When fundies self diagnose / Narcissism thy name is Lori

[Koala]

Lori seems to glorify "not having your ducks in a row", but she often neglects to mention that her father paid their rent/mortgage payments until they were financially stable. Who knows what else he paid for (I get the feeling that he saw to it that what Princess Lori wanted, Princess Lori got). Not everyone has parents with loads of money to support 2 households. She also had a college education (though Lord knows it didn't do her an ounce of good).

I for one think she would absolutely lose it if she had to live in the kind of poverty she encourages. It'd be interesting to hear her response to not being able to afford her expensive vitamins and all organic food.

[jerkit]

Aunt Genny learned about Lori's sister's cancer on the blog. Smooth move, Alexander, smooth move.

[Firiel]

Aunt Genny learned about Lori's sister's cancer on the blog. Smooth move, Alexander, smooth move.

And uses it to hawk a good diet as the way to prevent cancer.

[Koala]

She's a disgusting human being. The way she talks to her aunt is so condescending.

You know Lori, your aunt is an older and much wiser woman than you will ever be. You could learn something from her if you were truly "always learning".

[jerkit]

I mean, I am pretty certain a healthy diet can't hurt when it comes to cancer prevention. But the condescension. It drips.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Diet is one thing, out of many, that can have an impact on some cancers. Different types of cancers have different triggers. Eating well never hurts, but diet is not a magic cure-all that means that you can avoid everything else. It doesn't do much good if you happen to have the BRCA gene, or if you have fair skin and had serious sun burns esp. in childhood.

[Firiel]

I mean, I am pretty certain a healthy diet can't hurt when it comes to cancer prevention. But the condescension. It drips.

Exactly. A healthy diet is great and very well might reduce the chances of cancer. I'm sure there are studies that explore that which I'm too lazy to look up. But yeah, so condescending. As if a healthy diet will undoubtedly protect you from a recurrence of cancer.

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Also, she's talking about her hours-long battle of the wills with her toddlers in her stoopid sooper sekrit group, so I'm super anti-Lori right now. :lol:

[jerkit]

Exactly. A healthy diet is great and very well might reduce the chances of cancer. I'm sure there are studies that explore that which I'm too lazy to look up. But yeah, so condescending. As if a healthy diet will undoubtedly protect you from a recurrence of cancer.

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Also, she's talking about her hours-long battle of the wills with her toddlers in her stoopid sooper sekrit group, so I'm super anti-Lori right now. :lol:

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

anything she hasn't already written on the blog?

[polecat]

Aunt Genny learned about Lori's sister's cancer on the blog. Smooth move, Alexander, smooth move.

Lori's a heartless ass.

Other people's feelings don't matter to her as long as she has blog fodder.

[Firiel]

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

anything she hasn't already written on the blog?

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Not really. She offers this distinction to explain why it's okay to spank a kid to teach the kid not to hit:

Hitting and spanking are 2 different things. Hitting's purpose is to cause harm. Spanking's purpose is to train.

And then she actually admits how old her kids was when this "battle of the wills" happened:

Around 15 months with all of our children, we had a battle of wills and we were determined to win the war. We NEVER allowed sinful behavior and when they deliberately disobeyed us, they were spanked. With each child, it took several hours with them talking and spanking them until they understood that we were the boss and they were going to obey us. It worked with all four. After this, they rarely disobeyed us. If it was ever deliberate, we'd spank them and it would be over. They ALWAYS knew we meant what we said. We didn't have to spank any of them after 5 years old.

[2xx1xy1JD]

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

15 mos. is still a baby, as far as I'm concerned. They are just starting to figure out the world, learn a few words, walk and discover cause and effect. Words like "sin" are totally meaningless when you are talking about tots, because they totally lack any ability to understand what this means. Yes, you do need to start "training" in the sense of guiding behavior and habits, but that's it.

At this age, children learn from experimenting and from repetition/patterns. A tot will listen to the same song 47 times in a row, and one of their early words is usual "again". One of the most effective ways to "train" a tot is simply to repeat things over and over. Sing songs about cleaning up, play games that teach the lessons you want, show videos with behavior that you want them to copy.

Children at 15 mos. don't have a great memory for verbal instruction, or remembering something that happened once. So, Lazy Lori was actually using the LEAST efficient method of child training.

The other thing about young children is that they learn by example far more than they learn things that you explicitly try to teach them. If a parent spanks, the main lesson that the child learns is how to spank. It will be hardwired into their brains that this is the way to deal with misbehavior. Kids who are spanked will spank their dolls, for example.

[ViolaSebastian]

And uses it to hawk a good diet as the way to prevent cancer.

Hell of a lot of good her big salads did in preventing brain tumors.

[polecat]

Hell of a lot of good her big salads did in preventing brain tumors.

That's different somehow, I have no doubt.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I have to wonder if Lori's food fads actually made her problems worse.

