Lori Alexander - Still Not Learning A Thing, Part 4

[Loveday]

What I want to know is who is 'Booky McBookerson?' She has had the temerity to call Lori out big time:

 

Quote

gently tell him why you disagree but if it is not against God's commands, obey him 

 

 

So there's your stipulation. You have contradicted yourself. 

 

We'd much rather be the leader of the home... 

 

 

 

 

Speak for yourself.

 

 

Why Lori let this one through is a question for the ages, I guess. And she replies, pulling out that bizarre definition of 'desire' once again:

 

Quote

In Genesis, the result of sin is that women will "desire" their husbands which means they will want to control them since later in the same chapter, the Bible states that sin's "desire" is for us meaning that sin will want to control us. The Bible interprets itself. The majority of women I have mentored desire to control their husbands. It's a very rare woman that is submissive to her husband without being taught to be!

Quote

Submission doesn't mean you don't have opinions and can't share those opinions with your husband. However, it needs to be done respectfully as the Lord has called us to respect our husband. This doesn't mean we should be always questioning what our husbands want but humbly honoring their leadership over us. 

 

Because this conversation is most likely going to be zapped pretty soon, I'll just copy and paste the rest of it here for posterity:

Booky:

 

Quote

You appear to have missed my point. By saying what you have said, you make yourself the arbiter of what are "God's commands". Beyond the blindingly obvious, where does this end? Where is the verse that supports the idea that we should decide what is and is not a husband "leading us to sin" or leading us to disobey God's commands? How can we disobey God's clear command to be subject in all things to our husbands if we follow his lead when we can't convince him that a course of action is bad (as we see it)? 

 

By leaving it up to wives to decide whether or not a particular course of action is against God's will, you give a caveat to "in all things", which is precisely what you started off speaking against. 

 

 

Also, I never said we can't have our own opinions, but it is my belief that the more we follow our husbands' leadership, the more we will not even have different opinions, as we experience a blending of the wills. I'm in no disagreement with sharing our thoughts in a respectful manner - that should be done no matter who is the recipient of our thoughts and opinions.

 

Lori:

However, if he asks her to have an abortion, she absolutely can disobey him. If he asks her to rob a bank, again she can disobey him. Anything that could land her in prison or take another's life, she can clearly disobey her husband.

Quote

If a husband wants his wife to work full-time, she should gently share her reasons for why she wants to be home full-time. If he still wants her to work, she should work. If he wants to send the children to public school, she should share her concerns about this but then send them to public school. In both of these situations, I would encourage her to continue to pray and give it to the Lord to convict and change their husbands mind but learn to be content in the meantime. 

 

 

Booky:

 

Quote

Yes, theft and murder come under "blindingly obvious". Nevertheless, very few husbands will ask their wives to do such things. It seems to me you are misusing 

argumentum ad absurdum

 since it is leading to the wrong conclusion - i.e. caveats to "subject in all things". 

 

I'd like to know if you believe that a blending of the wills is possible IF wives submit in all things rather than looking for loopholes. 

 

 

Lest anyone bring up the issue "What if he wants a threesome!?" - again, most decent men would not truly desire this as it would be a violation of oath and covenant between husband and wife under God. Citing this example would also be a misapplication of 

argumentum ad absurdum.

 

 

Lori:

Since many men are being raised in a feminist's environment also, they are not modeled or taught the Truth of the Word since it has been so watered down. Many men want their wives to wear bikinis, yet the wives are convicted about being modest and many other areas that their convictions differ. 

There is nothing in the Word about "blending of the wills" but wives should definitely be taught to not look for loopholes so they have an excuse to disobey their husbands but if they are convicted by the Word in any area their husbands are not, I encourage them to give it to the Lord to convict their husbands while they go about winning them without a word by their godly behavior. {This doesn't mean they can't share their convictions once with their husbands, in my opinion. They cannot nag, complain or try to manipulate their husbands.}

Quote

Personally, I don't teach about exceptions often as many other marriage blogs do since I know most women will always be searching for these exceptions which I believe are wrong. Yes, most husbands won't demand wives to view porn with them or have a threesome, however, God does want wives to be keepers at home and many men do not want their wives to be home full-time. Therefore, I address this issue along with public schooling often since many women are very convicted about these issues after searching the Word. 

 

Booky:

 

Quote

There is nothing in the Word about "blending of the wills" 

 

"The two shall become one" is in there more than once. 

