Lori Alexander 73: Looking for Reading Comprehension, Empathy, or Self-awareness.

[delphinium65]

42 minutes ago, Koala said:

Someone on Twitter just asked if she got a 30 day ban.  Is that a thing?  Please, please, please let it be a thing.  'Tis the season of gifts, after all.

A few of my FB friends have reported having 30 day bans, usually because someone got their knickers in a knot because said friends were posting ungodly, blasphemous, heathen pictures or comments.  Here's hoping Lori is in for that long!  

[Sweet Caroline]

3 hours ago, Alisamer said:

You would think that people so enamored of the "good old days" would know that children have pretty much always been raised by a WHOLE family, not just the mother with the father stepping in occasionally. The wealthy in many times would, like Lori, have nannies and nurses to help with the children. But children have always spent time with grandparents, friends, neighbors, etc. In biblical times I'm pretty sure most households were not mom, dad and their children. It'd more likely have been mom, dad, a set of grandparents, possibly aunts and uncles and cousins... maybe an apprentice if the dad was a craftsman, etc. Everybody worked as they were able, children through adult. Mom didn't spend entire days doing child care alone (until the oldest daughter was old enough to take over some of it). There have always been family, friends, etc. who helped out with children. Not just mom, and not just mom and the older siblings. 

Do they realize how terrible that can be for their kids in the long run? Kids need to learn some independence, and to increase that as they are older in an age appropriate way. Lori seems to think that having a single mom will mess kids up (though her examples were the opposite of that, IMO), but don't they realize that never separating from mom is unhealthy also? I sometimes enjoy reading and watching true crime stuff, and while an unstable childhood isn't uncommon in the backgrounds of murderers and other criminals, some of the worst ones were actually unhealthily attached to their mothers, whether the father was involved in the family or not. 

What happens if, like we've seen recently, the mom has a sudden illness or accident leading to death? How is a child who has literally never been outside of their mother's shouting distance, and has never ever been cared for by anyone else, not even a family member supposed to deal with that? How is a child whose primary parent has never trusted another family member to care for them going to be OK with accepting comfort and help from others? How is a child who has never been trusted to spend time away from mom going to learn to trust themselves?

And how, exactly, is a child who has never been separated from their mother until middle school or older expected to get married and start caring for not only themselves but also their own children just a handful of years later?

Also, modeling that kind of self-sacrifice is terrible. I mean sure, the kids needs have to be met first, but parents are people and need to take care of themselves also. Kids have to understand that.

Lori has never known what it's like to give... at all. IMO, anyway. This is a woman who couldn't be bothered to come home when her mother was dying, or to stay with her husband when he was in ICU. Lori takes and takes, but never gives.

And don't get me started about her supporting Trump because he claims to oppose abortion. There's no way in this universe that man hasn't paid for at least one abortion. And besides, that's like supporting Satan because he likes dogs. 

I agree with your statement about a child who has never been separated from their mother. My boys are adults now, and can care for themselves.  However, they had a difficult time going to strangers when they were young. They weren’t with me 24/7, but they never had a sitter who wasn’t a grandparent or aunt/uncle.

We went on a Disney cruise many years ago. We wanted to drop our kids off at the ship’s daycare so we could do adult things. At the time, our boys were 6 and 3. We couldn’t get them to stay at the daycare. They both cried because we were leaving them with strangers. They were both enrolled in school, so they were used to being with other adults and children. I thought I had created children who would always cling to me and never “leave the nest”.

Fortunately, they did learn the skills to be on their own. Maybe it was sending them to ebil Catholic school, letting them play sports like hockey, soccer and basketball, and join Boy Scouts. They weren’t sheltered and have good friendships with others. I guess my only failure in their upbringing is that they are not very religious. One claims to agnostic, and the other is a believer but doesn’t practice. I guess I can take the shelf down I put up for my “Mom of the Year” trophy. It’s probably going to one of Lori’s fan girls. 

[usmcmom]

My sister’s kids had never been left with anybody else when their dad had a heart attack at age thirty nine. The boys were about 10 and 7 and had never been away from their mother. A dire health crisis was made that much more difficult because two little boys were absolutely distraught being away from their mother. 

Her over protective parenting really backfired on her that week. She could have had peace of mind knowing her kids were safe and content with family or friends. Instead, she was sleeping in the hospital and upset about being away from her kids. Sadly, that experience did not change her thinking and the same scenario played out any time there was an emergency after that. 

Speaking of emergencies, Lori’s inability to handle stress would be a big reason for me to refuse to leave kids with her. What if, God forbid, one of those kids is injured or seriously ill while under her care. Will she manage to get them proper care? How much time will be wasted while she lectures the child and then runs around like a ninny, unable to make proper calls?

 

[kmachete14]

@Alisamer I was going to say just that. 

Throughout all cultures you have similar models of generations of women from the same family/extended family being cloistered in a compound raising each other's kids while also running the household. You have rich families with hierarchies, household help/slavesof all kinds, etc. You have poor families living with extended family members and the motto "it takes a village." Very poor families have every single person (kids and adults) out working in a factory or in agriculture. 

 

[Loveday]

Unfortunately, Lori is back, posting about dresses. Because you can't be a godly wife and mother in anything but a 1950s-era housedress. Pearls and heels optional, I suppose. 

Quote

Would you like to go back to the day when women only wore dresses, and there was a clear distinction between men and women? Now, the most common thing worn by women is leggings. Do you only wear dresses and if so, how do you like it?

 

[Free Jana Duggar]

3 hours ago, usmcmom said:

My sister’s kids had never been left with anybody else when their dad had a heart attack at age thirty nine. The boys were about 10 and 7 and had never been away from their mother. A dire health crisis was made that much more difficult because two little boys were absolutely distraught being away from their mother. 

Her over protective parenting really backfired on her that week. She could have had peace of mind knowing her kids were safe and content with family or friends. Instead, she was sleeping in the hospital and upset about being away from her kids. Sadly, that experience did not change her thinking and the same scenario played out any time there was an emergency after that. 

Speaking of emergencies, Lori’s inability to handle stress would be a big reason for me to refuse to leave kids with her. What if, God forbid, one of those kids is injured or seriously ill while under her care. Will she manage to get them proper care? How much time will be wasted while she lectures the child and then runs around like a ninny, unable to make proper calls?

 

I hadn't thought of that. We're talking about a woman who can't pack a bag and evacuate for a fire.  

I suppose she'd call a man to help her get the child to the doc.

[Loveday]

55 minutes ago, Free Jana Duggar said:

I hadn't thought of that. We're talking about a woman who can't pack a bag and evacuate for a fire.  

I suppose she'd call a man to help her get the child to the doc.

I wonder if she even drives any more, other than maybe to the $14 butter store.

[freealljs]

Lori on dresses? I thought that at one time, she tried dresses and skirts only, but only lasted a couple days. I may be mistaken. We all know Lori’s a big hypocrite. 

Has anyone watched her latest YouTube video asking if she’s unkind.  She really is thin skinned. She thinks that she doesn’t have a mean bone in her body, because her friends tell her that? Can anyone imagine what she would do if they told her that she was a hypocrite? ? she’d publicly shame them in a post or video. Better to keep the shrew oblivious.  

[Sarah92]

*sighs* it’s really not Michael. I see tons of women in dresses. And I just love how it’s about a woman being attractive instead of being comfortable. It’s all about the male gaze. One woman in the comments said her girls go out in only skirts to “avoid the appearance of evil”. The Fuck? 
 

I wear dresses and skirts a lot, especially to work. I’ll go a whole week without wearing pants. However, I often do it because skirts and dresses are easier of my stomach. Tighter pants make my GERD worse. I also wear yoga pants and such so it’s more comfortable. It’s also a personal style choice because I like the look. However, it’s getting super cold out and wearing dresses all the time simply isn’t practical in snowy, icy weather. 

I went to a private school in Wisconsin. Every Wednesday girls had to wear a skirt or dress for chapel. Luckily they were smart enough to realize it gets fucking cold in Wisconsin and let us wear dress pants during the winter. 

[usmcmom]

Regarding Lori’s “Days of the House Dress” post: what’s keeping her from wearing dresses every day? She acts like since ALL women don’t wear dresses, she can’t. I mean, just throw away the short shorts and put on the dresses.  Don’t wait for everyone else to do it, if you feel it’s the proper way to dress. 

I actually love wearing dresses and often put one on just to run errands or go out to dinner.  The baby doll style works well for me because I carry my weight in my stomach.  Most of my dresses have pockets so I feel extra sassy in them ?. I especially like wearing them in the winter with leggings and boots.  

I’m not sure my dresses take me from a “4” to a “7” but I like them.  

 

[hollyfeller]

1 hour ago, Sarah92 said:

*sighs* it’s really not Michael. I see tons of women in dresses. And I just love how it’s about a woman being attractive instead of being comfortable. It’s all about the male gaze. One woman in the comments said her girls go out in only skirts to “avoid the appearance of evil”. The Fuck? 
 

I wear dresses and skirts a lot, especially to work. I’ll go a whole week without wearing pants. However, I often do it because skirts and dresses are easier of my stomach. Tighter pants make my GERD worse. I also wear yoga pants and such so it’s more comfortable. It’s also a personal style choice because I like the look. However, it’s getting super cold out and wearing dresses all the time simply isn’t practical in snowy, icy weather. 

I went to a private school in Wisconsin. Every Wednesday girls had to wear a skirt or dress for chapel. Luckily they were smart enough to realize it gets fucking cold in Wisconsin and let us wear dress pants during the winter. 

I like this clapback!

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

Lori's blog post with all the men's comments about feeling butt hurt that their wives pay too much attention to the children struck several chords with me.

First you have the men, fundie or not, saying fathers need to be very involved in their children's lives. Well yes, um ... of course ... common sense.   But of course Lori counters that her dad worked long hours, did nothing at home except drive them to church on Sunday and "loved us as he knew how" -- which sounds like he didn't love them at all.  But he was a great dad  because he worked all the time and drove them to church. 

Then you have the men saying they limited the family size and timing because they didn't want to be old men raising children, and too many children are too expensive.

Then you have the ones bragging about their 8-9-10 children, all home-schooled by the SAHWify, who keeps a perfect meticulous house and is always available to see their manly needs come 6:00 pm. These are the ones who chap my lips, They are also the ones I've encountered most frequently at work over the years.

The interesting thing about being a non-fundie working woman is that you frequently (at least in my case) get all sorts of confidences from the fundie men with large families and SAHW/M.  I guess it's because they figure since I'm a feminist, no children, working, non-submissive jezebel my soul is damned to hell anyway so they can tell me anything (oh dear Rufus the stories I've heard).

Anyway, I frequently hear about why they have such large families -- not because they are quiverfull or because wife thinks bc is a sin or because they love children. Nope -- the number one reason I've heard over the years is they refuse to use a condom because it dulls their pleasure.

I used to suggest that they use something else.  Nope they said -- not the pill because Rufus forbid the wife put on weight with the pill.. Diaphragms were a no because .... reasons (never understand exactly why.) IUDs the same.  NFP was just too much trouble, and there was abstinence involved. So condom free it was and cross your fingers the wife doesn't get knocked up.

At the same time they complained how expensive it was to raise those 8-9-10 children. I used to point out that if you don't use any protection, you just might end up with more children than you want/ can afford.  Somehow they never seemed to understand this logic.  It was always the wife "got pregnant again"  "the wife is going to have another"  I once snarked that they all seems to be married to the Blessed Virgin as "the wife" was getting pregnant all by herself.

To a man the men I knew like that moaned groaned bitched and complained that at 40-45-50 their wives weren't as slim, trim, pretty, and energetic has they had been at 21 and 8-9-10 children ago. Because the wives weren't supposed to have changed, even while they got paunchy and bald.

SMH ... fundies ... living in a reality-free zone.

Just my random thoughts on a Saturday afternoon.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Red Hair, Black Dress

[hollyfeller]

2 hours ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

Lori's blog post with all the men's comments about feeling butt hurt that their wives pay too much attention to the children struck several chords with me.

First you have the men, fundie or not, saying fathers need to be very involved in their children's lives. Well yes, um ... of course ... common sense.   But of course Lori counters that her dad worked long hours, did nothing at home except drive them to church on Sunday and "loved us as he knew how" -- which sounds like he didn't love them at all.  But he was a great dad  because he worked all the time and drove them to church. 

Then you have the men saying they limited the family size and timing because they didn't want to be old men raising children, and too many children are too expensive.

Then you have the ones bragging about their 8-9-10 children, all home-schooled by the SAHWify, who keeps a perfect meticulous house and is always available to see their manly needs come 6:00 pm. These are the ones who chap my lips, They are also the ones I've encountered most frequently at work over the years.

The interesting thing about being a non-fundie working woman is that you frequently (at least in my case) get all sorts of confidences from the fundie men with large families and SAHW/M.  I guess it's because they figure since I'm a feminist, no children, working, non-submissive jezebel my soul is damned to hell anyway so they can tell me anything (oh dear Rufus the stories I've heard).

Anyway, I frequently hear about why they have such large families -- not because they are quiverfull or because wife thinks bc is a sin or because they love children. Nope -- the number one reason I've heard over the years is they refuse to use a condom because it dulls their pleasure.

I used to suggest that they use something else.  Nope they said -- not the pill because Rufus forbid the wife put on weight with the pill.. Diaphragms were a no because .... reasons (never understand exactly why.) IUDs the same.  NFP was just too much trouble, and there was abstinence involved. So condom free it was and cross your fingers the wife doesn't get knocked up.

At the same time they complained how expensive it was to raise those 8-9-10 children. I used to point out that if you don't use any protection, you just might end up with more children than you want/ can afford.  Somehow they never seemed to understand this logic.  It was always the wife "got pregnant again"  "the wife is going to have another"  I once snarked that they all seems to be married to the Blessed Virgin as "the wife" was getting pregnant all by herself.

To a man the men I knew like that moaned groaned bitched and complained that at 40-45-50 their wives weren't as slim, trim, pretty, and energetic has they had been at 21 and 8-9-10 children ago. Because the wives weren't supposed to have changed, even while they got paunchy and bald.

SMH ... fundies ... living in a reality-free zone.

Just my random thoughts on a Saturday afternoon.

My ex used to leave birth control totally up to me (the pill).  However, when we first lived together he started out asking me every single night whether I took my pill.  He told me that was how he got involved with our birth control.  On the surface that makes him sound responsible (even though he never gave it a second thought for the first 4 years we were dating), but in practice it was a serious lack of trust.  After a few days I told him to shut the fuck up.  (But not in so many words because he would have gotten REALLY angry.) 

[delphinium65]

3 hours ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

Because the wives weren't supposed to have changed, even while they got paunchy and bald.

They got paunchy, and they weren't even the ones getting pregnant and giving birth over and over...and they have the nerve to bitch about their wives changing over the years. These guys need to look in the mirror. Look. In. The. F'ing. Mirror. 

[feministxtian]

2 hours ago, delphinium65 said:

They got paunchy, and they weren't even the ones getting pregnant and giving birth over and over...and they have the nerve to bitch about their wives changing over the years. These guys need to look in the mirror. Look. In. The. F'ing. Mirror. 

Then you have the husband who never gained an ounce. I gained quite of bit of weight over the years...and I swear he never noticed. Even at my heaviest he thought I was hot. God I miss him.

[rayneflower]

Someone has had to have ticked her off, again. Lot's of working mom posts lately. 

Also, why is she praising the Duggar's? After what happened with Josh they hid it, they didn't protect their own children!! Why would she praise them like that 

[usmcmom]

One thing we can all be sure of: Ken never felt like Lori gave too much attention to their kids. 

[wallysmommy]

For all her yammering about how great the Duggars, Bates, and Pearls are, she would never live with a man who wouldn't allow her free rein to spend all day on social media.   

[rayneflower]

I wonder what is going on with Lori? She is going from hateful posts, to trying to sound sweet. (I know, scary thought) 

 

I believe a family member (Ken, her children) have talked to her about the repercussions of all she puts on Facebook; especially with her constantly criticizing everyone. Also, maybe her pastor had a talk with her and told her she needed to tone it down.   

[hollyfeller]

2 hours ago, rayneflower said:

I wonder what is going on with Lori? She is going from hateful posts, to trying to sound sweet. (I know, scary thought) 

 

I believe a family member (Ken, her children) have talked to her about the repercussions of all she puts on Facebook; especially with her constantly criticizing everyone. Also, maybe her pastor had a talk with her and told her she needed to tone it down.   

Her new video about coming across as nasty in writing is a joke.  She claims that she isn't trying to be provocative.  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

[Coco]

On 12/3/2019 at 9:56 AM, usmcmom said:

I agree. It also reminds me of something I’ve mentioned before, I think. 

I can’t imagine growing up with Ken and Lori as parents because, among other things, the rules always changed.

We “believe” in Santa. Wait; no we don’t.  

We celebrate Halloween. No we don’t. Yes we do. And we hate it again.  Now, we like trick or treating.  

We like public school.  Nope! We must homeschool.. Let’s try the private school.  Back to public school!

Imagine how their every day rules probably changed. I wonder if Lori went back and forth like that with food, allowing things one week and taking them away the next. 

And then they wonder why their grown kids want nothing to do with them. 

My best friend growing up had such a fickle mom that chewing gum was the on again off again thing complete with punishments and grounding if they had some on the chance it was off limits then. Idk how anyone survives that kind of narcissism and uncertainty to become a well-adjusted person but my friend managed to do it. ❤️

Edited December 15, 2019 by Coco

[klein_roeschen]

13 hours ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

Lori's blog post with all the men's comments about feeling butt hurt that their wives pay too much attention to the children struck several chords with me.

First you have the men, fundie or not, saying fathers need to be very involved in their children's lives. Well yes, um ... of course ... common sense.   But of course Lori counters that her dad worked long hours, did nothing at home except drive them to church on Sunday and "loved us as he knew how" -- which sounds like he didn't love them at all.  But he was a great dad  because he worked all the time and drove them to church. 

Then you have the men saying they limited the family size and timing because they didn't want to be old men raising children, and too many children are too expensive.

Then you have the ones bragging about their 8-9-10 children, all home-schooled by the SAHWify, who keeps a perfect meticulous house and is always available to see their manly needs come 6:00 pm. These are the ones who chap my lips, They are also the ones I've encountered most frequently at work over the years.

The interesting thing about being a non-fundie working woman is that you frequently (at least in my case) get all sorts of confidences from the fundie men with large families and SAHW/M.  I guess it's because they figure since I'm a feminist, no children, working, non-submissive jezebel my soul is damned to hell anyway so they can tell me anything (oh dear Rufus the stories I've heard).

Anyway, I frequently hear about why they have such large families -- not because they are quiverfull or because wife thinks bc is a sin or because they love children. Nope -- the number one reason I've heard over the years is they refuse to use a condom because it dulls their pleasure.

I used to suggest that they use something else.  Nope they said -- not the pill because Rufus forbid the wife put on weight with the pill.. Diaphragms were a no because .... reasons (never understand exactly why.) IUDs the same.  NFP was just too much trouble, and there was abstinence involved. So condom free it was and cross your fingers the wife doesn't get knocked up.

At the same time they complained how expensive it was to raise those 8-9-10 children. I used to point out that if you don't use any protection, you just might end up with more children than you want/ can afford.  Somehow they never seemed to understand this logic.  It was always the wife "got pregnant again"  "the wife is going to have another"  I once snarked that they all seems to be married to the Blessed Virgin as "the wife" was getting pregnant all by herself.

To a man the men I knew like that moaned groaned bitched and complained that at 40-45-50 their wives weren't as slim, trim, pretty, and energetic has they had been at 21 and 8-9-10 children ago. Because the wives weren't supposed to have changed, even while they got paunchy and bald.

SMH ... fundies ... living in a reality-free zone.

Just my random thoughts on a Saturday afternoon.

Isn't that the real beauty of a long- term partnership, to change over time and grow old together? But let me guess, these guys also think they have it so hard with working while they're wifes have a lazy blast at home with their bazillion kids and the household.

[Melissa1977]

On 12/14/2019 at 3:13 AM, Loveday said:

Unfortunately, Lori is back, posting about dresses. Because you can't be a godly wife and mother in anything but a 1950s-era housedress. Pearls and heels optional, I suppose. 

 

Lori is all against leggings. Her daughter earns money from advertising a leggings company in IG. That family is a joke.

[wallysmommy]

Lori forgets the remainder of this Biblical passage:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.  Genesis 1:28 (KJV)

This means plant and harvest, replace what you have taken, and add more to it.  Do not sit around and squander and use up all the resources that you have been given then whine for more.  Work hard and show positive results for your labor.  It doesn't say have a bunch of kids in a narrow context.  This is also OT teachings, which Lori flip-flops on in her usual fashion.  We could also broaden this to Matthew 28:19 where we are commanded to go forth and make disciples.  That is being fruitful and multiplying.  But we all know Lori looks at scripture and the world through two toilet paper roll cores, like you did when you made fake binoculars as a kid.

Edited December 15, 2019 by wallysmommy
It's Matthew 28, not 2i8!

[thoughtful]

On 12/13/2019 at 1:04 PM, ViolaSebastian said:

She has no idea what it's like to just give and give and give until you're empty.

She has no idea what it is like to be forced to give (because, let's face it, that's what it would take) until still 98% full.