She preached the value of fruits and veggies for so long, and just recently figured out that she was reacting badly to fructose. Maybe, if she hadn't been so strict about this, she would have listened to her body a bit more and eased off the fruit earlier.

I also wonder about the whole parasite thing, since I saw some naturopaths pushing this as a regular diagnosis. Is it possible that this was never an actual problem, but that the treatment was worse than the condition?

[salex]

I'm in a bad mood, but here are a few of my thoughts on Lori.

1) her sister apparently had a lot of precancerous treatments and one possible cancer experience that was removed. (possible, i don't trust lori's stories as factual on any level) The fact this happened a while back and Auntie hadn't heard of it makes me think Lori is just making shit up--and auntie called her on it.

2) this was not recent and now sister eats better (as opposed to what was she eating before)

3) Lori has said in the past sunshine does not cause skin cancer, diet does. She is an idiot.

4) Why didn't her sister just pop over and get some Black Salve from Lori?

Also, I glanced at a just a bit of hobbies vs kids, but did not read the article that scandalized Lori so. In general because, well, Lori Alexander is a Monster and the more I read of her nonsense, the more dismal the world appears.

I think she is amusing to berate other women (her personal favorite hobby) as selfish for not having kids so they had more time to do what they wanted when she 1) used kids as a way to do what she wanted, ie, stay home from working and 2) effectively ignored said kids for her own selfish reasons .. She needed more sleep so the babies cried at night, she needed more time to whatever the hell she did with her life, so she had a nanny to deal with the kids and she also needed more "lori time" so she had them stay in their room for hours a day and more or less home school themselves. How is neglecting your children better than not having them?

As far as the beating the babies, She is a truly horrible person and Ken is as well. Baby beating is what the admit to publicly, Pushing wives against the wall and possibly spanking them for punishment (as Jesus loved the church, you know) are also part of their repertoire. I am amazed they get any serious readers who aren't into 50 shades of Spay, since she and Ken describe her (both with a certain gleeful remembrance) as a castrating bitch.

[Koala]

Lori had kids because she wanted to stay at home. Also, Jesus. She has been very clear that if her kids believed differently that she and Ken do, it would just be better for them to have never been born at all

[jerkit]

I was reading Lori's disqus profile comments and she said that right before Steven and Emily's wedding her "daughter-in-law" (didn't say which one) thought she might have lymphoma. Did we know this? Did she write a post about it?

[DGayle]

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2015/03/millennials-are-hungry-for-success.html

The only point she has is how fewer and fewer people are enforcing chores in favor of having their kids do extracurriculars. And she almost had a point about millennials thinking that there's nothing wrong with leaving a job that pays the bills if they're not 100% happy with that job, even if it means being unable to get by (I got really pissed at a friend of mine for walking out on a job because she objected to the new color of shirts!!). She lost that point though with the overall tone of her post. She seems to think that being miserable is the right way to be. So the polar opposite.

"Compare this to my grandmother's generation; those who went through the Great Depression. .... Most of them wouldn't even think about using birth control for baby control."

Wow. Lori is extremely stupid. Actually, babies weren't a joyous occasion back then. When nobody had enough to eat, it was especially dangerous to a woman to be pregnant. A lot of women would have used birth control, if they had access to it, to help lower the chance of their kids ending up in orphanages.

"Many Millennials, including all generations after the 60s, are covenant breakers. ... If they are not "happy" in their jobs, they look for another one."

This made me chuckle. My husband did reach a point of not being happy in his job. Unlike some friends of mine, and unlike what Lori thinks, he stayed in that job another year and a half until he found a new job that paid more, so was a financial step up for us. He didn't see total happiness as an entitlement. He was entirely unhappy with his old job, from the hours going all the hell over the place (try closing at midnight, then opening at 7am), to the management being so inept that nobody knew what was going on. It wasn't a matter of not being happy. He expects for there to be parts of every job that makes you not happy. He was thoroughly miserable and dreaded work so much that he was snappish when he wasn't at work because he dreaded having to go back so much that he couldn't handle it. How he's at a job where he's unhappy with some things, but overall, much happier, and is a more relaxed father and husband, and making more money to give our girls more opportunities. And yes, they have chores.

I wish Lori would look at real situations instead of only at the hypotheticals. Sure, there really are people who quit so easily. I think we all know people who do. But she makes it sound like you should stay, no matter what, and not ever ever leave, even if you find a new job first.

Why does she advocate misery for all?

[Firiel]

Why does she advocate misery for all?

Because she and Ken are miserable so she has to justify it because Jesus so she can deal with how unhappy her life has been.

I really hate "millennials are entitled" posts. Some are, I'm sure. I don't know for sure what the trends are. But the blanket "they are like this" statements are particularly frustrating to me in this case because I'm a non-entitled millennial. I worked as a janitor right out of college because I graduated into the Great Recession and that was the job I could get. I only went to grad school because they paid me, and I lived on the small stipend I got so that I wouldn't have to take out more loans. Now, although I'm still not quite "middle-class" income-wise, I'm privileged enough that I can save. So I've been saving in order to be financially self-sufficient in case of an emergency illness, broken car, lost job, etc.

