Jump to content
IGNORED

Lori Alexander 66: An Assortment of Cheap Whines


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Lgirlrocks said:

This is why Lori uses the delete button. It’s not from dumbed down education it’s from choosing to not learn. 7F35C765-0B09-470B-8A02-900B69B460B2.thumb.jpeg.d9b7e07c885252f3d3f829f113f67d69.jpeg

I think questioning motives is a function of reasoning skills. 

3 hours ago, Sarah92 said:

I'm prolife, although I'd like to see it as practical prolife. I read a tweet earlier that you can't be prolife and be a feminist and I think that's untrue and narrow. It also closes the door to conversation. I think some women feel driven to abortion because they don't have options. They're aware of the cost,can't afford it, but also don't want to send a child off into foster care. Our country shouldn't be like that. I don't agree with making it illegal and I understand and empathize with the many reasons women choose to abort, especially in the case of abuse and health. We can reduce it by meeting needs and advocating for systematic change. So many prolife people have such a narrow view on the subject that they don't see the consequences of their legislature  and the devastation it can wreck. 

Sighs so many that makes me pro choice/prolife? Idk now that I'm coming to terms with my bisexual crisis I realize that I'm not very good at having a straight, decisive view on subjects ;)

 

For me, I have come to the conclusion that I am personally pro-life (consistently across the life span) but overall, I am pro-choice. It’s not my body, not my situation, not my decision. Women should have access to safe, affordable (free if necessary), healthcare- from prevention to treatment/intervention- and abortion is healthcare.  

Lori and her supporters want to take all choices away from all women. It absolutely horrifies me. 

I also know that my personal stance  comes from my comfortably middle-class, good jobs, good health insurance, access to good childcare, access to positive and helpful family support status (and an assumption of good health). I can empathize with and support those who have different realities and perspectives- no matter their choice. 

I guarantee that if a mandate came out requiring all children to be vaccinated, with penalties for parents and doctors that don’t comply, Lori and her minions would be up in arms screaming about choice and government overreach. 

  • Upvote 20
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Madame Alexander's cruel facebook posts and tweets got me wanting to read a book by Rachel Held Evans. I'm listening to "Searching For Sunday" on Scribd.  Rachel read it herself, so it's special.  There's more passion, compassion, humility and self-awareness in one chapter than in all of Lori's blog posts.  I highly recommend it if you've ever doubted in your faith.  

I'm sorry she's gone... I look forward to meeting her whenever we all get to meet again.

  • Upvote 11
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sarah92 said:

Sighs so many that makes me pro choice/prolife? Idk now that I'm coming to terms with my bisexual crisis I realize that I'm not very good at having a straight, decisive view on subjects ;)

 

That's because very few situations have clear, concise answers. Life is many, many shades of gray. 

  • Upvote 9
  • I Agree 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sarah92, I completely understand where you’re coming from. Our country makes it damn difficult to be a mother. We live in a capitalist society where most of the benefits we get come courtesy of business entities, not from programs instituted for the public good. Our government is famously disinclined to promote or support humane parental leave practices, subsidized child care, or in many cases access to contraception or quality health care.  Simple economics all too often leave a pregnant woman no alternative but abortion. And then there are all the women and girls whose parents or partners coerce them into unwanted abortions.

No, more humane practices wouldn’t wipe out abortions, but would definitely decrease them.

 

  • Upvote 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sarah92 said:

I'm on a Lori break right now but have seen this stuff about abortions. I vote that males need to also be held accountable for their irresponsible distribution of sperm, especially ones that run out on women when they get pregnant or don't pay child support.  I say the government should charge them with " impregnation with no intent to provide which may result in termination of pregnancy" or something along those lines. Once you start forcing men to be accountable for their actions I wonder where those bills will go. Put them in jail with the doctors and see what happens. I'm certain our current president would probably be at risk for being charged. 

If they insist on banning abortion at 6 weeks, then child support payment should also start at 6 weeks.  Make men responsible for half of the medical bills.  Tell them 'oh, you don't want to be responsible? You should have kept it in your pants.'  Force them to take responsibility, don't trust them to make these decisions on their own. If they want to take away women's rights, then take away as many of those same rights from them as possible.  Let's see how they like being treated the way they treat women. 

Yeah, I know, it will never happen, but I can dream!  

  • Upvote 20
  • I Agree 5
  • Love 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, polecat said:

That's because very few situations have clear, concise answers. Life is many, many shades of gray. 

I agree that life is shades of gray if you are able to comprehend that your own experiences are not universal. 

Barring a bizarre miracle Lori ( and the men who agree with her) will never be pregnant again. She will never again have to decide to give her children vaccinations. Highly unlikely she and Ken will have to be refugees to another country.

