When not having all of your ducks in a row = starvation

[Koala]

When not having all of your ducks in a row = starvation, or not paying the mortgage, or going without power (like the Pearls' daughter). But not to worry, because Lori Alexander has a WTF solution for times such as these:

 

 

Quote

I also have heard that if your children are married and having children and struggling in the process, the parents should treat them as missionaries, raising godly offspring, and help support them if they have the means.

 

Now hear me when I say, I have no problem at all with parents helping their kids. But pretending they are missionaries so you can make yourself feel better about the fact that they got married and started reproducing before they could afford to feed themselves? Just no

 

I am also curious about how this washes with Lori's idea that God provides for those who bravely get married "without having their ducks in a row". Is God dependent on Ken Alexander slipping his kids a little cash to pay the bills?

 

Also, if these godly missionary supporters have done as Lori suggested and had more kids than they themselves can afford, they are NOT going to have the money to pretend that sitting at home taking care of your kids = missionary, which = free money from the parents.

 

Seriously, it's like they don't have the ability to reason. Sometimes I think Lori might have been a better (more well rounded) person if she had not had so much money in life (first from her father, and then from Ken). Her place of privilege has not served her well.

[DGayle]

This also says to people to have all the kids they want, and pass the bills on to their parents. It's really hard to support poor people having kids on purpose that they can't afford to feed (I know there are people here who say poor people deserve to have all the kids they want because being poor shouldn't mean not getting to), but really, how is this anything but selfish when you're birthing kids into poverty into homes where they'll only be fed from the money of others? Food stamps doesn't buy much in most places, and if the grandparents can't afford to feed the grandkids, then what? I know most people have hard times after having kids, but I'm going to be blunt. If you're already so poor you can't afford to feed the kids you have, then wait until you can before having more. Don't make the kids you have do with even less just because you want more, and think Mom and Dad will pay.

Shame on Lori for supporting this. As usual, she can't think critically. If Generation 1 is having to give money to Generation 2 to support Generation 3, when is G2 going to have time to work up to the income level needed to support the exponentially larger G4?

[jerkit]

Lori is wealthy. She thinks everyone is wealthy. This would absolutely not work if the grandparents are also not well off.

Both my parents and Mr. Jerkit's parents are well off and even I understand this concept.

[Grimalkin]

Most people underestimate the costs and don't save enough for retirement anyway. The price of meds are astonishing sometimes with Medicare. My mom does not qualify for Medicaid, she is just slightly over the limit. I am deeply grateful she can afford living where she does (assisted living) I also know we would all be miserable if she lived here with us. She loves my kids but they are loud and boisterous and we move at a fast pace. My mom likes peace and quiet. Since she no longer drives she would feel stuck here and dependent on me, and resentful. I would feel like I have to keep the kids quiet all the time. It would be tough.

The point is. a young couple should be responsible with their finances, and consider their parents future instead of relying on them to support them. It's nice to help each other out in hard times, but don't expect it! Second, when would it stop? I think people would get accustomed to being given $ and resent when things change, and take advantage.

[anjulibai]

Lori is wealthy. She thinks everyone is wealthy. This would absolutely not work if the grandparents are also not well off.

Both my parents and Mr. Jerkit's parents are well off and even I understand this concept.

Or have a ton of kids who in turn have a ton of kids. Or have kids still at home.

I mean, the Duggars are wealthy and have been able to give their married kids homes and jobs, but they are not so wealthy that they will be able to support all of their children having mega-families. I doubt once they reach Jackson or Johannah that there will be rent free homes and jobs for stupid husbands.

If a couple has 8 kids who have an average of 8 kids each, does Lori really think that original couple would be able to support their 64 grandchildren?

And what if the couple still has kids at home? They have other responsibilities at that point.

This is one reason of many why Quiverfull is self-limiting.

[usmcmom]

This most recent idea of hers also doesn't square with her belief that a husband should be working numerous jobs to support his family so that his wife doesn't have to work.

Oh wait. She also thinks husbands should be home as much as possible so that he can have a manly man influence on the boys.

