The one where Cabinetboy starts a blog

[salex]

Wow. So basically she realized at the beginning that it was a mistake to have married him. They conveniently blamed her struggles on birth control pills. Eventually their lives came to a shitty impasse through her "submission". He blogs to puff himself up, while she hopes that blogging is enough of an outlet to keep him from damaging the relationship more. While they struggle to make it through because they believe staying together is the best thing to do.

And it's all out there for the world to see and analyze while they deceive themselves into thinking they're ministering by being so open about their struggles. What a trainwreck. Hopefully their kids have enough outside exposure to healthy relationships to keep from repeating the cycle.

Sounds a lot like Lori and Ken's love story.

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2011/09/were-you-madly-in-love.html

Were you crazy in love when you got married? Were sparks flying, anticipation building for the big day? Neither Ken nor I were madly in love or had sparks flying on our wedding day. In fact, Ken says, "We got engaged. It went downhill from there, but we got married anyway." Sad, isn't it?

{After I wrote this, I asked Ken if he had sparks for me on my wedding day and he said, "Yes! I couldn't wait to have fun being married to you, but that hope died quickly when I couldn't do anything right in your eyes.}

Is being crazy in love with sparks flying a prerequisite for getting married? No...I have proven that, BUT the reason we weren't madly in love with sparks flying was because I didn't really know what love looked like.

I was very disappointed I didn't have all those feelings you were suppose to have before you got married. After we got engaged, I kept asking Ken if he was sure we should get married and he would reassure me, "Yes, we were molded for each other."

My marrying him was pretty much a mental decision. Sure, we were physically attracted to each other, but we argued all the time. I focused on his faults and tried to change them. It is all I really knew.

We both loved Jesus. We had the same type of personality. We had the same goals and values. We enjoyed doing a lot of the same things, so I reasoned we were right for each other. We got married and struggled through 23 years of a bad marriage which, unfortunately, is typical.

Apparently, the recipe for having a Christian Marriage Blog is to find someone who you don't much like, marry them, make one another's lives miserable for a decade or two... either wear your wife down/convince her that you will stalk her to the ends of the earth or that you will ditch her bony ass and she'll be poor and tie yourselves into some kind of mutual assured destruction pact where you marital war becomes a cold war that you can portray as a good thing on the internet.

By the way, Ken and MRS Cabinet Man... despite what your spouses tell you, it is not typical to struggle in a bad marriage for decades. Even if you view divorce as a sin, God forgives sin. Ken, you indeed have a Proverbs wife... a Proverbs 27:15-16 wife.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Good summary, Salex, but you forgot a key ingredient.

You need to over-generalize your spouse's particular flaws to assume that all 3.5 billion members of the same sex are exactly the same way. If your wife is crazy, then all women in general must be crazy. If your husband won't change a diaper, well then, all real men must be allergic to small babies.

Then, you need to propose some sort of draconian rules for everyone, to solve what was your own unique mess.

If anyone suggests that simply being nice to your spouse and having better communication might help, be sure to tell them that they are weak and deluded and buying into the lies of the secular world (even if they are quoting the Golden Rule). If someone tells you that being nice to each other works in their marriage, tell them that they must be lying about having a happy marriage, they must be exceptionally rare, or that they only think that they have a happy marriage but would really have a much happier marriage if only they followed your rules for couples who hate each other. Oh, and be sure to point out that if they are happy without following your strict gender roles and stereotypes, they may have fallen victim to the androgyny which is floating in the air these days, courtesy of Satan, and the wife who can drive competently and the husband who can care for his own children are a dreadful sign that the End Times are upon us.

[formergothardite]

And also just remember if anyone tells you about women being abused by these rules, just say they are exaggerating or flat our lying.

[Rescinded and Mended]

I just remembered another one. If you happen to already be an educated woman when you marry your husband, and you both move toward embracing fundamentalist beliefs, then that's the ideal mindset. If your husband becomes disabled and you, as a woman, have to work to support him, there's nothing wrong with that, but you have to make sure none of your daughters ever go to teh ebil secular college and become educated, because they might leave the cult mentality or learn enough to work and support themselves/their own husbands if disability ever happened to them.