I'm usually not one for "I did aaaaaaaall this when fundies can't even do that!" posts, but I'm totally doing it here. I am one thousand times less entitled than Lori Alexander. And I'm an evil, feminist millennial.

[salex]

Because she and Ken are miserable so she has to justify it because Jesus so she can deal with how unhappy her life has been.

I really hate "millennials are entitled" posts. Some are, I'm sure. I don't know for sure what the trends are. But the blanket "they are like this" statements are particularly frustrating to me in this case because I'm a non-entitled millennial. I worked as a janitor right out of college because I graduated into the Great Recession and that was the job I could get. I only went to grad school because they paid me, and I lived on the small stipend I got so that I wouldn't have to take out more loans. Now, although I'm still not quite "middle-class" income-wise, I'm privileged enough that I can save. So I've been saving in order to be financially self-sufficient in case of an emergency illness, broken car, lost job, etc.

I'm usually not one for "I did aaaaaaaall this when fundies can't even do that!" posts, but I'm totally doing it here. I am one thousand times less entitled than Lori Alexander. And I'm an evil, feminist millennial.

Each new generation is berated for being 'entitled" because they start with the current technology and more or less current standard of living that is available today. So, they have a cell phone, probably a good smart phone, from the time they graduate and old hags like lori get all tsk tsky about it because they had just one land line and an expensive giant color tv. but a land line is of no value to most 25 year olds and a smart phone is.

I know people in the 70s said about my husband that he wanted too much too soon (he was on a fast track)oh we hippies / yuppies. but that is what old people say about the young.... lori is just proving herself old.

I also find the phrase that

Many Millennials, including all generations after the 60s, are covenant breakers. ... If they are not "happy" in their jobs, they look for another one

is very odd. ONe reason we learned in the late 70s and early 80s to job hop was that we were laid off in droves. (My husband's company laid off nearly 90 percent of their employees in about 5-7 years... Hubby though young, was kept on the whole time-- but I have no covenant with my employer beyond I do the work and you pay me... you can let me go with virtually no notice and I can move on with a little notice.

No one should be married to the job.

HOWEVER. I suspect that little line has something to do with why the Son In Law is no longer with Alexander and Sons (and possibly why the name was changed as sort of a fuck you to the son in law who left.... lol.

[VodouDoll]

Oh my goodness! That's a good point.

[FundieWatcher]

If they are not "happy" in their jobs, they look for another one."

I agree, we aren't married to our jobs. One year my job gave out the book "Who Moved the Cheese", right before they did layoffs. Basically saying, don't count on one place to be your career.

You don't want to seem like you job hop. But after 3ish years or so at a professional job you are certainly not obligated to stay out of loyalty. Looking for a better situation just makes sense. Maybe you aren't able to go anywhere higher at your company. Sometimes your skills are being underutilized. Or whatever. I don't get why changing jobs, happy or unhappy,is wrong to.Lori.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Yeah, the covenant breakers line makes zero sense. You can't break a covenant that doesn't exist, and employees owe no duty to stay with an employer for life.

My parents were probably the last generation to live the middle-class dream. They were the first in their families to go to university, they got jobs on graduation, and they largely stayed with those jobs until they took early retirement. They were very lucky, and even in their day, job security wasn't guaranteed. Since then, we've seen the loss of tons of manufacturing jobs, and lots of industries go through restructuring. In some sectors, a company can be huge one moment, and fail overnight. The best job security is to make sure that your skills are recognized and your networking is good. Pretty much everyone I know has gone through a few jobs, or they are self-employed.

[VodouDoll]

Honestly, the covenant breakers line read to me like Ken got burned. He expected an employee's unconditional loyalty and didn't get it, so that employee stabbed him in the back.

The fact is, when someone leaves a job it's for more money, more responsibility and challenging projects, better management, better hours, changing interests and fields. It could be anything. It's not personal (unless the company or manager is terrible). It's a business decision. Just as employing the person in the first place is the company's business decision. You're not an oathbreaker if you get a new job after you've outgrown your current one, jeez. Except for the priesthood, I've never heard of a job that asks you to swear lifelong fealty, and even they will let you leave if you want to.

[Firiel]

:oops: :ew: :oops: :ew:

{L_MESSAGE_HIDDEN}:

Today, in Lori's sooper sekrit group she posts this:

I know we're NOT supposed to share dreams but I just have to share this dream I had last night with you! I was at a wedding. Suddenly, some guy came up behind me and began dancing with me. My knees felt weak and it felt SO good. We stopped for a moment and I was glad since I was feeling guilty and I turned a bit and saw that it was my husband and I was SO happy so we continued dancing and it felt so good!

Am I misreading this, or does this sound horrific and way TMI to the rest of you?

:wtf: