Lori Alexander 16: Protecting Men's Jobs from the Assaults of Women

[AlwaysDiscerning]

Lori always say love is a choice. She is not capable of making that choice it seems. 

[Hisey]

Anyone who flicks their infant child's cheek is not capable of love. Come on, if there's any moment that's supposed to be full of complete unconditional love, it's breastfeeding an infant. A person who coolly inflicts pain at that moment (and then brags about it) is not capable of real love, IMO. I mean, an infant? 

[Koala]

So curiosity drove me to the other woman's blog.  What did she say that Lori found so objectionable?

Quote

I’m so sad that Christians have to yell online and in the media about things they don’t like. I wish Christians were known in culture for loving everyone. People who were nothing like Jesus, liked Jesus. Do people who are nothing like me, like me?

Right off the bat, she wipes out the very thing Lori thrives on- trashing others online.  If you take Lori's ability to look down her nose at other woman, there's really not much left of her blog.

Take a look at some of the things she's said *just* in the last few days:

Quote

Women today have become so foolish. 

Quote

Women today are anything but discreet. 

Quote

 It is simply making them look childish and foolish.

Quote

Anyone who disregards God and His commands is a fool.

Quote

It shows how lukewarm many in the Church are today

Quote

The last blog post doesn’t understand Jesus at all.

Quote

She fails to understand Romans 1 and her perception of Christianity is simply to love and do good works 

Quote

I care a lot more about their eternal souls than I do just “loving” them. 

Quote

women have taken over males’ roles in society.

Quote

Women are stealing jobs that should be men’s jobs 

Quote

Your way of marriage may work great for you but it is not how marriage is clearly defined in the Word of God.

Quote

You describe a normal, watered-down definition of Christian marriage, Bethadilly

Quote

Not one Bible study that I went to my entire adult life helped me to be the kind of wife that God has called me to become. Not one.

I could go on and on.  She just spews judgment and negativity.  There is no kindness or love in her.  She isn't discreet, modest, or quiet.  She's none of the things she demands other women be, and when she finds someone who is (the linked blogger) she immediately attacks.

The blogger is calling for love and kindness, and those are two things that Queen Lori just can't bear.

This verse always comes to mind when I read Lori's blog:

1 Timothy 5:13

And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

Lori's version would read something like:

And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from blog to blog; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

Before she had the gall to declare that this woman "doesn't understand Jesus at all", she should have spoken to her privately about her concerns.  She had no problem trying to call people who left negative Amazon reviews, so why not message this lady via her blog?  

The answer?

Because it's more fun to make extreme judgements and gossip about her with her readers.

[Imrlgoddess]

It seems to me that for Lori and Ken, marriage rules should mirror those of the Middle Ages.  It should be an arrangement constructed by the parents or guardians of the youths, completely regardless of interpersonal feelings or even compatibility.  They take to heart that "love" is irrelevant in life in general, strong emotions:  love, hate, anger, sadness...all these are emotional crimes that need to reigned in.  (My mom believes this...at 39 years old, I still can't cry at funerals because of it)

From this website, should anyone want to peruse:  https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/society/sex/sex-spouses.php

Just a couple key quotes that stand out to me:  

Quote

For example, Thomas Aquinas warned that a man who slept with his wife solely for pleasure was treating her like a prostitute (Brundage, 448). Similarly, St. Jerome stated in the fourth century that "a man who is too passionately in love with his wife is an adulterer," and this was a sentiment which remained prevalent up until the end of the sixteenth century (Richards, 23-24).

Quote

William of Pagula was a bit more lenient in his view that it was not sinful to marry for sexual attraction, so long as this was not the primary reason (Brundage, 430). Consistently, procreation, or "the divine plan" of continuing the race, was seen as the only acceptable end to marital relations.

The last one from Pagula screams at me.  It's not just LorKen but so many other fundies:  Building an Army for God.  It makes no difference if you and he can get along, all you need is a high functioning uterus and he, an uncommonly high sperm count.  Live in Holy Matrimony, learn to smile and grit your teeth not matter what, and keep pushing Gods Holy Warriors out.  Love is totally irrelevant.  There is a job to be done, and once work becomes fun, it's no longer work...it's play and that's selfish, therefore.....................sinful.   