Therefore, husbands, work as much as you can so that you can stay home as much as you can.

Clearly, it's a black and white concept.

[Firiel]

This is infuriating. My sister and her husband have received some help from my parents. She's almost 30 and has three kids. Her husband works in education, so they aren't well-off. My parents' help (in the form of gifts for the kids, a few financial loans, and babysitting help) has enabled them to be comfortable and has allowed her to stay home with the kids, something important to her and her husband. She does work a little bit to help make ends meet, so she's not Lori-approved, but whatever. Good for everyone involved. It's great that it's worked out for everyone involved.

Imagine, though, Lori's stupid rules where my sister starts having kids RIGHT AWAY. Well, she got married at twenty, so she would probably have at least seven kids by now considering she is really fertile. Great! They can't afford those kids, so my parents would be shelling out money. Add to that the fact that my younger sister would probably have just given birth to her first kid and would be trying to live/pay of student loans on one salary because she couldn't work. And then me-- I'd probably have had two kids, and my ex would have still been a cheating asshole who left me, so I would have been one of those terrible single moms. In Lori's world I would be LIVING WITH MY PARENTS as they FULLY supported me and two kids (if I wasn't guilted into giving them up to a "better home").

So you have one salary fully supporting me and my hypothetical kids, probably supporting 50% of my older sister's household, and maybe helping out with my younger sister's new baby. YEAH OKAY. THAT WORKS. :roll:

[bea]

Holy shit.

In my dad's last year of life, when it became clear that his wife of 20 years had manipulated him into putting all his assets in her name years ago, and then packed up the house and left when his health deteriorated to the point where he ended help, my husband and I supplemented his small pension and his Social Security. We also contributed a fair amount to my husband's youngest sister's college tuition, since neither of his parents were able to do so, and we just paid for her wedding dress.

Haven't these people ever heard of the "sandwich generation,"'stuck between supporting/caring for both parents and children?

[salex]

When not having all of your ducks in a row = starvation, or not paying the mortgage, or going without power (like the Pearls' daughter). :roll: But not to worry, because Lori Alexander has a WTF solution for times such as these:

Now hear me when I say, I have no problem at all with parents helping their kids. But pretending they are missionaries so you can make yourself feel better about the fact that they got married and started reproducing before they could afford to feed themselves? Just no :evil-eye:

I am also curious about how this washes with Lori's idea that God provides for those who bravely get married "without having their ducks in a row".

Also, if these godly missionary supporters have done as Lori suggested and had more kids than they themselves can afford, they are NOT going to have the money to pretend that sitting at home taking care of your kids = missionary, which = free money from the parents.

Seriously, it's like they don't have the ability to reason. :angry-banghead: Sometimes I think Lori might have been a better (more well rounded) person if she had not had so much money in life (first from her father, and then from Ken). Her place of privilege has not served her well.

Ken has hired one son and one son in law to be consultants. He has one son who is still a student or a resident not a full fledged dentist, I think. I don't know if his other daughter is married.

Making sure you are the source of part or all of your children's incomes helps keep them in line. Can you see "I'm not a micromanager, but. . ." Ken not wanting to keep his kids indebted to him?

[August]

This also says to people to have all the kids they want, and pass the bills on to their parents. It's really hard to support poor people having kids on purpose that they can't afford to feed (I know there are people here who say poor people deserve to have all the kids they want because being poor shouldn't mean not getting to), but really, how is this anything but selfish when you're birthing kids into poverty into homes where they'll only be fed from the money of others? Food stamps doesn't buy much in most places, and if the grandparents can't afford to feed the grandkids, then what? I know most people have hard times after having kids, but I'm going to be blunt. If you're already so poor you can't afford to feed the kids you have, then wait until you can before having more. Don't make the kids you have do with even less just because you want more, and think Mom and Dad will pay.

Shame on Lori for supporting this. As usual, she can't think critically. If Generation 1 is having to give money to Generation 2 to support Generation 3, when is G2 going to have time to work up to the income level needed to support the exponentially larger G4?

Well, you have a good 10-15 years between fully supporting your own children and starting to help them again when their kids get old enough to be a financial drain on them.