So it's okay if your wife supports you (the husband) when you become disabled as long as she was educated before the marriage, but not okay if your daughter gets an education so she can support herself and you if something bad happens (and life definitely has a way of throwing curve balls).

I can't even with the so-called "logic" behind this mentality... :angry-banghead:

[ems]

I *think* this warning was meant for us:

I don't know if I'm one of the " feminist progressive nazi’s" (definitely feminist and progressive-leaning, but is the "Nazi" label really necessary there??) However, if I were ever to apply the Nazi label to myself, it would be to call myself a grammar Nazi, and so the unnecessary quotation mark is making my eye twitch...

[feministxtian]

I just remembered another one. If you happen to already be an educated woman when you marry your husband, and you both move toward embracing fundamentalist beliefs, then that's the ideal mindset. If your husband becomes disabled and you, as a woman, have to work to support him, there's nothing wrong with that, but you have to make sure none of your daughters ever go to teh ebil secular college and become educated, because they might leave the cult mentality or learn enough to work and support themselves/their own husbands if disability ever happened to them.

So it's okay if your wife supports you (the husband) when you become disabled as long as she was educated before the marriage, but not okay if your daughter gets an education so she can support herself and you if something bad happens (and life definitely has a way of throwing curve balls).

I can't even with the so-called "logic" behind this mentality... :angry-banghead:

Yeah...they both had an issue with my level of education and the fact that I could support our family quite nicely even though my husband is disabled. Well...if they're so against the ebil gov't assistance, I would think that being able to support your family would be a good thing...but...they have issues with logic anyway.... :o

[snarktastic]

.

Quick Q for my fellow progressive feminist nazis.

When did we last 'threaten' any of these good Christian folk?

Laughed at, yes. Done lots of :angry-banghead: and :cray-cray: and :nenner: , yes.

IIRC a couple of FJ'ers had a go at humping a fundy bus.

I seem to have missed the threatening bit...

[feministxtian]

I may have said something to the effect that if Ken or ArmoireBoy were my husband, I'd feel an intense need to kick their asses if they tried that shit with me...but I don't think that would have been considered a threat....

[formergothardite]

If Ken or Cabinet Boy were my husband I probably would be pressing charges against them and getting restraining orders. This isn't a threat since they aren't married to me and I am 100% sure that my husband would never act like them. But if he did suddenly decide to take their advice that is what I would do.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I don't recall any threats being identified.

Look, if some of the past stuff was happening TODAY, then it's possible that I'd check for more information if I found out that a severely depressed, suicidal woman with a history of violence was alone with her children, who were being homeschooled, after complaining to others that her husband was abusive and had removed any means that she had to leave. At some point, I don't care which parent is more fucked up, but I do care about the safety of children. [Yes, Cupboard Guy, I do realize that women can be violent. My concern is that you and Ken don't take this possibility seriously, and think that mental health treatment is a DIY project. My second cousin and his wife both had problems, but it was their kids who ended up being killed in a murder-suicide.]

However, since I have no idea who or where these people are in real life, and they say that this crisis happened years ago, I'm not calling anybody.

[cindyluvs24]

.

Quick Q for my fellow progressive feminist nazis.

When did we last 'threaten' any of these good Christian folk?

Laughed at, yes. Done lots of :angry-banghead: and :cray-cray: and :nenner: , yes.

IIRC a couple of FJ'ers had a go at humping a fundy bus.

I seem to have missed the threatening bit...

Is there some way of developing a smilie of humping a bus?

[childerowland]

I'm still not convinced that Mrs Cabinetman exists. She just seems too perfect an MRA fantasy.

[SunnyAndrsn]

Two thoughts:

1. I've never been called a Nazi feminist before, LMAO at that.

2. The whole thing reads like he's stroking his ego. It's his Christian masturbation station.

[twin2]

If you do threaten my family realize I have a top flight attorney on retainer, available at a moments notice & I am more than happy to pay him.