They make me tired. Why can't we just enjoy what little bit of time we have on this rock, have a pleasant life, and hopefully go on to some not awful thing at the end?  Please.....

[polecat]

Can men lead their wives, Lori asks? And her commenter responds with shocking biblical ignorance: 

Quote

This Saturday/Sunday will be Purim. The book of Esther will be read by many. This is an interesting tidbit from chapter one that is so fitting for this post and these days. A warning that has been ignored and now we all suffer the consequences. “…Queen Vashti has not only wronged the king, but also all the princes, and all the people who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. For the queen’s behavior will become known to all women, so that they will despise their husbands in their eyes, when they report, ‘King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought in before him, but she did not come.’ This very day the noble ladies of Persia and Media will say to all the king’s officials that they have heard of the behavior of the queen. Thus there will be excessive contempt and wrath.” Esther 1:16-18
Imagine if there had been no consequences for Vashti..? We see the ugly fruit of it.

 

 

(eta: This quote from Esther is a quote from Memukan, one of Xerxes' nobles. Probably a sneaky MRA bastard). 

Let me remind you, Xerxes was drunk as a skunk. He was three sheets to the wind, completely out of his mind drunk, along with all his trashed guests. He wanted to trot his wife out like a piece of meat for them to pass around like a spliff at a college party. THIS is what Lori and Ken Alexander promote as "godly submission." 

Let me also remind you that the Bible says, "But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people." (I Cor. 5:11)

AND "A woman who is beautiful but lacks discretion is like a gold ring in a pig's snout." (Prov. 11:  22)

Lori needs to read beyond Titus and learn some actual Bible.

Oh, and fun fact, my *actual* fundy church (as opposed to her evangelical "risque" church) had a pastor's daughter who named her child "Vashti" in honor of Vashti, who chose grace, dignity and modesty over the ravages of her drunk, perverted husband. So put THAT in your salad spinner and Norwex it.

[onemama]

21 minutes ago, Koala said:

I could go on and on.  She just spews judgment and negativity.  There is no kindness or love in her.  She isn't discreet, modest, or quiet.  She's none of the things she demands other women be.

True. Judgment & Negativity should be the name of her blog. Who wants to suggest it to her?

I also hate this habit of hers that I can't explain. Look at this:

A commenter posted

Quote

If you want to fight for something then go ahead- but use words. EXPLAIN to me why you feel the way you do. Sitting home and pouting like a child until you get your way will NEVER make me take you seriously.

And Lori replied: 

Quote

They’ve used many words; words like “oppression” and such, which are all lies. American women have all the freedoms that they want. The bottom line is discontentment and selfishness.

She immediately aims for the worst motives.  Rebellion, selfishness, ungodliness. There's never a reasonable explanation. 
 

[louisa05]

I just read today's blog post.

I can't even comprehend what the hell is wrong in these marriages in the first place that wives are angry and "rebellious" and men feel the need to correct or discipline them.

If that is going on every dynamic possible between two adults has gone wrong. Clearly they are not on the same page about how to live or work or anything.

[Koala]

That awkward moment when one of your (less than brilliant) basement dwellers outs his own identity by making one comment on your FB under his real name, and the exact same comment on your blog under his NOT REAL name.  

Genius.  

No matter which name he comments under, usually all he wants to talk about is sex.  I don't see why he even bothers with the pretense.  

 

[Loveday]

15 minutes ago, Koala said:

That awkward moment when one of your (less than brilliant) basement dwellers outs his own identity by making one comment on your FB under his real name, and the exact same comment on your blog under his NOT REAL name.  

Genius.  

No matter which name he comments under, usually all he wants to talk about is sex.  I don't see why he even bothers with the pretense.  

 

I hate to ask this, but I checked the last six posts by Lori and can't find what you're talking about. Help! 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

4 hours ago, Koala said:

I read it over and over again, and while I STRONGLY disagree with the "I pray for you not to be gay" bit, I can't for the life of me figure out what Lori is objecting to.