Unless, of course, you're stupid enough to still be having children after your grandchildren start arriving, and the generation size isn't going from 2 or 3 to 5 or 6, but from 12 to 144.

[Koala]

I refuse to start yet another Lori post, so I thought I'd put this gag worthy comment she made on Storage Sociopath's blog here:

My son went out with this cute young woman awhile ago. One of the first things she said when we sat down to dinner was, “I hate to cook.†Well that was it in Steven’s mind. Today, I talked to him. He’s been married over 2 months now and lives across the country. He told me what an amazing cook his new wife is! He’s so happy. All these women today have amazing kitchens with all the latest appliances and counter tops and rarely use them. It is a lost art today. Very sad.

:roll: Real deep thinking there Steven. Looks like the spoiled rotten apple doesn't fall far from the vile tree that produced it.

In other news, sounds like the "cute young woman" dodged a bullet.

My husband cooks most of our meals. He's a fabulous cook and I suck in the kitchen. I clean because that's my thing. We divide things up based on who's best at what around here. Woman doesn't automatically = cook. I'm sure Lorken can pull a Bible verse out of their asses and twist it until it says otherwise, but I'm a godless Atheist, so I don't give a shit :snooty:

[Koala]

ps. Lori- all women DON'T have new counter tops and the latest appliances. Your spoiled princess mentality is showing again :x :x

[roddma]

This is infuriating. My sister and her husband have received some help from my parents. She's almost 30 and has three kids. Her husband works in education, so they aren't well-off. My parents' help (in the form of gifts for the kids, a few financial loans, and babysitting help) has enabled them to be comfortable and has allowed her to stay home with the kids, something important to her and her husband. She does work a little bit to help make ends meet, so she's not Lori-approved, but whatever. Good for everyone involved. It's great that it's worked out for everyone involved.

Imagine, though, Lori's stupid rules where my sister starts having kids RIGHT AWAY. Well, she got married at twenty, so she would probably have at least seven kids by now considering she is really fertile. Great! They can't afford those kids, so my parents would be shelling out money. Add to that the fact that my younger sister would probably have just given birth to her first kid and would be trying to live/pay of student loans on one salary because she couldn't work. And then me-- I'd probably have had two kids, and my ex would have still been a cheating asshole who left me, so I would have been one of those terrible single moms. In Lori's world I would be LIVING WITH MY PARENTS as they FULLY supported me and two kids (if I wasn't guilted into giving them up to a "better home").

So you have one salary fully supporting me and my hypothetical kids, probably supporting 50% of my older sister's household, and maybe helping out with my younger sister's new baby. YEAH OKAY. THAT WORKS. :roll:

Parents should treat all of their kids the same. I played second fiddle to my BIL and his kids when MIL was living because they had kids. We had to bail them out once and it was unexpected. MY MIL bailed them out plenty.We used the money we had just borrowed from a credit union to help pay MIL rent and planned to use the rest for ourselves..( It is assumed childless people have all kinds of money. I let MIL know it didnt come from our bank accounts.)

Then, they found out they were expecting the twins which brought them to 4. I thought here they were in this bind but yet still wanted more kids. While mom staying may be 'dear to them' I also think it doesn't teach the kids right when parents are constantly reliant on grandparents and others to live their lifestyle. The thing is these types commonly bail when it comes time to care for the old folks. I say any kid who gets this kind of help fro parent should be expected to do the most when it comes time to care for parents.

[DGayle]

I refuse to start yet another Lori post, so I thought I'd put this gag worthy comment she made on Storage Sociopath's blog here:

:roll: Real deep thinking there Steven. Looks like the spoiled rotten apple doesn't fall far from the vile tree that produced it.

In other news, sounds like the "cute young woman" dodged a bullet.