 

 

Perhaps rather than paying that God convicts their husbands about something pretty trivial like wearing a bikini, she could pray that God helps her to blend more fully with her husband's will. What you are advocating is the wife going on thinking "I'm right and my husband needs to come over to my side of things. In the meantime, I will suffer in my obedience to a sinful man." 

 

 

If you want to teach women not to look for loopholes, don't leave them in your instructions. Do you see how you have done this here? If you give an inch.... This is an inch wide loophole that will soon become a mile wide.

 

Lori:

 

Quote

No, I teach no loopholes. I teach women whose greatest desire is to grow up to be like Christ, have the mind of Christ and walk according to His will.

 

 

I do hope this goes on awhile longer. Lori will completely founder and just delete the whole thing, or Ken will gallop in on his white horse to rescue her with a Giant Wall o'Mind-Numbing Text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think I need to take lessons from Koala in how to properly format quotes within a post. What a mess I just made of that!   I do apologise.

[zebra #13]

4 hours ago, Koala said:

Lori's post today had me thinking over some of the things Ken has posted on her blog.  In 2015 he wrote a post entitled "Are Egalitarian Marriages Truth".  It seemed to me he had mentioned something about that when he was here, so I went back and looked.

Ken (Feb 8, 2014):

Based on this, you'd assume that Ken is in favor of egalitarian marriages.  After all, his own functions that way and he seems to view it in a favorable light.

Not so.  In his post on March 29, 2015 he writes:

He continues:

Second best he says?  Why on earth would he model his marriage around "second best".

He concludes:

So, either:

A. Ken and Lori's marriage underwent a complete overhaul in the 13 months after his visit with us.

B. Ken was bullshitting us while he was here.

I'll be voting for B. . . .  But since they're both such major, world-class BSers, maybe they ARE secretly egalitarian?

[AmazonGrace]

Quote

To treat each other with respect and with love and equality, but such a marriage is second best to what God has designed for us.

What could be better than treating each other with respect and love? 

[Koala]

Quote

To treat each other with respect and with love and equality, but such a marriage is second best to what God has designed for us.

@AmazonGrace Isn't it fabulous?!  You would think that something would click in Ken's brain, but nope.  Love, equality, and respect?  Totally second best to the awesome marriage Ken and Lori have.  What could be better than taking passive aggressive jabs at each other on the World Wide Web.  Or even better, having your husband use your blog as a pick up tool for women.  

[usmcmom]

Quote

You sound like you want black and white on this issue, and by demanding such you have fallen off of the horse of truth

Isn't it great when Ken scolds somebody for expecting an issue to be black and white?  This, from the man who simply cannot see any validity in an experience different than his own. 

And please, I beg of you. May we have "Fallen off the horse of truth" as a post count title? 

Oh and...BOOKY FOR PRESIDENT!!! 

edited for punctuation

[ViolaSebastian]

Awww, yeah, Ken has stepped in.  Guess there's nothing to do on a Sunday afternoon after "ten minutes and some lube."

Booky writes:

Quote

You said: 

"Therefore, if your husband is not the leader you think he should be, follow him any ways. If he tells you to do something you disagree with, gently tell him why you disagree but if it is not against God's commands, obey him." 

The second bolded part is the loophole. Therefore, you are teaching other women that the woman is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong in the marriage. But you also do advocate she should follow his leadership even if she disagrees. This would be begrudging submission and so this is why women talk about "the struggle" so much. 

Would it not be better for her to pray that her own heart is changed rather than essentially praying that her husband changes so she doesn't have to? Why assume her particular convictions (feelings) are real while what her husband wants is wrong, based solely upon her convictions (feelings)?

So Ken replies (with the traditional wall o' text mansplaining...)

Quote

Booky see my comment below, but let me point out that you have created a straw man, and now are attempting to knock him down. Lori has posted this post today to combat the idea of "loop holes," in submission, yett you seem to see one in the way that she invites wives to express their thoughts to their husbands. This is no loophole, but instead truth. 

You want truth to fit in a nice neat box, but you also see that it doesn't. I think you are wrong in the degree to which you desire Christian wives to "win him without a word." You cannot blend wills as you believe is necessary without a husband knowing a wife's thoughts and feelings. You are exactly right that a wife's thoughts need to bend towards her husband's will so that she can learn and grow from his headship, but you are wrong if a wife is prompted by her spirit to speak up, yet she remains silent. So long as her heart motives are right, there is everything right about her speaking up, and she must be willing to joyfully follow her husband and learn from him, if and when he disagrees. 