Except that (while WAYYYYYY off base), the woman doesn't come across as a complete shrew. She expressed love, and Lori immediately put love in quotes, like it's some modern, secular notion that she wants no part of.  

 

I am honestly not convinced that Lori is capable of feeling love.

I think that for once Lori showed reading comprehension skills *yeah I'm shocked too*. The blogger actually wrote "I pray for you -NOT to NOT be gay. I pray for etc". To me it seems a case of double negation. I think. 

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

On Lori's FB today E***comments and then repeats his comment and expands on it on her blog as "C******" (not his real name).  He lets us know he's had 36 disappointing years of marriage, E is always writing about how bad his marriage/ wife is.

I dare say his wife feels she's also had 36 disappointing years with him.

[Koala]

20 minutes ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

On Lori's FB today E***comments and then repeats his comment and expands on it on her blog as "C******" (not his real name).  He lets us know he's had 36 disappointing years of marriage, E is always writing about how bad his marriage/ wife is.

I dare say his wife feels she's also had 36 disappointing years with him.

He's one of the guys who's always bitching to The Modest Mentor about his sex life.  

Under both names 

If there is any justice, his wife probably left him 25 years ago, moved on, and has a fabulous life without his whiny ass.  At least that's the story I am telling myself to keep from feeling absolutely horrible for her.  

[usmcmom]

Quote

I can’t even find a church that teaches submission. My family doesn’t understand. My husband and I are very happy. We just don’t fit in with the world.

The above is from a blog comment on today's post. I never understand the people who whine that a church doesn't teach submission. 

What do they want these ministers to do? Teach from the same two or three verses EVERY WEEK?  Is that what "teaching submission" looks like to them? There are 66 books in the Bible - 27 in the New Testament and 39 in the Old Testament, I think. Are ministers supposed to ignore all that other material to teach submission all the time?  

If a couple like Lori and Ken visit a church and that church is doing a series on...say...The Sermon on the Mount or the parables of Jesus; will they label that church as evil after a few weeks because wifely submission was not mentioned from the pulpit? 

Seriously, I really don't understand what they look for and why this is THE ONE issue that they have decided is THE MOST important. 

Further, if they are attending a church that does not subscribe to their most important value, why do they keep attending?  Aren't they watering down their own beliefs by doing this?  Do they tell people "Well they don't hold to our most strongly held beliefs but we attend anyway."?  Not a very convincing way to proclaim your faith. 

[Showtunesgirl]

I feel like Lori's blog posts are all a broken record as of late (well, more so than usual). I feel like there are several points that I can't keep quiet about. The first is this whole beating a dead horse about men having the RIGHT to enforce obedience and dole out punishments to their wives is not only WRONG, but UNBIBLICAL. I don't disagree that submission is commanded of the wife, but by God, not the husband. It is also not a command that is to be ENFORCED by the husband. There is no verse in Scripture that says, "Husbands, make sure that your wife is submitting to you. If she doesn't, use physical force or mind games until she complies with your every wish and demand, for this is how you will assure her salvation." In addition, a wife still has the CHOICE of whether to submit to her husband, and in cases of sin, should choose NOT to submit (especially when it comes to abuse). Furthermore, a husband is to be a servant-leader, not a totalitarian dictator and military police hybrid. He has the right to POINT OUT sin issues and confront her in love (as all believers have the responsibility to edify one another), but it is still the wife's responsibility to correct her actions, not his. Note that I said "sin issues", because the other thing that bothers me is where the MRA's have taken the whole "obeying him" to mean "complying with his everywhere wish, demand, and becoming a mindless robot". The idea of voting the way he votes just because he's the head of the household makes no sense to me. I would think that on many major political issues, a husband and wife would be in agreement, but that even if they weren't, a husband wouldn't want his wife to vote against her own conscience just to please him. The reason women fought for, and were given, the vote was because, just like the American colonies, they didn't want to be second-class citizens in their own country, not because they wanted to be better than their husbands, brothers, or fathers. 

