Lori - V-Day Causes Divorce - Now With Moar Ken! Part 2

[Nettie]

Most men are built to follow along? I thought men were supposed to be the leaders!

[Nettie]

And double posting to say that I really don't like the idea that doing anything other than submission is a cop out. Your post, yet again, just put all the blame onto the wife.

[Ken]

If I was going to give advice like to a person in the one lady's situation I would find out if this is a one time thing with her husband leaving her stranded in the cold with their child(it doesn't sound like it). Find out what steps she has taken to try and work on her relationship with her husband. And, if I believe like Lori, find out if she has tried submission. Find out if his treatment of her has been escalating. Find out if she feels scared of him. Find out why he has refused all marriage counseling. Try to find out if she is exaggerating or downplaying what is going on in the marriage. I would want to know all these things and more before I even attempted to give her advice.

Lori doesn't do any of that. She gives blanket advice.

Doesn't the Bible say that not many should be teachers because teachers are held to a higher standard? Or something like that?

It does, and she is highly responsible in sharing God's Word, but as I have acknowledged, she will try to be more careful about individual questions, but also,if they ask her a question she has a certain responsibility to give her ideas. You put too much "what if" in her answers and pay the 1% card that someone might be damaged by the advice. Why go to a personal blog and ask for advice and expect anything but her personal views? She is not representing herself as a psychologist or some great authority or guru. Set up your blog and if people want your thoughts and opinions then answer them if you feel you have wisdom to offer. There is not limitation on offering personal opinions to those who ask.... is there?

Most of the greatest feminists who got many here to follow them were nobodies who wrote a book. Dang it! I may have just proved your point that sharing opinions and advice can be dangerous in leading weak minded people the wrong way. That is your fear with Lori's advice, right?

[Ken]

Most men are built to follow along? I thought men were supposed to be the leaders!

Correct, most husbands are poor leaders because their wife will not follow. When she decides to follow, he steps up to the plate and becomes much more of a leader. Being given the role of leadership, and being a good leader are two different things.

This may show the brilliance of God's design that men step up to the plate when their wives allow them to lead, and when the wife leads, the husband is often hap to let her do everything.

I, nor any Christian has ever claimed that a husband's leadership is anything more than God's design for a family. Men are not necessarily born better leaders and generally, in young marriages the wife is much more mature then their young husband.

And by follow along, I meant with the harmony, joy and fun in the marriage... not necessarily leadership... but the true leader in any relationship is the one with the right behaviors and attitudes, b=not the most bossy.

[Ken]

And double posting to say that I really don't like the idea that doing anything other than submission is a cop out. Your post, yet again, just put all the blame onto the wife.

I am not sure what you mean. Lori speaks a lot about the behaviors that are attractive to a husband, pleasing him, joy and smiles, lots of things. Submission is just the word used to speak of an attitude towards one;s husband.

I like the words "pleasing each other" which captures 98% of what submission means. Both can do that. The last 2% is allowing him to lead when you have spoken your mind once o twice, he gets it, but disagrees. Then you follow his lead, for many good reasons, AND if you are sure he is wrong or you think his decision is harmful, you don't submit. Few wives submit on everything. Often Lori says, "well I will just do it:" thinking that is what I want, and I say "no, I don;t want you to do it unless you want to." I just want to discuss it with you and have you think about it." Far better than arguing.

[Nettie]

I'm a Christian and I don't claim it. But then you said it in your next sentence - men are not necessarily born better leaders, so why the obsession with fitting them into this mould?

Quoting you again "the true leader in any relationship is the one with the right behaviours and attitudes, not the most bossy" - so that could be the woman.

And again, what is the obsession with someone having to be the leader - my husband and I are both Christians and neither of us is the leader - we have a (very happy) relationship of equals and I just don't recognise your picture of a "Christian marriage".

Having just seen your recent post - I only get to speak my mind once or twice? No, we discuss things until we reach agreement - we are a team. Sometimes we go with his views, sometimes with mine - it differs from situation to situation.

[Angharad Crewe]

What ambitions and desires? Is your daughter doing that now? According to your wife's blog, your daughter isn't doing it now. She's married now. Soon the babies will come. By the time she is ready to go back to work, she will be too old and out of shape to get a job dancing. My daughter is a college graduate and has an excellent job. Even if she takes time off to have babies, she can always go back to her field. Your daughter can't, so where did it get her? That she got to experience it for a while? So did my daughter. She had dance lessons where she could dance her heart out all she wanted. It's pretty sad when a person is told that they are too old and don't have a nice enough body to continue pursuing their dream.