My husband cooks most of our meals. He's a fabulous cook and I suck in the kitchen. I clean because that's my thing. We divide things up based on who's best at what around here. Woman doesn't automatically = cook. I'm sure Lorken can pull a Bible verse out of their asses and twist it until it says otherwise, but I'm a godless Atheist, so I don't give a shit :snooty:

Lori's showing how out of touch she is. I've got the largest kitchen I've ever had, and it's only got 4' wide of floor space, and about double that in depth. The stove burners don't evenly heat, the fridge is an energy hog, and my only newer appliance is my Kitchenaid mixer. I still often beat stuff by hand because I don't have a stick blender, and don't have whatever that "set it and forget it" thing is. Among my and my husband's friends, only 2 have better kitchens. 1 of them has a mom who invested $20,000 in Apple stock when the company first IPO'd, and she gave it all to her son. He's getting about $60k every quarter in dividends. The other friend with a nicer kitchen has a last name known around the world. His great-grandfather and great-uncle founded one of the world's most famous movie companies and amusement parks. Rich people have better kitchens with the new stuff. Middle-class and under don't have what she thinks.

Really, she reminds me of this lady in a blog I found last year, a Christian lady who says there's no reason ever ever ever that a family couldn't live on 1 income like her family does. Just ignore how her husband makes a 6-figure income.

[roddma]

WOuld that last name happen to be Disney?

[Loveday]

I refuse to start yet another Lori post, so I thought I'd put this gag worthy comment she made on Storage Sociopath's blog here:

This from someone whose idea of cooking is fixing a big salad? :roll:

My kitchen hasn't been updated since the day it was built, in 1981. Fake butcher block counters, cheap, fake wood cabinets, worn vinyl flooring, and almond colored appliances. The only thing I've done to the room is strip the horrific wallpaper and paint the walls a nice, soothing, soft sage green. Someday I'll sand and paint the cabinets and talk my headship into replacing the floor, but that will be about all we'll do because he's a teacher, and on his salary I'll NEVER have an 'amazing kitchen with all the latest appliances and countertops.'

[Koala]

We would be considered "middle class". I have a gigantic kitchen because the person (read: complete nut) who lived here before us decided to take out the wall between the kitchen and the room next to it :evil-eye: It's so ridiculously large that I turned 1/4 of it into a laundry area, 1/4 of it into an office (complete w/ a desk and computers), and the rest is kitchen.

The floor and counters are horrid in my humble opinion. I love the cabinets, but they could use painting. I'm just afraid to do it because I don't know how it'd turn out and I don't want to ruin them. We have new appliances (read: not top of the line) because we have lived here for 13 years and everything eventually broke and gave us no other choice but to replace it. I could mop the floors every hour on the hour, and because of their awful coloring, they'd still look dirty to me. Needless to say, I mop once a day and call it good. :lol:

That said, our choice for years has been to either continue taking nice family vacations or redo the kitchen. Because my kids are only planning to be kids once, we take the vacation (and will continue to) every.single.time. We spent a week in a beach front house this summer and ate nice seafood every night. Next Oct. we are taking another trip to Disney (9 days :dance: :dance: :dance: ) and then finishing it off by stopping at the beach house (why yes, I am excited :D )!

A new kitchen is nice. A new sofa would be nice. Not scrimping to make these vacations possible would be nice. But the memories we've made on these vacations is priceless to me.

Lori is so painfully (self induced) ignorant, that she just can't fathom not having plenty of money on hand. Even when she and Ken were getting started, her father (the doctor) was paying their way. That's not reality for most people. I think it would do her a world of good to have to live "poor" for a while. I think she would come away a deeper and smarter person. I think she would abandon that stupid blog of hers and actually get out in the world and do something worth doing.

[Koala]

***Side note since I know Lori reads here religiously*** Those vacations? They make us privileged. I get that. I don't think that people who don't take their kids on vacation are just too lazy to plan them or such poor stewards of money that they waste what could be spent at an amusement park. I accept that some people (no matter how careful they are and how hard they work) will never be able to afford such luxury. I realize that some families decide that it's worth it for mom to work so they can provide these luxuries. AND THAT'S OKAY!

[Childless]

I refuse to start yet another Lori post, so I thought I'd put this gag worthy comment she made on Storage Sociopath's blog here:

:roll: Real deep thinking there Steven. Looks like the spoiled rotten apple doesn't fall far from the vile tree that produced it.

