Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Feathers, Buttons, and Charms for Earrings

One thing I love most is getting a great discount on yarn and jewelry supplies! Okay, that's two things.

I normally order my yarn from Jo-Ann's, Knitting Warehouse, or Knit Picks, since I am able to find a greater variety online. But Hobby Lobby is where I go for my jewelry making. It's important to be able to feel the weight of the material you are deciding on using, among other things. I know this because in looking for specific jewelry notions I have ended up being surprised when I actually see what I bought. The chain is bigger/smaller than it looked in the picture, the information about the product is scant, or it's just too heavy for what I had in mind. Hobby Lobby usually has a remarkable selection to choose from and I love when it's half off!


This last trip to Hobby Lobby resulted in some great picks! Here's some of what I bought (the top row, to be more specific). I bought the buttons from Jo-Ann's a little while back. I just couldn't pass them up: wood, leaves, buttons!!


I am a sucker for anything nautical and the Traditions line of jewelry notions grabs me every time. I also am really taken with Fairly Tale notions. They have some unique pieces and I wish I had more to do with them. My jewelry creations are pretty basic right now, just some easy earrings, a necklace or so. I haven't really given myself a lot of opportunity to get creative, plus I am still building my supplies.


My idea for this snowflake pendant is to get some silver chain that looks just like this gold and loop thin, white ribbon in and out before stringing on the pendant. I don't normally wear silver, but all of the other women in my family do. And I occasionally make an exception. I think it will turn out quite nice.


Recently I designed a crochet pattern for Crochet Spot, called the Vintage Glenda Hat. I plan to make a few changes to the pattern, make it in a light brown, and use some feathers and maybe one of these buttons for embellishment. A truly inspired hat that Glenda Farrell herself would wear ...I'd like to think.


For the Traditions notions, I already had what I needed. Simple is as simple does, I opened the fish hook earrings with a pair of needle-nose pliers (which I stole a long time ago from Dad) and attached the charms. Here's a tip: hold the charm up the way you want it to look when it sits in your ears and make sure it will sit the same way when you put it on the earring. It can get a bit tricky, but sometimes you get lucky and the charm doesn't make it necessary.


And here they are! I especially like the image of the sloop. Reminds me of something straight out of an old book. Makes me giddy just thinking about it!

What do you think? I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Friday, September 11, 2015

Jeannie, The Secretary - 60's Fashion

While watching the beginning season of I Dream of Jeannie, I have admired the unique style of her clothing. The 60's morphed the fitted dress of the 40's into a more, dare I say, streamlined model. Although there are things about the 60's I do not personally care for in comparison to some earlier years (such as a shorter heel and more pointed shoe, lack of proper waistline, and etc), I still can't help appreciating the periods sense of fashion.

In the episode I am referring to today (Season 1, Episode 9, The Moving Finger, 1965), Jeannie pretends to be Major Nelson's secretary in order to join him as he acts as technical consultant for an upcoming movie.


As usual, he refuses to take her but that look on her face says it all. Notice the glasses. Not too much so as to look cat-eyed, and straight through the arm or ear piece.

Her hair is teased and well-bodied, in the typical 60's style of "big hair". A top layer is feathered around the crown while the thicker, bottom layer curls out.


This dress was particularly attractive to me because of the mix of feminine and business. Double layered collar and large, 2" buttons. Do you remember my love for buttons? (See this post).


Being still mid-60's, the skirt is only about a foot from the knees and is casually A-lined. She carries a clutch purse and a pair of gloves. This is the style of the 60's. Adorably simple and just too cute!

As with all my favorite styles, this one is going on my "to sew" list. I wonder if I'll ever accomplish half of what is on that list...

Unfortunately, Tony's costume changes little and therefore leaves me little to say about it. And strangely enough, men's clothing changes gradually through the years as opposed to women's. I can't figure out why that is so.

Let me know what you think about Jeannie's outfit in the comments below!

Friday, September 4, 2015

Harriet Nelson - Casual Yet Impressive

Harriet Nelson was the epitome of a good housewife and the Nelson family what you would call a modern American family of that era. Of course, TV would like you to believe it was all a bed of roses and knowing life as we do, can highly doubt it was. But the show is cute and frankly, I call it insightful. It's a glance back at the early days --days we have forgotten all about. When living was simpler and what you did in a day had little to nothing to do with technology. Food was more natural, although growing more processed, and there wasn't a new diet each new week. Then again, all I have to go from is television. And a few people who know what it was like.

To me the past holds some pretty interesting secrets. You can read about all the history you want, but sometimes there are things the history books just neglect to talk about. Such as the little things, like what people ate, every day little things that have been lost to time. I love taking an old picture of people living normally and studying it to see if I can find some little thing that you may not have known about. It's like taking a peek back in time.


Recently, we have started watching The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet instant from PureFlix.com. (If you aren't familiar with it, check it out. They have movies, shows, kid's shows and cartoons, documentaries, with the prime intention of presenting morally clean entertainment.)

