Wool Hypocrites: The Great Acrylic Debate

Why not acrylic?

Wool bad for babies?

Why do people insist they are allergic when...

If you're on Ravelry, you probably recognize at least one of these phrases---thread titles for Yet Another Acrylic Debate. Some begin as simple questions, such as someone who wanted to know if they could knit with wool for babies. All quickly descend into a maelstrom of "wool this, acrylic that"; those who are allergic to wool sing the praises of soy or corn fibers. Woolaholics nearly collapse the server with their lengthy posts extolling that wool is fabulous and perfect and cheap and the perfect fibre for everything, including lingerie. A few timid people suggest that a nice washable acrylic might be nice for a mother of triplets. And ALL have hundreds and hundreds of posts.

Before I start calling names, let me state that I love wool. I buy wool and natural fibers 99.9& of the time. I don't know when I last bought acrylic yarn, which I must admit, I avoid chiefly because the melting factor scares the carp out of me. Anyway, so, just so you know that this post is aimed as much at me as anyone else.

Many of the arguments used by wool lovers against the Red Heart squad usually consist something like this:

1. Wool is breathable, acrylic is not

2. Wool self-extinguishes, acrylic doesn't and it melts and sticks to your skin (this is BAD, for the less bright)

3. They used acrylic once, and their favorite cat died

4. Wool is natural and acrylic is a petroleum product of some kind, don't quote me on what goes into the stuff.

5. People have used wool for thousands of years because of all its awesome qualities and they're carrying on the knitting/crocheting tradition by using only wool.

It's the last point that has bothered me, simply because of this: knitters of the past used wool because that is what they had to knit with. Got that? They had needles, and they had wool, and there was no LYS nearby with Debbie Bliss Cashmere, and no Walmart with the yet-to-be-invented Red Heart. Ergo; knitters have traditionally used wool because wool is all that they had to work with! Wool was the cheapest and best quality material that they could work with. It also washes nicely, yadda, yadda, yadda. They knit practical items for their families and they knit fancy Aran sweaters for the gullible tourists.

When acrylic became available, it had three immeadite advantages to wool. One, it is much easier to wash. Yes, I know there are superwash wools. However, most wool cannot be tossed into any washer AND dryer without worrying over the settings. Two, those who are allergic to wool can normally wear acrylic, AND there are some very soft synthetic yarns while much wool of the past was quite rough.

At this point, wool advocates will say that those who use acrylic are breaking with the past and THEY are carrying on traditional knitting. I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. The knitter who is spending over $100 on Malabrigo for a sweater is much farther from tradition than the knitter who spends $20 for a sweater from washable acrylic or synthetic. Malabrigo isn't practical. Malabrigo is a soft merino that will pill much faster than many other yarns, and it is expensive, and I don't really hear about knitters just happily throwing their Malabrigo darling into the washer. The acrylic knitter is choosing the most economical and practical bang for her buck, and that is really the tradition of knitting. Not hand-dyed short staple merino yarns, not a $30 skein of indie sock yarn, but using the most practical option available to them.

In a word, knitters who use acrylic are probably much closer to the heart and mindset of the 'traditional' knitter than many people (like myself) who prefer to use wool and other natural fibers. I may not use acrylic, but I don't want to be a wool hypocrite, and I wanted to send a shout-out to those who heart Redheart.