In other news, sounds like the "cute young woman" dodged a bullet.

My husband cooks most of our meals. He's a fabulous cook and I suck in the kitchen. I clean because that's my thing. We divide things up based on who's best at what around here. Woman doesn't automatically = cook. I'm sure Lorken can pull a Bible verse out of their asses and twist it until it says otherwise, but I'm a godless Atheist, so I don't give a shit :snooty:

I do most of the cooking in our house because I'm better at it then my husband. He takes care of the dishes afterward. Even though I do all the cooking, I HATE cooking. Just because I hate it though, doesn't mean I don't do it. We have to eat after all. I have yet to meet someone who says they love to clean toilets, but people still clean their toilets because it's a chore that needs to be done and most often they do it without complaint. Lori is assuming a lot by thinking that the cute young woman wouldn't cook. You don't have to love a chore to get it done.

Instead of turning their noses up at the young woman, they could have asked her why she hates cooking. Maybe she doesn't have the items she needs to make it easier for herself. Maybe she doesn't know any really good recipes. Maybe she's really bad at chopping and dicing (like me) and it takes her forever to make something. Lori might have been able to help the young woman like cooking more by teaching her some better techniques, giving her some good recipes, and/or purchasing some of the equipment she's missing. Lori had the chance to change someone's outlook on a domestic skill and she threw it away. And here she is bragging about being a mentor to young women. Bullshit.

[salex]

I refuse to start yet another Lori post, so I thought I'd put this gag worthy comment she made on Storage Sociopath's blog here:

:roll: Real deep thinking there Steven. Looks like the spoiled rotten apple doesn't fall far from the vile tree that produced it.

In other news, sounds like the "cute young woman" dodged a bullet.

My husband cooks most of our meals. He's a fabulous cook and I suck in the kitchen. I clean because that's my thing. We divide things up based on who's best at what around here. Woman doesn't automatically = cook. I'm sure Lorken can pull a Bible verse out of their asses and twist it until it says otherwise, but I'm a godless Atheist, so I don't give a shit :snooty:

I supposed Lori's son wanted a wife who could cook since it is pretty clear that Lori wasn't much of one. I don't get the feeling Ken's son(s) married Lori Jrs.

[treehugger]

Ah Lori, my kitchen has a grand total of 4 feet of counter space, nicely divided between the old fridge and the one basin sink, the sink and the new-to-us stove that we got second hand when our ancient one crapped out, and a tiny little space between the stove and the wall. My one pound bread machine and blender are the only fancy appliances I have (and a little hand mixer because there is no room for a stand one). We don't even have room for a toaster on our counter. And, get this, with no dishwasher, we have to sacrifice precious counter space for a dish rack. Fancy appliances and counters my ass! I'd like to see her privileged highness cook a meal in my kitchen! Oh, and Lori, I didn't know how to cook either when I got married (my husband did) but it is a learnable skill.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Or have a ton of kids who in turn have a ton of kids. Or have kids still at home.

I mean, the Duggars are wealthy and have been able to give their married kids homes and jobs, but they are not so wealthy that they will be able to support all of their children having mega-families. I doubt once they reach Jackson or Johannah that there will be rent free homes and jobs for stupid husbands.

If a couple has 8 kids who have an average of 8 kids each, does Lori really think that original couple would be able to support their 64 grandchildren?

And what if the couple still has kids at home? They have other responsibilities at that point.

This is one reason of many why Quiverfull is self-limiting.

ALL of this. But also one more thing - Quiverfull as we see it in the people we snark on this board often isn't just about having tons of kids. It's about having tons of kids AND not letting any of them get a real education or have any ties in the secular world that will allow those kids to make high or often even middle-class incomes.

It's particularly stark when the parents are "born-again" Quiverfull Christians or fundamentalist ultra-Orthodox Jewish BTs or otherwise coming to religious fundamentalism after they've already acquired secular knowledge and certifications.

In such cases, the parents often are able to contribute money to their kids' families, or buy their newly married kids apartments (a thing in Israel), or completely support the family while neither parent has a real job, in some cases.