I can imagine a wife who follows your admonition and rarely speaks up what is on her mind, and the result is that she is not allowing her husband to speak truth into her heart, nor allowing her to speak truth into her husband's heart. It is only when a husband knows his wife's inner thoughts that he can lead her well, as Christ with His church knows all of our thoughts, right and wrong. We can only be oneflesh if we know each other fully and completely, and any husband who is not interested in his wife's thinking, the right and the wrong, is not a husband who can lead her effectively. 

I suggest to you that you go to your husband and ask him if he is interested in your thoughts and perspectives. Does he want you to simply seek to continually bend your will to his, or to openly express your thoughts and concerns with him. I will bet you $100 your husband, Christian or not Christian, godly or sinful, will say to you that he indeed desires to know your thoughts, even as he also may desire you to submissively follow his will in areas where your thoughts disagree with his, at least until he changes his thinking.

So Booky replies...

Quote

yett you seem to see [a loophole] in the way that she invites wives to express their thoughts to their husbands 

That is not where I pointed out the problem. Read my previous comments again. The problem in my estimation was that there was an "IF" in there, when scripture clearly commands wives to submit to their husbands "in all things", not just when she thinks he is right. I actually agreed with Lori on expressing thoughts and opinions in a respectful manner to whomever we choose to express them. 

I think you are wrong in the degree to which you desire Christian wives to "win him without a word." You cannot blend wills as you believe is necessary without a husband knowing a wife's thoughts and feelings. 

you are wrong if a wife is prompted by her spirit to speak up, yet she remains silent 

I can imagine a wife who follows your admonition and rarely speaks up what is on her mind 

I never said any of these things. I submit that it is you who is constructing a strawman here. It was your wife who brought up "without a word". Here is a post I did on that particular 'teaching' (and this was not directed at or even inspired by Lori, just a general discussion since it is a widespread idea). 
https://signpostsstrangeland.wordpress.com/2016/0...

It is only when a husband knows his wife's inner thoughts that he can lead her well 

Yes, how else can he lead her where she wants to go, and get his thoughts in line with hers? 

he also may desire you to submissively follow his will in areas where your thoughts disagree with his, at least until he changes his thinking 

Well I won't take your bet, since I already know the answer. My husband asks for my input on most things and there is rarely a disagreement. If I am uncertain about something I simply say "thy will be done" and trust that God will take care of it for the best, whatever that entails. In fact, during this entire exchange, my husband and I have been discussing it and our viewpoint is completely aligned.

 

So Ken replies..

Quote

I am sorry Booky, but I still can't see the hair that you are splitting with Lori. Is it so fine as to not be seen? And if so, is it worth so much time and energy in discussion? 

The "IF it is not against God's commands then obey Him," is exactly correct by Lori. You cannot interject a thought she has not postulated, then shoot it down. You are welcome to add to Lori's thinking that a wife should not exult her thinking over her husband's by creating an artificial truth that is not clear in God's Word to shoot him down. And that seems to be your concern. That a woman will read a loophole into Lori's words and become the arbiter of right and wrong instead of accepting her husband's perspectives. Such artificial excuses are indeed unwelcomed by Lori. But Lori's premise is that the husband in her example IS definitely going against the Word, and in these cases she may refuse to be submissive. 

Reread Lori's Words, "but if it is not against God's commands, obey him." There is no question as to whether it is against God's Word or not in her statement. It IS against God's Word. 

So I find that it is you who have read into Lori's Words and I can understand why. You should have simply stated that a wife needs to be careful to be sure that what she is objecting to is indeed against God's Word, and she is not to rely on her opinion alone, but seek out the wise counsel of other godly believers who can confirm her thinking, or who will point out to her how her husband's thinking or desires can indeed be seen as permissible by the liberty of the Word.

 

[Mrsaztx]

I couldn't follow a single word of that nonsense. I guess that's in Ken's favor so people reading will just give up and say "whatever, listen to my husband, ok. Where's the damn lube, I need to get dinner in the oven and he's got football coming on soon."

[ViolaSebastian]

I know this was yesterday's post, but damn is this woman out of touch.