Umm, if he has a "top flight" attorney on retainer, wouldn't that mean he is already probably paying him. If the "top flight" attorney actually exists, he is probably laughing all the way to the bank with his retainer fee.....

If you threaten my family in a more severe way the attorney will be the least of your worries.

That sounds like a threat. Maybe we should get a "top flight" attorney on retainer......

[feministxtian]

If you threaten my family in a more severe way the attorney will be the least of your worries.

This IS a threat...hmm...maybe we should get our "top flight" attorneys on the case....and sue his non-existent ass off

Hey ArmoireBoy... :nenner:

[ViolaSebastian]

Two thoughts:

1. I've never been called a Nazi feminist before, LMAO at that.

2. The whole thing reads like he's stroking his ego. It's his Christian masturbation station.

I know, I know. Too bad the real Nazis didn't have many feminists in their ranks. In fact, the Nazis thought a woman's place was in the home, producing little blue-eyed, blonde-haired Aryans. Real Nazis thought women couldn't handle responsibilities in the public sphere--they discouraged women from pursuing university studies and encouraged classes on domestic duties. Laws were passed that banned women from being doctors and being involved in judicial fields. Women were even forbidden from wearing make-up and laws were passed that demanded they dress 'modestly.' Sexuality was banned except for reproductive purposes. They even gave out medals to women who had more than four children. Wow, who does this sound like...

[Curious]

.

Quick Q for my fellow progressive feminist nazis.

When did we last 'threaten' any of these good Christian folk?

Laughed at, yes. Done lots of :angry-banghead: and :cray-cray: and :nenner: , yes.

IIRC a couple of FJ'ers had a go at humping a fundy bus.

I seem to have missed the threatening bit...

Considering threats are against the ToU here, which we tend to take pretty seriously and if I were to have a priority order of things we police more stringently, that would be pretty much right at the top, I think it's safe to say that no threats to anyone have come from FJ.

Of course, I'm using the word threat in the way that people who live in reality use the word :whistle:

[Mecca]

.

Quick Q for my fellow progressive feminist nazis.

When did we last 'threaten' any of these good Christian folk?

Laughed at, yes. Done lots of :angry-banghead: and :cray-cray: and :nenner: , yes.

IIRC a couple of FJ'ers had a go at humping a fundy bus.

I seem to have missed the threatening bit...

Well, to Mr. Chester Drawers, the mere act of disagreeing would equate to a threat for him. His big, bad, manly ego just cannot take a woman having an opinion that differs from his own.

It always cracks me up that people like CM, Ken and Lori believe we should aspire to have relationships like their own. Um, yeah....no. Their idea of marriage sounds miserable and way too hard. I will gladly keep my heathen ways, thanks.

[Sola]

Quoting someone who quoted Lori, sorry I'm on mobile so can't do it properly right now.

"Were you crazy in love when you got married? Were sparks flying, anticipation building for the big day? Neither Ken nor I were madly in love or had sparks flying on our wedding day. In fact, Ken says, "We got engaged. It went downhill from there, but we got married anyway." Sad, isn't it?

{After I wrote this, I asked Ken if he had sparks for me on my wedding day and he said, "Yes! I couldn't wait to have fun being married to you, but that hope died quickly when I couldn't do anything right in your eyes.}

Is being crazy in love with sparks flying a prerequisite for getting married? No...I have proven that, BUT the reason we weren't madly in love with sparks flying was because I didn't really know what love looked like.

I was very disappointed I didn't have all those feelings you were suppose to have before you got married. After we got engaged, I kept asking Ken if he was sure we should get married and he would reassure me, "Yes, we were molded for each other."

My marrying him was pretty much a mental decision. Sure, we were physically attracted to each other, but we argued all the time. I focused on his faults and tried to change them. It is all I really knew.

We both loved Jesus. We had the same type of personality. We had the same goals and values. We enjoyed doing a lot of the same things, so I reasoned we were right for each other. We got married and struggled through 23 years of a bad marriage which, unfortunately, is typical."

I've been married around the same amount of time that Ken and Lori have. I've lost count of the people who have said how obvious hubby and I are soulmates. We had that spark before we married and we've still got it now, two kids and a couple of decades later. There's no submission in our marriage, we are equals, a partnership. There's no religion involved either. We are very happy, can't keep our hands off each other, have mutual respect and more love in one single day than Ken and Lori have expressed in their entire marriage. We've never, ever been miserable. If we followed Lori's advice though, we sure as hell would be.

Lori, if that spark is not there then no amount of bible verses, submission or sex will fix that. If you do try to apply those to a sparkless marriage then I'm pretty certain you'll be miserable, have stress related illness and you'll probably end up bitter. Sound familiar?

Moral of the story Lori; if the spark isn't there, don't marry.

[Coco]

I know, I know. Too bad the real Nazis didn't have many feminists in their ranks. In fact, the Nazis thought a woman's place was in the home, producing little blue-eyed, blonde-haired Aryans. Real Nazis thought women couldn't handle responsibilities in the public sphere--they discouraged women from pursuing university studies and encouraged classes on domestic duties. Laws were passed that banned women from being doctors and being involved in judicial fields. Women were even forbidden from wearing make-up and laws were passed that demanded they dress 'modestly.' Sexuality was banned except for reproductive purposes. They even gave out medals to women who had more than four children. Wow, who does this sound like...

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[HoneyBunny]

Quoting someone who quoted Lori, sorry I'm on mobile so can't do it properly right now.

"Were you crazy in love when you got married? Were sparks flying, anticipation building for the big day? Neither Ken nor I were madly in love or had sparks flying on our wedding day. In fact, Ken says, "We got engaged. It went downhill from there, but we got married anyway." Sad, isn't it?

{After I wrote this, I asked Ken if he had sparks for me on my wedding day and he said, "Yes! I couldn't wait to have fun being married to you, but that hope died quickly when I couldn't do anything right in your eyes.}

Is being crazy in love with sparks flying a prerequisite for getting married? No...I have proven that, BUT the reason we weren't madly in love with sparks flying was because I didn't really know what love looked like.

I was very disappointed I didn't have all those feelings you were suppose to have before you got married. After we got engaged, I kept asking Ken if he was sure we should get married and he would reassure me, "Yes, we were molded for each other."

My marrying him was pretty much a mental decision. Sure, we were physically attracted to each other, but we argued all the time. I focused on his faults and tried to change them. It is all I really knew.

We both loved Jesus. We had the same type of personality. We had the same goals and values. We enjoyed doing a lot of the same things, so I reasoned we were right for each other. We got married and struggled through 23 years of a bad marriage which, unfortunately, is typical."

I've been married around the same amount of time that Ken and Lori have. I've lost count of the people who have said how obvious hubby and I are soulmates. We had that spark before we married and we've still got it now, two kids and a couple of decades later. There's no submission in our marriage, we are equals, a partnership. There's no religion involved either. We are very happy, can't keep our hands off each other, have mutual respect and more love in one single day than Ken and Lori have expressed in their entire marriage. We've never, ever been miserable. If we followed Lori's advice though, we sure as hell would be.

Lori, if that spark is not there then no amount of bible verses, submission or sex will fix that. If you do try to apply those to a sparkless marriage then I'm pretty certain you'll be miserable, have stress related illness and you'll probably end up bitter. Sound familiar?

Moral of the story Lori; if the spark isn't there, don't marry.

I have said this before. These people (CM and his missus, Ken and Lori) obviously can't stand each other and should have never married. Don't get me wrong- the best marriage is work at times, and that's even if you're soul mates. But if the only way you can keep it together is to listen to an almost 2000 year old book that says one partner must be totally submissive, then put yourself out of misery and divorce. Don't instead preach about how others should be doing the same.

