 17.

I believe in dressing children appropriately. And, I know my "rules" are strict compared to other parents and atheists I've spoken with. Look nice for school, dinners out, or evening functions. Dress for the temperature, not the calendar. Dress for the activity. And, if you purchase clothes with your own cash, we still have veto power. Luckily, we've never had to enforce it.

I don't want my daughters objectified. But, in my opinion, covering them from toes to chin objectifies them in a different way.

Amanda K. said...

prairie muffin! that totally made my day.

ZugTheMegasaurus said...

I don't get the whole "cover everything up" routine. As far as I can tell, leaving everything to the imagination is just as provacative as leaving nothing to the imagination. I mean, you cover everything in cloth and any movement can look suggestive (to the sorts of perverts they're worried about anyway).

MnM&miniMnM said...

How are these women not keeling over and dying from heat strokes wearing all those clothes?
They really shifted gears fast from the evil outside world is out to get us to Hey let's make a quick buck off these halloween costumes.
...........oh, wait a sec.......people actually wear those things? gag!

Enkidu said...

. . . and any movement can look suggestive (to the sorts of perverts they're worried about anyway).
They are the kind of perverts they're worried about!

@lankr1ta said...

Am glad you posted it up! I nearly died laughing when i saw it.
Its just control- thats all. I grew up in India, where the "Victorian" standards of dress still apply. But of course when young people are old enough they are "arranged married" off( pimped off) to someone "suitable". Its funny how control for others manifests itself in the way of dress for females.
"Appropriate" wear does not mean looking like a cabbage, surely- unless it be very very cold.
These clothes are UGLY.

Silvia said...

My daughter would kill me if I even hinted that she wear something from that site. :) Thanks for the entertainment!

rachel said...

WOW, thanks for the link. I'm bummed that so many of the clothes are polyester. I thought for sure they'd be cotton or linen or something. Think of the chafing.