A reader says: 

Quote

Cookbooks from the area are recipes with sugary, fatty and processed ingredients...it's also not uncommon to have crop sprayers all around, on land and in the air. If we hear planes going overhead to spray nearby fields, I always keep my daughter and myself inside. We have a couple of air purifiers, but I know they only do so much. There are many days where I'd love to have the windows open, but I can't. It's hard when our land is right next to land being sprayed, especially with windy conditions (it's not all that uncommon to have 40-60 mph winds here) some of the spray always drifts onto our land. In the summer if I know they're close, I'll throw a tarp over our garden, because that is our source of organic produce unless I want to drive 60 miles away, which I sometimes will.

To which Lori replies..

Quote

This is very sad, Katie, that you have to protect yourself so much from the toxic chemical sprays. Can you move away from them? We live in Southern CA and there are so many places to get organic garden fresh fruits and vegetables. I know many supermarkets all over the nation are getting better at supplying organic produce.

 

Yes, Lori, you ignorant moron, everyone has the dough to just quit their jobs and and move to one of the most expensive areas in the country.  

[EmiGirl]

Once I posted on loris blog that my husband didn't want a submissive wife. Ken then proceeded to tell me that I was being submissive by not being submissive since that's what my husband wants. 

[Mrsaztx]

21 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

I know this was yesterday's post, but damn is this woman out of touch.

A reader says: 

To which Lori replies..

Yes, Lori, you ignorant moron, everyone has the dough to just quit their jobs and and move to one of the most expensive areas in the country.  

So it's this bitch that moves next to the fields and complains about being next to the fields. I despise this bitch and having to field irate phone calls from her. Also you are never allowed to spray pesticides in 40-60 mph wind. That's against alllllll the rules. Preventing drift is a huge concern for pesticide applicators. Not to mention the farmers kind of like to keep the product that they paid for on their fields, so they can, ya' know, work and stuff. And if it's from a ground driven spray rig it's being applied less than a foot above the crops, I seriously doubt it's blowing however far away even if it was 60mph wind (which is not happening).

Who wants to bet this lady is also concerned about chemtrails?

[usmcmom]

Quote

Ken · 1 hour ago

I am sorry Booky, but I still can't see the hair that you are splitting with Lori. Is it so fine as to not be seen? And if so, is it worth so much time and energy in discussion?

 Evidently, it IS worth so much time and energy in discussion, Ken; at least to you.  You've written at least three very lengthy responses to this "hair splitting."  You are like the adolescent girl who tells her parents she won't speak to them EVER AGAIN and then proceeds to spend an hour telling them why. 

But thank you.  Thank you for the entertainment on this cold winter's afternoon.  Ah, Ken. You're so funny. 

[Evangeline]

49 minutes ago, EmiGirl said:

Once I posted on loris blog that my husband didn't want a submissive wife. Ken then proceeded to tell me that I was being submissive by not being submissive since that's what my husband wants. 

But... but.... wouldn't that mean you're doing what works instead of doing it the way God intended? I can't follow these people's trains of thought. They really believe they teach consistently without "exceptions" and yet they're the ones who think up exceptions all the time.

Let me see if I have this right. Obey your husband in all things unless:

He wants you to not obey him.

He wants you to wear a bikini.

But, if he wants you to work or send the kids to school, do what he says while you convince him he's wrong.

Got it.

 

[Koala]

1 hour ago, ViolaSebastian said:

 

Yes, Lori, you ignorant moron, everyone has the dough to just quit their jobs and and move to one of the most expensive areas in the country.  

 I laughed until I almost cried when I read that.  You can almost picture the blank expression on Lori's face as she ponders why the woman stays when it's so simple to just move.

[Mrsaztx]

Heck, you don't even have to pack, the movers will do that for you, you just get in your car and drive off. Granted, it's a bit inconvenient to have to stay in a hotel until they get your things to fantasy-land, but a family of five can move and stay a week in a decent hotel and eat out for less than $15,000, so I really don't see what the problem is.

[Koala]

1 hour ago, EmiGirl said:

Once I posted on loris blog that my husband didn't want a submissive wife. Ken then proceeded to tell me that I was being submissive by not being submissive since that's what my husband wants. 

Lori has addressed this as well.  She advised that the wife should concede to the arrangement, but then figure out what her husband wants and pretend to want it herself.   

[littlemommy]

13 minutes ago, Koala said:

 I almost laughed until I almost cried when I read that.  You can almost picture the blank expression on Lori's face as she ponders why the woman stays when it's so simple to just move.

Lori is just not very bright. I imagine that if you hold your ear up to her ear, you can hear the ocean.

[Florita]

The Joy Filled Wife chimes in with her astute observations:

Quote

 

With all due respect, I'm not quite sure how a woman being asked to dress immodestly in a way that causes her brothers to stumble is trivial. The Bible is very clear about modesty and I have lost count how many men I know who have fallen into lust got their start by seeing women dressed indecebtly, in the manner you are speaking. 

If a woman's husband were to tell her to parade out in public in a thong and bra, by your argument, she should comply right away and disregard what the Scripture teaches on this subject. Most bikinis cover less than underwear does, and you are combining that, in most cases, with being wet and chilled from being in the water, which all women know amplifies the features underneath. 

There is nothing about showing the majority of your body or knowingly tempting other men that brings glory to God. To use the disguise of "my husband told me to do it" is usually a woman's way of being able to show off her body the way she wants without taking responsibility for her part in it. To adopt the will of a husband to have his wife sin is not a Biblical. The two shall become one flesh, but they are still responsible before the Lord for the individual sins they commit. If that weren't the case and the husband was the only one responsible, Lot would have turned into salt instead of his wife.

 

You can count on TJFW to always be overly concerned with appearances. This woman judges every book she sees by its cover (and finds they are all lacking). None of what TJFW writes addresses the hypocrisy that Booky is trying to discuss.  Not too shocking that Booky’s argument goes screaming over their heads. Lori, Ken and TJFW can’t argue ideas – they can only gossip and make snide remarks couched between Bible verses.

[bean]

At my office, we refer to unnecessarily lengthy thought processes as "mental masturbation." I believe this is a much more appropriate title for Lori's blog - it's a whole lot of fiddling for nobody's benefit but hers and Ken's. 

Side note - can you imagine getting stuck next to these two twats at a dinner party?? It's the stuff of horror movies (well, maybe more psychological thriller than true bloody horror).

[salex]

I have seen some patriarchal groups say the woman has no input and if the husband tells her to sin she is to do it but God will not hold her responsible  the sin will be on her husband's head 

 

So ken  step up, a true leader husband takes on the responsibility for the sins he encourages or approves 7n his wife

[polecat]

Quote

You are welcome to add to Lori's thinking that a wife should not exult her thinking over her husband's by creating an artificial truth that is not clear in God's Word to shoot him down.

A word of advice, Ken, if you can stomach it coming from a woman? Using words that you think make you look intelligent have the opposite effect when you use them incorrectly. I'm pretty sure you meant to write "exalt," and no, it was no typo since the "u" and the "a" are nowhere near one another.

Your incessant walls-o-text, mansplaining and butchering of the English language make you look like extraordinarily stupid. 

8 hours ago, Florita said:

The Joy Filled Wife chimes in with her astute observations:

You can count on TJFW to always be overly concerned with appearances. This woman judges every book she sees by its cover (and finds they are all lacking). None of what TJFW writes addresses the hypocrisy that Booky is trying to discuss.  Not too shocking that Booky’s argument goes screaming over their heads. Lori, Ken and TJFW can’t argue ideas – they can only gossip and make snide remarks couched between Bible verses.

 

Quote

TJFW: With all due respect, I'm not quite sure how a woman being asked to dress immodestly in a way that causes her brothers to stumble is trivial. The Bible is very clear about modesty and I have lost count how many men I know who have fallen into lust got their start by seeing women dressed indecebtly, in the manner you are speaking. 

 

Is this the same JFW who said that men stop in their tracks to openly gape at her glorious womanhood and femininity while their wives seethe with jealousy next to them? 

I just don't know, TJFW. That doesn't sound so modest to me.

[ViolaSebastian]

Ken, I'm not a big pinteresty quotes type of person, but seriously, you need to get a hold of Elements of Style ASAP.

Quote

Say all you have to say in the fewest possible words, or your reader will be sure to skip them; and in the plainest possible words or he will certainly misunderstand them." - John Ruskin

Quote

Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief."    William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Sometimes I feel like he's trying to win my submission by pummeling me with words.

[Koala]

Lori:

Quote

Men and women are different as I have written about many times. Men have ten times the testosterone we have and they like to conquer, whether it is new land, enemies or a woman. This is their nature to do so.

 Umm, okay.  How exactly does one go about conquering a woman?

Also, Lori asserts that it's in a woman's nature to be controlling, and she should do everything in her power to overcome it.  Why then does a man get a pass just because "it's in his nature"??

Quote

Men's nature is doubtful, skeptical, forceful and pushy.* {This can drive us crazy at times, right?} Did you know that neither Bill Clinton nor Obama would have been elected President if women didn't vote? Women used to be for abortion in far greater numbers than men. {This isn't a post to argue that women shouldn't vote. I am simply stating facts.}

Well, maybe this post isn't to argue that women shouldn't vote, but let's look at what Lori posted in the comments of another blog:

Quote

Lori AlexanderJune 15, 2013 at 3:57 PM

I completely agree although I don't think I would have the nerve to ever write about it. Clinton and Obama would not have won if women voted. Men vote more pro-life than women. Clinton and Obama were not raised by fathers, thus seem to think more with their emotions and act based upon what is right for the moment. Bush and Romney had strong fathers and think more with their reason and see the whole picture. I would not mind at all if women weren't allowed to vote anymore...

So there's that.  

Quote

There was a discussion in the chat room about "baby fever." Some women wrote that they didn't desire children; they didn't "feel" like having them. Our feelings lie to us; never trust your feelings. I explained to them that it doesn't matter if they have baby fever or not or if they feel like having children or not. If they want to walk in obedience to the Lord, they will have children if they are able! 

This is really a matter between a woman and her husband, Lori.  Not a woman and her Godly Mentor.  Also, revealing what the women you mentor tell you in a private chat room is not discreet.  You're gossiping (carrying tales), and the Lord doesn't smile on that.

You didn't feel like having children, and as a result you only had 4.  And thank God for small wonders, because you grossly mistreated the 4 you had.  

You are meddling where you don't belong Lori.  Whether these couples have children or not is truly none of your business.

Quote

You will never have a man who cherishes you if you insist on doing it your way. 

In light of the state of Lori's marriage, I take all of her marriage advice with a grain of salt.  This comment, however, is particularly sad and revealing.  

You can't manipulate a man into "cherishing" you by just throwing up your hands, admitting you're a silly little fool, and doing things his way.  The fact that Ken "cherishes" you when you're sick, helpless, and submissive isn't anything the rest of us want to emulate.

[Koala]

Quote

Men have ten times the testosterone we have and they like to conquer, whether it is new land, enemies or a woman. This is their nature to do so. 

.

Quote

Men's nature is doubtful, skeptical, forceful and pushy.

.

Quote

Man's objectivity and lack of intuitiveness make him appear less spiritual than the sensitive believing female.*

Men= Pushy conquers.  

Quote

Besides not being leaders in the Church, we also should not try to be the leaders in our homes even if we think we are better leaders than our husbands, since our husbands will lose their natural drive to bear responsibility.* God created men to be the leaders, providers and protectors but in our "liberated" society with so many women working and having careers, it has taken away many men's desire to provide and turns God's created order on its head; chaos then reigns, as it does today.

.

Quote

It is important for a woman to understand that she must be feminine {devoid of dominance and control} in order for her man to view her as his exact counterpart, and thus willingly respond to her protectively, with love and gentleness.* 

Quick question for the Godly Mentor.  How is it that the foolish, overly emotional woman is able to override a man's nature to "conquer", and "turn God's created order on its head"?

Seems like the manly beast you describe would relish fighting such a battle, but nope- they just give up at the slightest sign of resistance.  

From the way Lori describes it, women are smarter, stronger, and have more endurance.  

Quote

Did you know that women are either directly or indirectly responsible for most of the past and present cults in Christianity?*

*Gasp* and again the Manly Men just stood idly by....

Source please? 

[ViolaSebastian]

Quote

Women used to be for abortion in far greater numbers than men

Quote

Men vote more pro-life than women. 

File this under "no shit, Sherlock."

[polecat]

5 hours ago, salex said:

I have seen some patriarchal groups say the woman has no input and if the husband tells her to sin she is to do it but God will not hold her responsible  the sin will be on her husband's head 

 

So ken  step up, a true leader husband takes on the responsibility for the sins he encourages or approves 7n his wife

My mom got out of a ticket this way once. She was driving and stopped at tracks with the arm down. My dad didn't see a train coming and told her to drive through, so she, being a more-or-less submissive wife (when it suited her, anyway), drove right on through. The cop stopped her and asked if she saw the lights and arm. She said yes, but "My husband told me to drive through.
 My mom got away with it, and my dad got a lecture.

I never did figure out what that cop must have thought of everything -- did he really think it was my dad's fault, or did he just see my dad as an abusive asshole and feel sorry for my mom? (In my dad's defense, he wasn't really the stereotypical fundy asshole).