This is what allows her and others to issue these draconian black and white edicts. They believe they will never be subjected to them. 

  • Upvote 10
  • I Agree 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, hollyfeller said:

I was home sick from work today and I spent my time arguing about people about the abortion on Twitter.  I may be dumber now than when I woke up, but some of the conversations are fucking hilarious.

  Reveal hidden contents

thread1_part1.thumb.png.50916e5df036bf12497a7bbd6d8c7709.png

  Reveal hidden contents

thread1_part2.thumb.png.6d966e8e4997eef19f87390e8e212055.png

  Reveal hidden contents

thread1_part3.thumb.png.98981dfccfd5033f4995bf5a99e78c28.png

 

I did really well until the "mice drop" typo in that last comment!

 

For some odd reason, the part that stuck out at me was the assertion that men make ice cream. Last I checked, I’ve been cooking and baking since I was 8, and I can and do run the ice cream machine all by my little ole’ female self. 

  • Upvote 11
  • Haha 6
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, fluffy said:

 

KR was me trying to get her to admit that she was in fact for-death penalty.  She flat out says "I don't think jail is appropriate, but women need something to put fear in them."  So what exactly would put fear into a woman if not jail?  What exactly is she suggesting. Plus she constantly "liked" all the comments from the fan-boys who equated  abortion to first degree pre-meditated murder.   she is just avoiding the question.  She may not have said it out loud or in print but her actions absolutely points to the fact she is pro-death penalty.

  • Upvote 11
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've mentioned this here before, but I consider myself very much like Frog99 - personally pro-life - but not in a place to make a decision for others.  

I think I have told this story before -but at age 16 I watched someone I knew from High School nearly bleed to death from an abortion she had obtained in the clinic in our town.  That experience has shaped my perspective my whole life.

Quite frankly, I think I am more anti-abortion clinics that are supposedly safe because I think they are an enterprise that takes advantage of vulnerable women.  I think that it is so unregulated as to be substandard medical care - and I am more concerned about that than anything else these days. 

I always think back to the West Wing and Matt Santos saying:  "Abortion is a tragedy. It should be legal, it should be safe, and it should be a helluva lot rarer than it is now."  That's where I am.  I don't think banning it makes it safer or rarer; just more dangerous.

  • Upvote 11
  • I Agree 5
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Botkinetti said:

I agree that life is shades of gray if you are able to comprehend that your own experiences are not universal. 

Barring a bizarre miracle Lori ( and the men who agree with her) will never be pregnant again. She will never again have to decide to give her children vaccinations. Highly unlikely she and Ken will have to be refugees to another country.

This is what allows her and others to issue these draconian black and white edicts. They believe they will never be subjected to them. 

I think that the majority of Lori's followers are somehow managing to ignore the fact that she decided birth control was bad only AFTER she was past her prime childbearing years. That she didn't take on this "submission" thing until AFTER her kids were all basically grown. That yes, she decided to be a stay at home mom (by sabotaging her BIRTH CONTROL) only because she didn't WANT to work. All her edicts to "young mothers" are things she did not do herself. She did, and still does, regularly see doctors for her health issues, while still promoting woo - even though she tends to use the woo treatments only for really minor stuff herself. She tells women to stay at home no matter the cost, leaving their husbands to work themselves to death - she herself had a housekeeper and nanny while staying home, and has always been well-off. She can't relate to women wanting their husbands to be around, because she didn't love Ken when she married him, and still seems to view him as a rather annoying ATM who occasionally asks her to do (or not do) something, and who requires 10 minutes and lube once in a while.

Has she ever said whether her OWN kids were vaccinated? I bet they were. But now that they're grown up, she can tell women not to get THEIR kids vaccinated, because dumb conspiracy theories.

I'd bet most of her "women shouldn't speak in church" is not so much her following the Bible (because most of it contradicts that) but her being passive-aggressive about her churches asking her not to spread her terrible unbiblical advice to other women in their congregations.

Lori is really, really stupid, and declining every day. But somehow her followers are either even more stupid, or really really gullible. It doesn't take a genius to see Lori's a lying hypocrite. Just a little critical thinking will do.

 

  • Upvote 16
  • I Agree 9
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thinking is similar to yours, @AuntKrazy. I think I'm a pro-choice person who hates abortion. I want it available to all women, but I want us to do everything we can to make it unnecessary as much as we can.

I want all women to be able to have control over when they have sex and with whom. Ideally, no rape, no sexual abuse, not even psychological pressure to do anything they don't want to do. Easy access to affordable birth control. (Which includes all options of birth control, not just the pill.) And social support for families: sufficient parental leave, jobs with living wages, safe infant and child care for families with both parents working outside the home. And then if abortion is still a person's choice, then it's their choice. 

2 hours ago, delphinium65 said:

If they insist on banning abortion at 6 weeks, then child support payment should also start at 6 weeks.  Make men responsible for half of the medical bills.  Tell them 'oh, you don't want to be responsible? You should have kept it in your pants.'  

I just love this idea! It takes a minimum of 2 people to create an embryo. Why is only one of them on the hook for all the responsibilities? 

  • Upvote 13
  • Love 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.  I had a long post written in response to Lori's post today.  I deleted it and replaced it with "You are a fool."  Much less energy expended on my part.

  • Upvote 21
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

Lori is really, really stupid, and declining every day. But somehow her followers are either even more stupid, or really really gullible. It doesn't take a genius to see Lori's a lying hypocrite. Just a little critical thinking will do.

What she really, really thrives on is attention. I wish everyone would just ignore her. It burns her to no end when she only get 1-2 comments on her posts.  When that happens she immediately follows up with a more controversial one. I don't think it's an accident. 

As sick as we all get from the no leggings, homeschool only, cooking from scratch only, keeper at home posts -- i believe she is now full on "preaching" -- the very thing she said women cannot do.  She is teaching  her interpretation of scripture -- far from the "teaching younger women to love their husbands and children and be keepers at home."    

IMHO, she got a taste of "fame" and wants to be considered a great mind when it comes to matters of the faith. She is jealous of others who have larger/better ministries.  Hers is all about tearing others down  -- preacher who don't teach the Bible they way she thinks they should, other female bloggers, but especially women.  Always women. Even when the men fail, its the women who are at fault.

I need to take a break from her for a bit.  

  • Upvote 12
  • I Agree 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight, when men abandon their wives and kids it’s somehow the wives job to try and get them back? Lori, you can’t keep blaming women for everything. 

429810F3-C679-4559-8CED-651502FB45DA.thumb.png.4f5bd71bb3e35210b52493f3cf3262df.png

Spoiler

7A62D2D1-284F-4686-ACC3-B8D620C6B274.thumb.png.d653f7fe295642028c10bc78e2b203b4.png

Women usually don’t file for divorce for no reason. 

  • Upvote 8
  • WTF 7
  • I Agree 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

I just love this idea! It takes a minimum of 2 people to create an embryo. Why is only one of them on the hook for all the responsibilities? 

In their view, a child is the woman's resposibility and only her's. She is the sole caregiver and if she got pregnant out of wedlock, her fault. How many of these upstanding, moral christians have fathered children out of wedlock? They only mourn the times gone without reliable paternity testing, where they could deny their offspring and play being the victim of "greedy, unmoral" woman. They would be very understanding if their pal tells them that he paid his mistress to have an abortion, while demonising the woman he slept with. Because it's always the woman's fault alone, so no need to take up resposibility.

  • Upvote 10
  • I Agree 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SongRed7 said:

i believe she is now full on "preaching" -- the very thing she said women cannot do.  She is teaching  her interpretation of scripture -- far from the "teaching younger women to love their husbands and children and be keepers at home."    

I agree, and she's not only teaching women, she's teaching men.  

2 hours ago, SongRed7 said:

IMHO, she got a taste of "fame" and wants to be considered a great mind when it comes to matters of the faith. She is jealous of others who have larger/better ministries.  Hers is all about tearing others down  -- preacher who don't teach the Bible they way she thinks they should, other female bloggers, but especially women.  Always women. Even when the men fail, its the women who are at fault.

That's my humble opinion too.  I'm listening to Rachel Held Evans's "Searching For Sunday", and the more I listen, the more I think "she got it....".  Rachel is honest, Lori is full of lies.  Rachel is straightforward, Lori is devious.  Rachel meditates on her reactions and feelings, sometimes admitting that she can be like a bull in a china shop, Lori denies her lack of love and her bluntness, hiding behind a facade of speaking truth .  Rachel died and Lori condemns her to hell.  

Lori has it coming at her. Like you, I really wish people would ignore her. That would be the best thing that could happen to her. 

Edited by onemama
  • Upvote 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm also pretty sure the reason she is so anti-divorce is that Ken probably wanted rid of her mean, crotchety, lazy ass as soon as the kids were all out of the house. Then she took on this "submissive" persona and guilted him into keeping her. And now she's managed to get herself somewhat internet-infamous, and will probably throw that out as a reason not to divorce if he ever brings it up again.

Women don't file for divorce for no reason at all. There are a million reasons, and none of them are Lori Alexander's (or anyone else's) business.

As for the "government assistance" she thinks gives women a good reason to divorce, that's just BS. I'm sure it happens, but not as an incentive. More like being able to get help with healthcare once his income is out of the picture, I think. Or hoping for food assistance so they can afford to get away from an abuser.

Lori, of course, who sits around being self-righteous and lazy all day, and has done so since her kids were young, thinks that's what ALL women are doing when they're getting "government assistance". Because Lori can't imagine anyone's life being any different than her own, very privileged one. She's just so DULL. In every possible way.

  • Upvote 21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, klein_roeschen said:

How many of these upstanding, moral christians have fathered children out of wedlock?

Many. 

  • Upvote 9
  • I Agree 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that many women have a financial need (particularly if they follow Lori's crazy "it's only godly to stay home"  mindset ) and have to file for divorce if they are abandoned for legal and financial reasons.  If the man just up and walks away, without divorce there is no recourse to recoup the moneys for child support in many states.  Of course those men are not filing for divorce - they don't want to pay for their responsibilities. 

Many times assistance is determined by the income of the entire household, and divorce and legal separation are needed to remove the deadbeat male from the books so that the mother and children may receive assistance.  It also helps protect the woman's credit.

Divorce is often needed to legally ensure that the dad keeps the children on health coverage and certainly needed for wage garnishment for deadbeats.  A woman filing for divorce protects her welfare and her children's welfare in these circumstances.

Lori, so just because more women file for divorce does not mean that more women initiate the circumstances that lead to it.

 

  • Upvote 19
  • I Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AuntKrazy said:

It also helps protect the woman's credit.

I know it's helping mine not to be totally trashed.  I have no direct contact with my ex, but other people have updated me on a few things.  He was always crap with paperwork of any kind, but I've been told that in very recent years he hasn't even bothered filing income tax returns, and has let a lot of other financial obligations go.  If I was still married to him...well, I'm glad I'm not for many reasons, but financial reasons, including credit scores, are on the list.   

  • Upvote 17
  • Love 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AuntKrazy said:

just because more women file for divorce does not mean that more women initiate the circumstances that lead to it.

Exactly!  But it's a lot easier to point the finger and judge than to try and understand the person who filed for divorce.  

  • Upvote 14
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re “why more women than men file for divorce”:  It used to be (and often still is) considered the “chivalrous” thing for a divorcing couple to allow the wife the option of filing against her husband, the cultural reasoning being that it paints the husband as someone “bad” that the wife is justifiably getting rid of, so she can maintain her status as a “lady.” The man was assumed to have the strength to soldier on.

On the flip side, if a man filed for divorce against a woman, everyone would be all “Whatever did that whore DO???” If a man took it on himself to divorce a woman, she’d be left with the status of “damaged goods.”

Edited by Hane
  • Upvote 13
  • I Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hane said:

Re “why more women than men file for divorce”:  It used to be (and often still is) considered the “chivalrous” thing for a divorcing couple to allow the wife the option of filing against her husband, the cultural reasoning being that it paints the husband as someone “bad” that the wife is justifiably getting rid of, so she can maintain her status as a “lady.” The man was assumed to have the strength to soldier on.

On the flip side, if a man filed for divorce against a woman, everyone would be all “Whatever did that whore DO???” If a man took it on himself to divorce a woman, she’d be left with the status of “damaged goods.”

I was just going to write something similar.  When my husband and his first wife decided to throw in the towel (they both knew it wasn't working) he let her file for divorce.

 

A friends wife cheated on him,  he filed for divorce

Edited by jingersnap
  • Upvote 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alisamer said:

Has she ever said whether her OWN kids were vaccinated? I bet they were. But now that they're grown up, she can tell women not to get THEIR kids vaccinated, because dumb conspiracy theories.

I think she once claimed her children weren't vaccinated, but that was not the norm back in the 1980s-early 1990s when her children were young. The Wakefield paper didn't come out until the late 1990s. I think her son Steven is my age, but could be wrong. Her children are around my age regardless and there weren't as many vaccines for diseases back then. Polio, MMR, DTaP, and were the only vaccines given until 1989 when Hib was added. California was more "hippie" than southern Appalachia where I grew up, but Lori doesn't strike me as the type. She always seemed more of a keep up with the jones type crowd follower. What their church crowd did, what her neighbors did, that's what she did and wanted. Also whatever was easiest and laziest way over what is best. She homeschooled when her children were older and only briefly, back in the late 1990s and early 2000s when the trend to homeschool was growing more popular. She sent them to school as children because that's what you did. She told her children Santa wasn't real because the church they went to said it was evil. So, yeah, I do think her children actually were vaccinated, at least until they were older. If it will get her attention, makes her look good to some sort of crowd or group that she's in, especially if it requires little to no effort on her end, I think that's what she will do or claim to do. 

  • Upvote 3
  • I Agree 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • samurai_sarah locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.