[Curious]

Reading what Lori wrote about there being "no spark" before she and Ken got married makes me wonder was Ken so in love with Lori that he was willing to overlook all the ginormous red flags waving frantically in front of him or was he just too stubborn to see them.

In talking with others privately, I have said you can see flashes from Ken where it seems like if he'd married a decent human being, he would have been a different person. He shows some personality and the ability to snark on occasion.

He's said before, IIRC, that it was Lori's idea to go more fundie. I wonder how much of the current Ken is a creation of being married to a miserable, manipulative hag like Lori.

[HoneyBunny]

Oh, I think the dysfunction in that marriage is all due to Lori. BS on the submission thing...she's the poster child for passive aggressiveness. Despite all her claims of lifelong Bible and Christian beliefs, we know she'd be merrily rolling over Ken for the rest of her years if he hadn't told her he wanted a divorce. What Lori is, above all other things, is lazy and selfish; she wants things as easy for herself as they can be. Suddenly, the realization that life might get hard (and rich daddy might not be around to pick up the pieces) made her appear to have a change of heart. The problem is that she wants to tell all of us, who were happily married, doing the "right" things all along, even without a belief in the Bible, to now do it HER the WORD's way.

She's like criminals who are not sorry for their crime; they're sorry they got caught. Lori got "caught" when Ken called her on her 23 years of supreme shrew-ness.

[formergothardite]

Reading what Lori wrote about there being "no spark" before she and Ken got married makes me wonder was Ken so in love with Lori that he was willing to overlook all the ginormous red flags waving frantically in front of him or was he just too stubborn to see them.

In talking with others privately, I have said you can see flashes from Ken where it seems like if he'd married a decent human being, he would have been a different person. He shows some personality and the ability to snark on occasion.

He's said before, IIRC, that it was Lori's idea to go more fundie. I wonder how much of the current Ken is a creation of being married to a miserable, manipulative hag like Lori.

I have always thought that Ken had the potential to be an entirely different person. I think he really, really loved her and finding out that she didn't love him or find him attractive(she admitted this at one point though she has now changed her tune) just devastated him emotionally. What was left of him he spent trying to avoid being around her and trying to avoid making her angry. And then he allowed her to turn him into what he is today, which is not a nice person. I think he saw that we had a point, but there is only so much he is going to fight her over because she will make his life even more of a living hell then it already is. He is bitter and angry at all the people who have happy marriages without the rules that he has to endure. I think he spends a lot of time trying to convince himself that Lori is normal and everyone else is lying. To do otherwise is to finally acknowledge that the woman he loves only married him because she wanted to use him, not because she loved him. He has a sad life. He wants to think people envy his marriage, but it just makes me pity him. But then he will say something horrible and I lose all sympathy for him.

[salex]

Reading what Lori wrote about there being "no spark" before she and Ken got married makes me wonder was Ken so in love with Lori that he was willing to overlook all the ginormous red flags waving frantically in front of him or was he just too stubborn to see them.

In talking with others privately, I have said you can see flashes from Ken where it seems like if he'd married a decent human being, he would have been a different person. He shows some personality and the ability to snark on occasion.

He's said before, IIRC, that it was Lori's idea to go more fundie. I wonder how much of the current Ken is a creation of being married to a miserable, manipulative hag like Lori.

When Ken was here, I felt I might have been too mean when I made some comment about how the person who loved the least had the power in a relationship, and it was clear that Lori had the power. He acknowledged he loved her more and didn't get as offended as I would have expected.

While I think he could have been less of an asshole had he married someone who was1) not a bitch and 2) actually loved him and was desperately attracted to him, he was an adult when he married, he has stayed all this time because he likes it, he thinks she'll inherit or his self image won't allow a divorce. Given that even fundies divorce in relatively large numbers, I figure it has to be one of the first two.

I also have known men who married crazy ass bitches like Lori, who didn't turn into assholes. They did, eventually divorce, although they were as against it as Ken says he is, but they had far less tolerance for manipulation than Ken exhibits. I suspect there is a bit of an asshole in his nature, or he'd not have stayed all these year.