This episode is called The Pills (S1, Ep 3). Ozzie is intimidated by his neighbor Thorny, to lose weight, but his idea to take pills for it backfires when they turn out to be appetite increasing pills.

Unfortunately, Harriet is only seen in this outfit for less than a minute and only from the hips up. I assume she is wearing a calf length a-line skirt to go with the casual button up. Notice how the sleeves are rolled up giving the impression she has been hard at work, and yet she looks just as fresh as if she had been sitting on the front porch. The vest is waist length and open, with buttons from top to bottom. The belt appears to be leather --and I'm still trying to figure out what is hanging from it. A pouch? Or watch? Over all, her outfit has a western style and still just as immaculate as anything else she wears. Her hair is neatly fixed and her earrings are casually noticeable.

What do you think? Does Harriet's outfit look like something you would like to wear now days? I know I would.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Submission Does not Equal "Doormat"


If you have been keeping up with the news you have seen that Anna Duggar is taking a great deal of flak over her apparent decision to stick with her unfaithful husband. Pure and simple, she has an obligation to make a decision that will not only protect her but her children also, and only she can make it. The sincerity of her husbands words of repentance remains to be seen, and wisely speaking, he deserves a great deal of suspicion and wariness. Only God knows the heart.

But on what grounds is Anna basing her decision?

I am what you may call a devout Christian in that I believe Jesus is God and therefore our Creator, and the Bible is the flawless word of God. The Duggar's also call themselves "devout Christians" but their idea of what it means greatly differ from my own. There are some heavy misconceptions that people like the Duggar's have about God and what the Bible says. Let me explain a few.

It is said Anna Duggar believes it is ungodly for a woman to get angry and that it goes against her beliefs that a wife should submit to her husband.

Let me tell you first of all, when it comes to God's laws, man or woman doesn't make any difference. If God says something is sin, then it's sin no matter who commits it. God doesn't have a different standard for men than He does for women, and no where in the Bible does it say, or even imply, He does.

But is anger truly ungodly?

I always return to this verse: "Be angry and do not sin," (Psalm 4:4, Ephesians 4:26). If God viewed anger as sin wouldn't that verse be a contradiction? But on the contrary, a person can become angry without sinning and a very good reason for how I know this is Jesus Himself. While Jesus was on this earth there was an instance where he was enraged at the way people were desecrating the temple.* He literally drove them out! There was emotion, a great sense of justice, and decisive action on Jesus part. Furthermore, while He was in human flesh He remained perfect, sinless God, and thus could not commit a sin. If we do not share in His anger at injustice in the world, we are no good for anything but to be walked over. (Granted, the way a person responds to their anger can often lead to sin, and more often than not does. That is our responsibility to handle.)

Thus simply put, becoming angry at your husband does not go against a wife's responsibility to submit to him.

But submission itself is a touchy subject, one plagued by years of stereotypes and misrepresentation. It's not something to keep women under the thumb of men. This is a ghastly misconception that one would think had gone out with the crinoline. We are all required to submit daily --yes, all of us. For example, when driving our vehicles, we submit to the laws of the road. We submit to leaders, elders, children are expected to submit to their parents, employees to their employers, and so forth. And yes, biblically speaking, a wife is supposed to submit to her husband (Ephesians 5:22-24), but in doing so she is not expected to lose her voice and her identity. God made each of us unique and with a special purpose. Likewise, a husband does not become a god to her, with the right to rule superior (Ephesians 5:25).

But more importantly is this. At the top of the submission pyramid is God, to which all of us are first and foremost required to obey. Anything contradicting Him loses its right. For instance, a boss, husband, parent, leader, etc, has no right to enforce you to do something that you know goes against God.

Next down on that pyramid for a woman would be her father or husband. And yet, I would say it is wrong to put man higher on the pyramid than woman because this implies that man is superior to woman. Genesis 1:27 says, "[I]n the image of God He created him (man, as in mankind); male and female He created them." Both were made by God, in His image, with just as much importance in the eyes of God as the other. The husband being head of the wife, father head of the family, does not replace equality and pit men better than women. A wife submits to her husband because she respects him. The problem for us as women is that it is hard for us to adhere to this way of life because we know the undependable nature of mankind. You can't trust that your husband will always do what you "know" to be the right thing. It really boils down to this, no woman can be what she needs to be for her husband, her children, or herself, apart from God's empowerment. It is impossible because we do not have the strength within us. We have to trust God to do what needs to be done. Which can be oh, so hard!

Anna Duggar appears to have lost her individuality and seems to consider her responsibility toward her husband her highest priority. Biblically, there are grounds for divorce, but whether this is it, I will not say. I just hope Anna will soon realize the right God has given her as a person. Because a godly woman is a strong woman.


For further reading, see Ephesians 5:22-6:9; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Romans 13:1; 1 Peter 5:5.
*Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46