 

12 minutes ago, usmcmom said:

The above is from a blog comment on today's post. I never understand the people who whine that a church doesn't teach submission. 

What do they want these ministers to do? Teach from the same two or three verses EVERY WEEK?  Is that what "teaching submission" looks like to them? There are 66 books in the Bible - 27 in the New Testament and 39 in the Old Testament, I think. Are ministers supposed to ignore all that other material to teach submission all the time?  

If a couple like Lori and Ken visit a church and that church is doing a series on...say...The Sermon on the Mount or the parables of Jesus; will they label that church as evil after a few weeks because wifely submission was not mentioned from the pulpit? 

Seriously, I really don't understand what they look for and why this is THE ONE issue that they have decided is THE MOST important. 

Further, if they are attending a church that does not subscribe to their most important value, why do they keep attending?  Aren't they watering down their own beliefs by doing this?  Do they tell people "Well they don't hold to our most strongly held beliefs but we attend anyway."?  Not a very convincing way to proclaim your faith. 

Amen. My church does teach these things (submission and leadership), but in the context of the larger passage within the book (our pastors do exegetical, expository teaching of books of the Bible, including historical background/context). No one would want biblical manhood/womanhood as the main topic every single week, there's much more to the Christian life than the just the distinctions between men and women. I agree, if a church doesn't hold to the same theology *gasp* that you have, why would you stay there/attend in the first place?

[Granwych]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 6:20 PM, Loveday said:

It just blows my mind that Lori doesn't get this. 

Don't read too much of Lori's blatherings, Loveday.   You will lose your mind for extended periods of time when you consider just how many facts, ideas, and such that Lori doesn't get.

[Granwych]

16 hours ago, KDA said:

Does Lori really use her Norwex cloth repeatedly, even after wiping up raw chicken juice, without washing it? Even on their website it says it needs to boiled for 10 minutes!! How can everybody who eats at her house not be constantly sick with salmonella poisoning?

 

I'm guessing that Lori doesn't cook very often, and has guests over to dinner even less.  (Especially guests who read her blog.)

[EmiGirl]

If a man is supposed to treat their wife as a weaker vessel, why is it ok to hit her? One would not hut and be rough with a weak vessel.

[Loveday]

2 hours ago, Granwych said:

Don't read too much of Lori's blatherings, Loveday.   You will lose your mind for extended periods of time when you consider just how many facts, ideas, and such that Lori doesn't get.

It's too late. 

Me:  

[Showtunesgirl]

I apologize in advance, but I saw this on Buzzfeed and it made me think of this thread:

 

(Sorry couldn't figure out how to link it, so I screenshot it)

[Petronella]

12 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

I think that for once Lori showed reading comprehension skills *yeah I'm shocked too*. The blogger actually wrote "I pray for you -NOT to NOT be gay. I pray for etc". To me it seems a case of double negation. I think. 

Agreed. Double negative. The quoted blogger and Koala are in agreement.

[onemama]

13 hours ago, usmcmom said:

If a couple like Lori and Ken visit a church and that church is doing a series on...say...The Sermon on the Mount or the parables of Jesus; will they label that church as evil after a few weeks because wifely submission was not mentioned from the pulpit? 

Seriously, I really don't understand what they look for and why this is THE ONE issue that they have decided is THE MOST important. 

Jesus didn't once mention wifely submission. He said the world would know we are his disciples by the love we have for one-another, and he sent his disciples out to preach the Gospel (not wifely submission), make disciples of all nations (not tell them how to conduct their marriages) and baptize them in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit.  

They have decided this is the most important issue because they are obsessed with it.  They have blown it out of proportion and are reading messages into a few verses that, in my opinion, aren't there.   They twist Scripture, ignore the context, elevate perceived meaning over the clearly written words.... 

Take Genesis 3:16 b.  "Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you" 

They interpret "your desire will be for your husband" as a machiavellian rebellion in women that must be subdued, and "he shall rule over you" as the solution.  So that one half of a verse is taken out of the context of "consequences of sin, for the woman", and taught as the problem and the solution to the problem, in a nutshell. 