I don't think this was your intention theologygeek, but your post rubs me the wrong way because it implies that women should only choose higher education and high paying jobs that "get you somewhere". Furthermore, it suggests that you should have your career picked out in your early twenties and that you can't deviate from that chosen life choice ever. Maybe Alyssa will continue teaching dance when she gets older, or maybe she will be a SAHM or go back and get a college degree. The choice to pursue professional dance may not be wise financially, and it is definitely associated with health issues - eating disorders and knee and hip problems - but I am really uncomfortable judging that choice, especially because it was something that Alyssa clearly wanted.

[dairyfreelife]

I don't think this was your intention theologygeek, but your post rubs me the wrong way because it implies that women should only choose higher education and high paying jobs that "get you somewhere". Furthermore, it suggests that you should have your career picked out in your early twenties and that you can't deviate from that chosen life choice ever. Maybe Alyssa will continue teaching dance when she gets older, or maybe she will be a SAHM or go back and get a college degree. The choice to pursue professional dance may not be wise financially, and it is definitely associated with health issues - eating disorders and knee and hip problems - but I am really uncomfortable judging that choice, especially because it was something that Alyssa clearly wanted.

I agree with you and Ken on the ballet issue. It may have weight issues because it can involve being lifted by others and does show the body more. I am not saying it's a good thing, but blasting Ken and Lori over allowing their daughter to dance, something she wanted very bad and loved to do, seems in very poor taste. If I ever have a daughter and she wants to dance, I would allow her to do so. I did dance myself for a few years as a child/young teen and enjoyed it for the most part. I am sorry, but I can't judge them for their decision to let their daughter pursue higher level dance and professional dance. It is not cheap to pursue that and she was lucky to have parents with the means to support her dreams in this. No snark on that subject. There's many issues/concerns to address here with Ken, but I just don't see how the daughter being a professional dancer and allowing her to do that bad at all.

[lawfulevil]

Good morning, Ken! Your postcount/day is up to 13.75.

Or is that slanderous?

[formergothardite]

It does, and she is highly responsible in sharing God's Word, but as I have acknowledged, she will try to be more careful about individual questions, but also,if they ask her a question she has a certain responsibility to give her ideas. You put too much "what if" in her answers and pay the 1% card that someone might be damaged by the advice. She is not representing herself as a psychologist or some great authority or guru. Set up your blog and if people want your thoughts and opinions then answer them if you feel you have wisdom to offer. There is not limitation on offering personal opinions to those who ask.... is there?

Most of the greatest feminists who got many here to follow them were nobodies who wrote a book. Dang it! I may have just proved your point that sharing opinions and advice can be dangerous in leading weak minded people the wrong way. That is your fear with Lori's advice, right?

But she has a greater responsibility to assess the situation as best as possible and not give blanket advice, be aware of the potential for abuse, be aware of abuse period(I am horrified at how lightly you both treat abuse), to not make assumptions and to rid herself of her biases as much as she can before giving advice. I'm not even saying she shouldn't teach submission, I'm saying she should teach it with better wisdom. You have ignored many questions about abuse, but how much about it do you and Lori really know? Do you know the signs? Do you know that many abuse victims will hide the abuse out of shame and try to make it look like it is their fault? Do you know how damaging emotional abuse can be? Do you realize that abused women who took the advice to submit and are still being abused are just as likely to tell you that the advice worked as they are to admit to you that they are being abused?

Why go to a personal blog and ask for advice and expect anything but her personal views?

She isn't presenting these as her personal views is she? Her potential to damage woman(and men, submission hurts men too)would be less if she said these were her personal views, but she is presenting them as God's views and as a biblical mandate and anyone who doesn't take her advice is sinning.

[OkToBeTakei]

Most of the greatest feminists who got many here to follow them were nobodies who wrote a book. Dang it! I may have just proved your point that sharing opinions and advice can be dangerous in leading weak minded people the wrong way. That is your fear with Lori's advice, right

Ken just can't help grouping all who disagree with him under some label thing. I have never read any 'feminist' writings to my knowledge. Certainly not a book. ABSOLUTELY not a blog written in the past 5 probably 10 years. In the same way some choose to interpret the bible in self serving ways others have done so with feminism. That is not a reason to dismiss either.

But the internet, for whatever reason, is to hysteria what damp rooms are to mould. Cries of privilege-checking and intersectionality – both, objectively, good things – too often become tic-like terms of abuse and a means of shutting down conversation as opposed to opening it up. They have become feminism's version of Godwin's Law. Tellingly, it is feminist writers and editors who work for leftwing publications who attract the bitterest abuse on social media from fellow feminists, as opposed to the sexists and misogynists on rightwing publications. This is because the flaws or even failures of those nearby are so much more egregious than those far away. Critiquing and educating is one thing, publicly slamming leftwing feminist writers as "low-level media whores", as one prominent blogger did this weekend, is, I think we can all agree, another.

Unfortunately Ken every time you use the word feminist you are invoking your own Godwin's law.

It seems to go like this. Poster on FJ asks a question. Ken answers because......bible.

Poster disproves or asks for deeper clarification. Ken answers because......feminist.

It's a very easy out that one. The term is misunderstood, overused and has become a shadow of what the original movement was. That though just makes it easier as the article above mentions for sexists to cackle away at all the in-fighting. It is why you throw it out there, out of ignorance. An easy way to dismiss.

I actually had never read Lori's blog, no google clicks from me. I decided to have a look last night in the interests of fairness, anything I have read has been quoted then commented on here and as Ken feels that this is mischaracterisation, that the opinions expressed here are unfair I thought ok Alice, let's find a rabbit hole.

I went for the health tab as that is my profession and I do recall Lori has had health issues and felt the best way to try and find an unbiased view would be to start from a compassionate view. Which worked to some extent, the cyberknife treatment and her feelings of claustrophobia certainly impacted and pinged my sympathy.

Other things not so much. The mastectomy post was the height of ignorance. It is quite obvious that Lori has/had no knowledge of BRAC 1 or 2 and worse than that because ignorance is easily fixable, she did not comment or interact with any commenter who shared their stories or knowledge in the comments.

I'm going to pretend absolute ignorance and assume it was a typo when she claimed she has found a salve which cures skin cancer.

A very quick google tells me that the health benefits of turmeric are referring to fresh turmeric. Lori may want to expand her google search beyond what she presently does. Somebody on this forum once said when internetting on health they always refer to Canadian sites,then Australian, then European before looking at the US sites to make an informed decision. Seemed like good advice.

I'm not really interested in the antibiotic, immunisation debates. There is enough controversy and debate for even that illusive 1% Ken references as possibly being harmed by poor advice to probably make an informed decision without Lor's opinion.

This though..

Cassi burned her foot pretty severely when she was around six years old. When I was able to pull the heating pad off of her foot, a big chunk of skin came off with it. I sat her on my bed and got a big junk of fresh aloe out of our back yard {as you see in the picture above} and for four days just kept putting fresh aloe on her foot. On the fifth day, the skin was pink and pretty. Neighbors told me I should have taken her to the ER because she could have gotten an infection.

As a nurse I treat quite a few minor ailments at home. That does not bother me. The bolded though. OUCH! The ignorance of immediate emergency care in burns is astounding. The outcome was obviously fine. LUCKILY.

I could go on and on. Thing is I only want to make one point. In most of these posts, most, not all, Lori prefaces the entry by saying that this is merely her opinion and that she is not an expert.

Why does she not do this with her other advice?

Ken from time immemorial people have been writing and others have commented. From the chattering classes of the victorian era to the more accessible internet world we live in now. I'm not sure why you find the dissenting views here so hard to fathom or feel the need to cast those who make them into one convenient box. You are going to get all those views both negative and positive and in between. I agree with some but not all here.

So in the time honoured fashion of a dissenting view as still practised by 'The Times' to this day I respond to you thus...

Sir.To the learned gentleman from California. Your point would be better served if you did not dismiss the views of others by using convenient labels and collective terms such as 'feminist' to describe any person who does not agree with your opinion. It makes the gentleman look like a boorish, chauvinistic ignoramus and casts his sex in a poor light. I would also like to bring to the gentleman's attention he appears to misunderstand the term libel.

Also I WILL give you advice. You can't 'win' here. I'm not sure I believe your stated goal of mutual understanding, I doubted it from the start and despite a few moments of doubt I'm now fairly happy to believe you have no desire for mutual anything. I wonder though if you thought you might 'soul win?' I think that's the term.You may have wished to clear up some generalisations, some blanket judgements made by posters here regarding your family life. Done. Get that. Personally one snippet or anecdote of a family life is not going to define the whole family dynamic. I'm fairly certain that for every person who maligned Lori for making her child eat salad many recall the same experience with no negative connotations at all. Fact is if you put it out there you will meet a few who will grab that bone like a dog. They are more likely to do it when you are telling people how to live their lives. Which is what you are doing.

The reason you can't win here is simple. I've been here a while. Two things will happen. You may leave on good terms, time and life etc. and try to do that, some will say you have 'flounced.' You may leave in a moment of frustration after heated debate. 'Flounce.' Whatever you do you will not win I'm afraid. That is not because FJ is a bunch of unhappy, socialist feminists. It will be because the individual poster who says you flounced is the type who go 'neener' for their own gratification.