But the NEXT generation, how are those people possibly going to buy an apartment for THEIR passel of kids? Or give them money or whatever else? They don't have the good certifications and the job experience.

So yeah. Self-limiting, and we're starting to see it happen I think.

Heck, I'd say it's going to be self-limiting even outside of the family circle. You have entire generations of people who fund big institutions and charities and whatever else, but as they die off, their kids just don't have the same kind of money, and meanwhile the degree of fundieness among some groups has gotten to the point that secular people aren't so interested in contributing either because they just don't feel attached to it, the gulf is so wide. People saying "no college" and whatever else.

Ken has hired one son and one son in law to be consultants. He has one son who is still a student or a resident not a full fledged dentist, I think. I don't know if his other daughter is married.

Making sure you are the source of part or all of your children's incomes helps keep them in line. Can you see "I'm not a micromanager, but. . ." Ken not wanting to keep his kids indebted to him?

Also this. Plus of course the Maxwell family, and to some degree the Duggars too.

They can say "oh but our kids are totally employed!" but it's not quite the same thing as being able to go get a job on the open market, and they know that. NOTHING whatsoever wrong with working in a family business or taking over the family business, but so many of these fundie businesses are just... clearly not mainstream competitive businesses and when you look at the bragging resumes and whatever else, it's clear their kids don't really have other options.

So when THOSE kids grow up, will they all have a business that they can employ the next generation into? With a lot of these people, I have my doubts. It's the first generation (that didn't grow up fundie) that was really keeping it alive.

[Jana814]

That's what I just don't get about Fundie families. They continue to have kids even though they can't afford the ones they already have.

[Cartmann99]

ps. Lori- all women DON'T have new counter tops and the latest appliances. Your spoiled princess mentality is showing again :x :x

Mr. Cartmann99 and I bought our first home earlier this summer. Houses in our price range are either quite small, or larger fixer-uppers. We wanted at least a 1000 square feet home, so we chose a fixer-upper.

The previous owners took all of the kitchen appliances with them, so we bought a new fridge and stove*. I also painted the six feet of countertops with chalkboard paint, as I hated the ugly grey paint the previous owners had used on the counters. Since I technically have two new appliances, and "new" counters, does this mean I have an "amazing kitchen" by Lori' s standards?

*To tie in with another thread, we purchased the appliances with a credit card that offers cash back on purchases, and then paid the credit card bill off with money we had saved for this purpose. :D

[2xx1xy1JD]

May I offer a quick translation of Lori's post?

"Ken, our daughter Cassi is 25 and married. Her husband will one day be a dentist and a wonderful provider, but right now he's just a dental student and it will be at least 4 more years before he makes a real income, and then he'll have student loans to pay. By that time, Cassi would be almost 30. I want more grandchildren, and I want them NOW. Cassi's is a girl and married and a future mother, so we can't actually expect her to work full-time to support the family. Yes, I know we already raised our kids and you are employing Ryan and John, but BABEEZ! and JESUS! Stop being a tight-wad, support your married daughter so she can have babies, and just take it out of the money that we're supposed to donate to the church."

Now, speaking as someone who got married to a medical student, I'm not totally opposed to getting married before a career is established IF your marriage and kids don't derail your education and career plans. Just realize that something's gotta give. Lori ignores this reality. You can marry relatively early. You can have a husband who is a well-trained professional with a career that will provide well for a family. You can decide not to use birth control. You can decide to be a stay-at-home mother. You can decide to avoid crippling student debt. You can have housing AND food AND health care. You just can't have all of these things right away, at the same time.

Getting married at 24, while my husband was a med student, meant using birth control because having a child during the first 3 years would have been impossible with his schedule and our finances. It also meant that I needed to work hard to support us on my income alone. Having a baby at 28, while my husband was a resident, meant that I had to go back to work full-time earlier than I would have liked, and that we lived in a 1 bedroom apartment and didn't buy meat. This isn't a "poor me" story - we made specific choices, we were and are very happy with those choices, and we recognized that those choices simply have certain natural consequences.