Most pastors don't read the Bible like that, so they're going to have a hard time finding a church that teaches what they want to hear.  Perhaps Ken should start a church?  His wife is already an influential mentor.... 

 

 

[onemama]

13 hours ago, Showtunesgirl said:

 

I feel like Lori's blog posts are all a broken record as of late (well, more so than usual). I feel like there are several points that I can't keep quiet about

 

I'm starting to feel like a broken record myself whenever I post on here with my thoughts. 

I agree with your observations.  I got to thinking, the root of the problem is they don't view marriage as primarily a relationship between two very fallible human beings.  They present husbands as little "gods" and wives as rebellious, basically bad creatures that need subduing and controlling, but the fragile little god can't subdue and control his wife without the help of an older one of those inferior beings who has been subdued and has buried her rebellious streak.  In other words, women are naturally unruly, rebellious and evil, and in need of subduing. Men are naturally, basically good and in need of a reminder that they should dominate that unruly being.  

That's supposed to look like Christ and His Bride, The Church.  Nice picture, eh?

[louisa05]

I'm starting to feel like a broken record myself whenever I post on here with my thoughts. 
I agree with your observations.  I got to thinking, the root of the problem is they don't view marriage as primarily a relationship between two very fallible human beings.  They present husbands as little "gods" and wives as rebellious, basically bad creatures that need subduing and controlling, but the fragile little god can't subdue and control his wife without the help of an older one of those inferior beings who has been subdued and has buried her rebellious streak.  In other words, women are naturally unruly, rebellious and evil, and in need of subduing. Men are naturally, basically good and in need of a reminder that they should dominate that unruly being.  
That's supposed to look like Christ and His Bride, The Church.  Nice picture, eh?

They also seem to believe that men and women simply cannot be in a happy stable relationship. In their minds (and warped theology) it is always going to be some sort of battleground. And in wars, humans don't generally make peace until one side overpowers the other, so clearly one person in marriage has to win then rule. I guess they are being proactive by just declaring a winner from the start.

I think some of it comes from the obsession with males and females being so inherently different. If you truly believe that we are so fundamentally different in every aspect: social, emotional, intellectual, in interests, hobbies, capabilities etc..., then it is easy to believe that compatibility and teamwork is impossible for a straight couple.

[usmcmom]

I think Ken is obsessed with submission because he is afraid that without submission he will never get his way. Without submission, Lori won't give him ANY respect at all and will revert to her "rebellious" ways. 

They have such an all or nothing mindset that they can't comprehend a loving relationship that is merely built on mutual respect. Lori's "transformation" illustrates this very clearly, in my opinion. Once Ken mentioned divorce, she did not merely start treating him with love and respect; she had to go for complete submission. Lori is afraid if she doesn't at least claim to be a totally submissive wife, she will lose her paycheck....I mean husband. 

Each of them fears equality in marriage for different but equally selfish reasons. I sometimes think they don't really feel that strongly about it but they have put it out there and now they have to stick with the program.  Since they both love to argue so much, they enjoy proving a point they may not really embrace. Their exaggerated numbers as to how many marriages they've saved; their fictional "young couples we are mentoring now," are all just details they throw out there to make their charade appear more believable. Of course, it is not working but that doesn't phase them a bit. 

[onemama]

1 hour ago, usmcmom said:

They have such an all or nothing mindset that they can't comprehend a loving relationship that is merely built on mutual respect. Lori's "transformation" illustrates this very clearly, in my opinion. Once Ken mentioned divorce, she did not merely start treating him with love and respect; she had to go for complete submission. Lori is afraid if she doesn't at least claim to be a totally submissive wife, she will lose her paycheck....I mean husband. 

I wonder what their marriage actually looks like.  I don't believe Lori is the "submissive wife" she claims to be and I don't believe Ken is half as "commanding" as they both want to believe he is. 

You may be right about him mentioning divorce and Lori coming up with some sort of solution to keep him reasonably happy. If she provides for his six "needs", he'll keep a roof over her head and medical insurance paid for?  I don't know....