[formergothardite]

IF I said basketball and sex were sacred find it… and it would have been “tongue in cheek.†Your issue with you husband lasted a few weeks or months. My wife had chronic illnesses. If I did not get out and do some exercise I could not be in a good mental, emotional or physical shape to help her. For you and another to harp on my basketball playing is so out of touch with reality. An absurd accusation.

I was the one who brought up basketball. I brought it up because you were going on about how men have the hardest job because they would have to die for their wives. I pointed out that the actually chances of them having to die for their wife(at least in America) are pretty much slim to none so this is pretty meaningless. Lori expects women to sacrifice, submit and endure their husband not making them a priority for YEARS. You wouldn't give up basketball that you played 3-4 times a week when you were actually home, which wasn't a lot since you traveled most of the year. So who has to make the greater sacrifice, the woman who submissively takes emotional abuse and neglect for years and years with the hope that eventually her husband will love her and make her a priority or the man who claims "I'll die for my wife." when what she needs is for him to give up his fun activities to be at home with her, but he doesn't? This is just pointing out how absurd the claim that men have the harder job when women are expected to submissively endure unhappiness for years while men don't have to do give up their sacred activities as long as they claim they will die for their wives.

I have a daughter with severe special needs, so the time of my husband and I having to sacrifice our "sacred" things is going to last a very, very long time. I do think that both spouses need to work together to figure out a way for them both to be able to stay in good shape both mentally and physically, but there have been long periods when this just wasn't possible because we were both needed at home to support each other. I personally think that if one spouse is traveling most of the year that it is very selfish of them to then go hang out with their buddies to play basketball 3-4 nights on the weeks they are home. If a woman was in this situation where her husband wanted her at home but to stay in shape mentally and physically she felt she needed to do something outside the home 3-4 nights a week, Lori would tell her to submit to her husband and figure out another way, wouldn't she?

The entire point was that the claim of "I'll die for my wife" is fairly meaningless and women are expected to sacrifice more. I used your basketball as an example because to give that up would have been a great sacrifice to you. Lori didn't need you to die, she needed you to give up basketball and figure out another way to get in shape mentally and physically.

[DrWhat]

Sir.To the learned gentleman from California. Your point would be better served if you did not dismiss the views of others by using convenient labels and collective terms such as 'feminist' to describe any person who does not agree with your opinion. It makes the gentleman look like a boorish, chauvinistic ignoramus and casts his sex in a poor light. I would also like to bring to the gentleman's attention he appears to misunderstand the term libel.

Also I WILL give you advice. You can't 'win' here. I'm not sure I believe your stated goal of mutual understanding, I doubted it from the start and despite a few moments of doubt I'm now fairly happy to believe you have no desire for mutual anything. I wonder though if you thought you might 'soul win?' I think that's the term.You may have wished to clear up some generalisations, some blanket judgements made by posters here regarding your family life. Done. Get that. Personally one snippet or anecdote of a family life is not going to define the whole family dynamic. I'm fairly certain that for every person who maligned Lori for making her child eat salad many recall the same experience with no negative connotations at all. Fact is if you put it out there you will meet a few who will grab that bone like a dog. They are more likely to do it when you are telling people how to live their lives. Which is what you are doing.

The reason you can't win here is simple. I've been here a while. Two things will happen. You may leave on good terms, time and life etc. and try to do that, some will say you have 'flounced.' You may leave in a moment of frustration after heated debate. 'Flounce.' Whatever you do you will not win I'm afraid. That is not because FJ is a bunch of unhappy, socialist feminists. It will be because the individual poster who says you flounced is the type who go 'neener' for their own gratification.

Think you for saying what I've been thinking for some time. Ken, what are you looking to gain here? There is absolutely no way that you stand to gain any sort of "mutual understanding" here because free jinger is not a group of people based on ideology. This site exists solely because we are people who are interested in fundamentalist religion in some form. Some are here to snark, some of us are actually here for a place to have consistent news and read actual discourse on various topics. We are only connected by our fundie snarking, and even then we don't agree because there are some like myself who find the snarking part distasteful at times.

Though I am an atheist now with a mix of liberal and libertarian political leanings, I was raised in an American conservative home with moderate Christian parents who were loving and used spanking and I am no worse for wear. My mother never discussed weight or food issues in front of me yet I still struggled with healthy food relationships for years. I think most young women do at some point, and because I have a close relationship with my mother I was able to work through it with her help. I understand the appeal of encouraging male leadership and female submission, if reasonable and mutual, as one method of creating a stronger marriage. As my boyfriend says, the best couples specialize. I am an educated woman in a high-powered field and I am not ashamed to admit that some strategies applied by monogamous gamers appeal to me on a private level.

But I am not simple enough to think that these ways work for everyone or can not be taken to harmful extremes. And you seem to realize that to a certain extent, which has caused me to have as much respect for you as I could have for any religious conservative stranger on the internet. But Lori clearly does not. I believe she has the right to post whatever ridiculous opinions she has on a personal blog. If readers are foolish enough to follow unprofessional advice on the internet, then they have bigger problems that a more balanced Lori would not solve. But, I do think that your family has the potential to find themselves in hot water if any bad outcomes result from a troubled reader citing Lori's advice to just hit harder if they are investigated for abuse. And it is more likely to happen than your narrow-viewed wife knows.

Also, this Cabinetman is not the same as you. He has so many red flags it is not even funny. I predict that if you remain in touch with him that this will eventually show itself. Legal issues, money problems, personal crisis, caught in lies. I would bet the farm. I run the other way from internet acquaintances with extreme ideologies, especially uneducated ones.

ETA: To be clear, the point of my posting my personal level of respect/understanding of your writing was supposed to underline the fact that every other person here will have their own standard, and you will never convince everyone. For the record you coming here has only barely allowed me to see you as more well-rounded as I believed this generally discernible in your comments on Lori's blog due to the stark contrast with your wife's writing. So, overall I can not see that you are gaining much of anything or changing anyone's mind. It is interesting that you remain so insistent on clearing up every word.

[Arete]

Ken,

I missed your reply to me on the other thread. Regarding Isaiah 53. Rabbinical Judaism considers the Suffering Servant to refer to the Nation of Israel, not an individual Messiah and certainly not Jesus. Israel will suffer to teach the nations a better way. It is there tradition and their language, I think at the very least it is pretty arrogant of any Christian to dare an Orthodox Jew to see Jesus as the Suffering Servant in the Isaiah poems because they have already studied them, as well as the Christian claims, and can dismiss the Christian claims as not applying because of X, Y, Z. Yes, the Christian church interprets the Isaiah poems as a prophecy about Jesus. When I read them in Greek or English, I definitely see parallels in terms of Jesus's mission. But here is the rub. Even when I am reading Isaiah in Biblical Greek, I am reading a translation. There is no way I can discount the fact I don't know all the language subtleties of the Hebrew, and therefore cannot tell the tradition that wrote the Scriptures, "Hey, you are definitely WRONG!" It is there language and culture, they win in the interpretation sweepstakes.

Why am I not overly bothered that I adhere in my practice to the Christian interpretation while knowing it is absolutely not the Jewish interpretation? Short answer-In the next life, everything will be made clear, in this one, some things are a mystery. These stories all can have multiple meanings even within one individual tradition. I err on the side that God allowed the development of different cultures because we were SUPPOSED to see things differently and pool are collective knowledge. A Jew finds the idea of an anthropomorphic God like Jesus to be distasteful at the VERY best. A Greek like me LOVES the idea of God walking and teaching among us. Even though Christians are using some of the same Scriptures as Jews are, we are NOT the same religion. Same with Islam. That ought to be fine for all of us, and we could work on the appreciation of things we have in common as monotheists. Instead, the fanatics of all three traditions give us Eternal Damnation, Non Jews with the spiritual status of animals, and jihadis. The fanatics of Christianity and Islam won't stop until everyone else is bent to their will.

Why? There are 3 Gospels full of our responsibilities to the poor, the outcast, our neighbor, and how if we do not feed the sick, visit the prisoner, cloth the naked, we have no share in the world to come and worse we do nothing to advance the Kingdom of God on earth. John writes one Gospel in a polemic format, addressing the rift that is about to become permanent between Rabbincal Judaism and Christianity, both movements which formed fully after the destruction of the Second Temple 30 years after the death of Jesus. We are then to believe that God the Father will consign most of humanity to hell because they looked at Christianity and found it wanting, or did not look at it at all. That is a God of Justice. Believe this, come on in, don't believe in Jesus, down you go, no matter how righteous? I'll take my chances that not everything in Scripture is meant to be interpreted literally. If I am wrong and all you needed to share in the Divine is a belief in Jesus, well, then the Divine is actually pretty Satanic, and I am not writing that for shock value. Then God really does not love the world. And I would want to be in the company of the righteous in Hell than the toadies in "Heaven".

My church does not have a doctrine of Original Sin. We are born pure, but we inherit the tendency to make bad choices. We follow the words of Jesus and have sacraments to help us make better choices and advance the Kingdom of God. Eastern Orthodox scholars do not think The Apocalypse of John can be interpreted, because we have lost the meaning of the original symbolism. The cross is important because Jesus dies, goes down and breaks the chains of the underworld, rises again, and therefore renders the power of death moot. Yes, in Orthodoxy the cross is not a sacrifice to appease God. It is a vehicle to defeat the power of death. That is why no one denomination of Christianity, and particularly one developed as narrowly as American Fundementalist Protestantism, can speak of all Christians, Christian philosophy, or Christian dogma. It is far, far more nuanced within a 2,000 year tradition than fundamentalist are capable of understanding.

Look at history. Every time Christians of any denomination from the Byzantines to today have decided they were going to "save" the world by unleashing "Christian" society, they have unchained the gates of Hell and the blood has flowed. Let it be carried in people's hearts, and let the Christian do the duty of loving and taking care of their neighbor. That will advance God's Kingdom on earth, not wifely submission, or picketing clinics, or trying to convert other religions.

[DrWhat]

A beautiful, mysterious, enlightening and inspiring post, AretaJo. The like button would not do it justice.

[formergothardite]

I don't expect to change Ken's mind on submission or spanking. I do hope that through this discussion Ken is able to look at how abused women often behave and realize that Lori is giving advice in a very unwise way. I also hope that he will stop treating emotional abuse so lightly.

On SSM's post about marital rape I found this comment:

I found your blog through Lori Alexander @ Always Learning

[salex]

Honestly, I have no concerns about being linked to Lori's blog, nor with my clients.

So you say, but you keep bringing it up as part of what brought you here.

Again, a wrong conclusion, but what you are thinking generally would make sense. I will not explain why, but suffice it to say with 30 years at the top of my profession, and such a scattered profession around the world, I might actually enjoy less work

Congrats!

But why would you want to harm me? That does not seem very responsible to fight in the world of ideas so you go after someone in their business???

Weird thinking to me, but it is kind f what I see in liberalism and activists. It you cannot shout them down, be nasty.

Really... I sometimes think you joined the snark board so you could practice your own snark... lol

But do you somehow suppose that only liberals put pressure on businesses to conform?

You've not heard or participated in boycotts of businesses who don't toe the line of Christian World View? I am too much of a wuss to be an activist, and only one other person in the history of the world has called me a liberal, -- but labels are so convenient, aren't they?

[polecat]

Yes Polecat, Lori received and receives many comments and nasty statements, many of which came from this Forum according to Goggle. My guess almost all of the nasty people are part f this group. I remember reading years ago when she was getting the comments from this group and a few were saying. "that can't be from our group." Yes, your group perpetuates hate and nasty comments although I do find that many here seem quite responsible individuals which I appreciate.

Why do you continue to mischaracterize and falsely accuse. Show me where the abuse is in my family. Any abuse. You disagree with our approach to discipline, but to characterize this as abuse is to say that almost all parents are abusive/ 75% of parents still spank, and for a reason. It is a very effective and proven tool for raising great kids when done right.

No, that's not mischaraciterization. That's reading comprehension. I didn't say anything about your kids being abused (although some of the quotes from Lori I'd certainly call abusive). I stated that the means do NOT justify the ends. Just because a person's kids (any person's -- not just yours) turn out "ok" does not mean that the person was a fantastic parent. Your quote stated quite clearly that it did.

[salex]

It does, and she is highly responsible in sharing God's Word, but as I have acknowledged, she will try to be more careful about individual questions, but also,if they ask her a question she has a certain responsibility to give her ideas. You put too much "what if" in her answers and pay the 1% card that someone might be damaged by the advice. Why go to a personal blog and ask for advice and expect anything but her personal views? She is not representing herself as a psychologist or some great authority or guru. Set up your blog and if people want your thoughts and opinions then answer them if you feel you have wisdom to offer. There is not limitation on offering personal opinions to those who ask.... is there?

Most of the greatest feminists who got many here to follow them were nobodies who wrote a book. Dang it! I may have just proved your point that sharing opinions and advice can be dangerous in leading weak minded people the wrong way. That is your fear with Lori's advice, right?

See, you really are getting the snark part down. :clap:

But the truth is, I didn't read a book to become a feminist. I was raised by parents and grandparents and my church to believe that women and men were and should be equal under the law, socially and economically and in GOd's eyes. . It was a shock to realize that was not how everyone thought when I got out into the big bad world.

I've said, I don't read the blog (more in the last two weeks than in the year since I heard of it). I gather you still don't see what the problem is for me and the others who don't believe the only Biblical marriage is subservience, submission and the ideal that husbands can and should discipline their wives for a variety of failings.

I don't believe there is any way to make you understand my feelings on the worldview that women are automatically to follow the male, that women should not work outside the home, ever if possible, that if women could just be controlled/managed, men would be better people. You will never see the connection that I do between that world view and the worldview based on similar ideas in other countries that make it "ok" to gang rape women as punishment, or for stepping outside of bounds set by their culture. You will never likely see the similarities I see between public statements about women by Christian politicians here and non Christian politicians in other countries, and how frightening I find blogs that suport the idea that men and women can't and shouldn't be equal.

Because if women are not equal to men, they are by definition lessor.... and that means men can set the rules as to how they can be treated legally, economically and socially. And that can be ugly and scarey (again, those history books I recommended might be a valuable thing to read.)

[salex]

I am not sure what you mean. (

You said earlier that if Lori gave another view/option than submission, her readers / many women would view it as a cop out...

Lori speaks a lot about the behaviors that are attractive to a husband, pleasing him, joy and smiles, lots of things. Submission is just the word used to speak of an attitude towards one;s husband. I like the words "pleasing each other" which captures 98% of what submission means. Both can do that.

Words have meanings and here is what submission means

1.

the action or fact of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.

It has nothing to do with pleasing each other. That borders on mutual submission, which you are on record as being against.

The last 2% is allowing him to lead when you have spoken your mind once o twice, he gets it, but disagrees. Then you follow his lead, for many good reasons, AND if you are sure he is wrong or you think his decision is harmful, you don't submit.

Actually, Lori says follow even if he is wrong so you can "win him without a word ) (which to me is a misuse or misunderstanding of that verse... which is if I recall related to unequal yoke and not divorcing an unbeliever-- but live a good christian life and you may "win him without a word" by being such a good person)

And most submission bloggers don't make the exception of not submitting unless what the husband is asking her to do goes against god's word (an outright sin) and even that point is debated. I have read facebook debates on if a woman should have an abortion if her husband says she should (the group was all anti abortion, so this was a big sin to them) ... the consensus in that group was that it was a greater sin for her to disobey her husband, and that he would answer to god for the abortion, not her.

Few wives submit on everything. Often Lori says, "well I will just do it:" thinking that is what I want, and I say "no, I don;t want you to do it unless you want to." I just want to discuss it with you and have you think about it." Far better than arguing.

Then you and she don't practice what you preach, because submission is obedience, not agreement in all things. (unless you go with the Elizabeth Eliot model of women never having a preference on anything.)

Edited because I can't seem to get the quotes to look like I want....

[OkToBeTakei]

Ken said

Why do you continue to mischaracterize and falsely accuse. Show me where the abuse is in my family. Any abuse. You disagree with our approach to discipline, but to characterize this as abuse is to say that almost all parents are abusive/ 75% of parents still spank, and for a reason. It is a very effective and proven tool for raising great kids when done right.

75% of parents? Where exactly is this statistic from?

It is against the law in my country as you advocate it. It is banned in these countries around the world.

Honduras (2013)

TFYR Macedonia (2013)

South Sudan (2011)

Albania (2010)

Congo, Republic of (2010)

Kenya (2010)

Tunisia (2010)

Poland (2010)

Liechtenstein (2008)

Luxembourg (2008)

Republic of Moldova (2008)

Costa Rica (2008)

Togo (2007)

Spain (2007)

Venezuela (2007)

Uruguay (2007)

Portugal (2007)

New Zealand (2007)

Netherlands (2007)

Greece (2006)

Hungary (2005)

Romania (2004)

Ukraine (2004)

Iceland (2003)

Turkmenistan (2002)

Germany (2000)

Israel (2000)

Bulgaria (2000)

Croatia (1999)

Latvia (1998)

Denmark (1997)

Cyprus (1994)

Austria (1989)

Norway (1987)

Finland (1983)

Sweden (1979)

Every single country in the world except for the United States and Somalia, have agreed that spanking is wrong, at least in principle, through ratifying the universal treaty on children’s human rights, the Convention on the Rights of Child. (South Sudan also has not ratified this treaty, but banned corporal punishment of children in 2011).

Damn liberal world eh Ken?

'Sweden was the first country to pass a ban on corporal punishment in 1979, and quite aside from impressive child health and education indicators, it is clear that the country has not descended into anarchy as a result of this “lack of discipline.†It is noteworthy that Sweden’s standard of living has been described by economists as “enviable,†fuelled by a “skilled labor force†(including a substantial number of workers born after the absolute spanking ban). Moreover, the economic downturn that is engulfing all of Europe is projected to be relatively short-lived in Sweden. In other words: either it pays off to be throwing fits, or else the ban on spanking does not really produce lazy, fit-throwing adults after all.'

Because..the bible?

[salex]

The reason you can't win here is simple. I've been here a while. Two things will happen. You may leave on good terms, time and life etc. and try to do that, some will say you have 'flounced.' You may leave in a moment of frustration after heated debate. 'Flounce.' Whatever you do you will not win I'm afraid. That is not because FJ is a bunch of unhappy, socialist feminists. It will be because the individual poster who says you flounced is the type who go 'neener' for their own gratification.

Didn't quote your whole post, but I was talking with my husband about Ken and this thread.

I said Ken was up against a hydra, because defending a blog with so many posts means so many topics. Submission, spanking, the defense of the Pearls, Sunshine Mary, the medical stuff (I don't read the blog enough to have even remembered that was one of her deals...) He can't possibly keep up with the many heads of our critique of Lori's blog. And many of the people here are well schooled on internet debate, unswayed by logical fallacies and skilled at using quote buttons.

I'm not sure, even now, what his motivation was to come here. To threaten us with punishment for illegal use of the net? To convince us that lori is nice and so is he? To come as a voice in the wilderness and convert the evil heathens? Since I don't know his motivation, I don't know if he feels he is "winning" or not. I suspect he is as surprised as we are that he is still here.

I am amazed the thread has lasted this long. Usually threads wind down and die a natural death. But online debate is addictive, so maybe Ken is finding that to be the case... (someone is WRONG on the internet...)

[Mama Mia]

Good morning, Ken! Your postcount/day is up to 13.75.

Or is that slanderous?

I have to say this really puts him in a no win situation. If he doesn't answer posts people accuse him of ignoring the subject, or flouncing. If he does try to answer posts than he's picked at for spending too much time here. That's pretty ridiculous.

[lipstickgoalie]

I shouldn't be surprised but he didn't address my statement. Ken, exactly how many of us were "out to destroy" your business? Because by my count ozone person suggested contacting your clients and did so in a lukewarm manner and then, fairly quickly multiple people said not to for various reason.

I find your views repugnant, but lies make the baby Jesus cry Ken.

[OkToBeTakei]

The reason you can't win here is simple. I've been here a while. Two things will happen. You may leave on good terms, time and life etc. and try to do that, some will say you have 'flounced.' You may leave in a moment of frustration after heated debate. 'Flounce.' Whatever you do you will not win I'm afraid. That is not because FJ is a bunch of unhappy, socialist feminists. It will be because the individual poster who says you flounced is the type who go 'neener' for their own gratification.

Didn't quote your whole post, but I was talking with my husband about Ken and this thread.

I said Ken was up against a hydra, because defending a blog with so many posts means so many topics. Submission, spanking, the defense of the Pearls, Sunshine Mary, the medical stuff (I don't read the blog enough to have even remembered that was one of her deals...) He can't possibly keep up with the many heads of our critique of Lori's blog. And many of the people here are well schooled on internet debate, unswayed by logical fallacies and skilled at using quote buttons.

I'm not sure, even now, what his motivation was to come here. To threaten us with punishment for illegal use of the net? To convince us that lori is nice and so is he? To come as a voice in the wilderness and convert the evil heathens? Since I don't know his motivation, I don't know if he feels he is "winning" or not. I suspect he is as surprised as we are that he is still here.

I am amazed the thread has lasted this long. Usually threads wind down and die a natural death. But online debate is addictive, so maybe Ken is finding that to be the case... (someone is WRONG on the internet...)

Maybe he does not know the motivation now either. I would say it was initially because he genuinely felt Lori was being misunderstood via her blog. After that a hydra indeed. It could be many threads with the issues being discussed. He might find it easier to see people as individuals if that was the case. Not everybody holds the same views on different issues. I am not at all familiar with Sunshine Mary, nor interested in the least with submission. I always, always am interested in people who quote the bible as fact, or post facts or statistics with no basis. I don't think my disdain for labels is a great secret.

I think Ken and Lori may actually be terribly naive. I think Lori most certainly appears so. I find it incredibly hard to believe that in this day and age they/he expect to be able to opine on such an animal as the internet and not face the consequences this may have. Naive because as Happy Atheist always says assume everybody you talk to on the internet is an axe murderer. It's a bit depressing to think that way but if you do take that into consideration then you do not go around naming your children, or put your life out there for public consumption. Unfortunately I don't think anybody has come up with a filter for the internet to ensure the blog only reaches the people they are interested in hearing from... not dissenters.

Naive because this is a public forum and the more he posts here despite the nefarious assertions he makes that it is only FJ members who wish him harm, of which over 6000 are registered in any 5 minutes there are over 100 guests at peak times. I don't think it is the people who are engaging him he needs to worry about. He must have written over 100 posts which are easily searchable and easily visible via google and his name. I'm probably over private, certainly regarding my child. Funny though, I'd be more worried I would be arrested in my country writing some of the stuff they write. He just appears to wish to either explain or possibly excuse it? Funny old world.

Maybe his motivation like the bible will remain a mystery. Talking of which if they are SO certain about aspects of the bible, who was the naked 13th disciple? Rhetorical question :lol: