Lori Alexander 80: So Warm and Inviting

[Sarah92]

On 2/1/2022 at 6:16 PM, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

Quote

 

Never once in college was I asked to prove my tetanus shot was current -- I'm calling a flat out lie here

I agree. I was supposed to have proof of health insurance in college and never had it except one semester when I studied abroad. They’d ask for proof, I’d say I’d give it to them later and then they never bothered me for it. I’d just “forget” to give it to them. 
 I’d been kicked off my parents Medicaid and told I could only get it again if I got pregnant so I didn’t have insurance for years. I doubt they’d do something like that over a shot. 

[KDA]

On 2/1/2022 at 6:52 AM, Sarah92 said:

I would say yes but that’s probably more of a personal opinion than a clinical one. It’s a lot of I’m sorry but …. Often the blame is shifted to the significant other. It reminds me a lot of what Lori says. The husband cheats because…. Wife was disobedient, spent too much time with the kids, didn’t take care of herself etc. I think it goes with not wanting to put in the emotional effort to fix the marriage. Why should the person who had the affair out in the work when it’s not even their fault? And besides they’re over it so their spouse/ partner should be too. Very toxic thinking.

I’ve rarely worked with the people who have had the affairs so I spend a lot of time validating the partners emotions and saying no you don’t have to be over it and yes there needs to be boundaries and feelings of safety. 

My mother had an affair. Actually, she had multiple affairs, including an extended affair when I was a teenager. My father finally kicked her out when I was 18. I just turned 40 yesterday, so that's how long ago it was. Mum is still with the man she had the affair with. To this day, she still blames my father. "If he would just do this....." and she'd list something so small and insignificant, I'd wonder why he wouldn't just do it. And "if he would just not do this....." again, something small and inconsequential. They were completely stupid things that were neither here nor there - like leaving the newspaper on the table - and they were things I had never, ever heard my mother complain about in all the years they were together. She complained about a few things, but none of those tiny, little things that meant my father drove my mother to cheat on him.

My father is still bitter. It's been 22 years and he still isn't over it. He will probably be bitter until the day he dies.

However, the ex-wife of mum's current partner (the man she cheated on my father with) died last week. I'll call her C. Mum and her partner (I'll call him W) were at the funeral. C's good friend made a speech at the funeral and said how C's life philosophy was love, forgiveness, saying sorry, and kindness. I didn't know her well, but the little I knew of her, I would say that was true.

This same woman, in her speech, turned directly to my mum and W and thanked them for taking such good care of C. They would often drop of boxes of fruit and vegetables out of their garden. This woman acknowledged the effort Mum and W took to make sure C was always included in the family gatherings, picking her up if necessary. And, also at the funeral, this woman looked directly at W and said "she never stopped loving you, you know. And she forgave you." While I think this is true, I have no idea how she managed to do it. I don't think I could.

My mother fully believes my father should "just get over it" the way C did. She truly doesn't understand why he won't. "Toxic thinking" is a good way to describe it, but I also don't think it goes far enough. It's literally doing the worst thing you can do to someone short of killing them, and then blaming them for it. It's sickening.

On 2/3/2022 at 5:40 AM, HoneyBunny said:

Aaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!

 

Here in New Zealand it's called Parental Leave and dad's can get it too

I remember one of our male MPs adopted a baby (born via surrogacy) with his husband and they both went on parental leave. I also remember the MP bringing his baby into parliament a few times, too. I think it's great that dads are able to get paid time off to bond with their new baby and help their partner while she recovers from birth. I have no objection to my taxes going towards this, at all.

[HoneyBunny]

LazyLori posted a similar theme re: maternity leave on Instagram yesterday. It was full of comments from people, especially from other countries, who said it was a crime that the US had no required maternity leave. I went back hours later and they were all gone. All that was left was the “give up the luxury living so you can stay home” snark. Someone deleted dozens of well thought out and valid comments. 
 

She really is the most spiteful woman.  Every night I pray that God can separate true Christians from Republican Christians. 

Edited February 4, 2022 by HoneyBunny

[Pammy]

Today Lori re-emphasizes her belief that a woman's intrinsic value depends entirely on her sex appeal.

Although she "never writes nor shares anything for shock value" Lori needs to draw her reader's attention back to that one time she went viral for claiming men prefer debt-free virgins. She obviously didn't adore all of that backlash and controversy at all.

Today she is sharing the very most mysogynistic responses that men provided to her based on that post.

First of all she needs to share some fat shaming. Only the 10% of women who have the least body mass (less than 90% of other women "in your age bracket") are worthy of the time and attention from this contributor. 120 pounds sounds good to him. He also likes long hair.

Lori led with this one because she herself is fairly slender, and she has an excuse for her hair length (Ken likes it her way) qualifying her as a top-10-percent gal in her own eyes. Regardless of any resemblance to a scarecrow that might be apparent in her online appearances.

She's got some justifications, of course. The fat shaming is about health, of course. And the hair is about the Bible. Because Paul the Apostle obviously paused his deep theological letter writing to remind women that their hair should be long because men are superficial and sex appeal matters to him. He couldn't possibly have been making a complex sociological and theological explanation of a cultural practice from the ancient world.

Her next contributor made sure we got the point that, "Men were NEVER condemned for wanting physically desirable women in the Bible" Except for that one time that they were told to gouge their eyes out. But forget Jesus. Let's think about the not-at-all problematic story of Jacob, Rachel, and Leah. The contributor thinks Rachel was prettier. Why? Who knows. I guess these people can add anything they want to the Bible stories they vaguely remember from Sunday school but never look up or study.

We hop back to Paul's theory of mutual bodily authority -- which grants men and women sexual equality in Christian marriage. Just to pop in another Bible verse I guess? Neither the paragraph before nor the paragraph following has anything to do with that verse whatsoever.

Instead Lori's next contributor would like to talk about women's market value. Because women are objects. Men purchase them, and marriage is a transaction. Therefore attracting male gaze is the primary goal of all good women -- a woman's time and effort is best allocated towards that goal.

The next quote (or possibly a continuation of the above quote: Lori's not so good with punctuation here) admits that it's not the slightest bit 'Biblical' to live like this, but prefers to maximize the fact that it is (supposedly) "useful" and therefore "true" too.

For prooftexts Lori twists Paul four separate times! One is the hair passage. For the second one, Paul uses self-discipline to live a rigorously ethical life that avoids sin in spite of the temptation to choose evil and selfishness -- but Lori thinks the best use of self-discipline is to keep a trim waistline. (Boy, it sure shows that Lori lives by that principle!)

The third and fourth quotes have Paul advising people to live simply and generously, setting aside the ostentations of class and wealth. Lori thinks he means for her to eat a low calorie diet (because, again, Paul loves a nice waistline!) but not wear sexy clothing (as if Lori didn't just dedicate a whole post to the importance of women's sex appeal).

[SongRed7]

She doubling down the the “fat shaming” is practically required in the BIble them in a new “YouTubes”  she also says she doesn’t have to be “nice” because there is. I commandment to be “nice”. Lori is the meanest, graceless, nasty woman. The Bible Might not have a verse about being “nice” but it sure is plenty of verses about having love and kindness. Lori has neither

[Hane]

@Pammy, because *nothing* is more important than what gives a Good Christian Man (TM) a stiffy.

[Sarah92]

Any man that uses the term sexual market value has “the market value” of a chewed stick of gum. I have yet to meet one decent man that used that term…. Not that any decent man would. But you get what I mean. Every single one has been an egotistical creep. Anyone who puts a market value on a person is clearly an individual who sees people as little more than cattle. 

The expectation these men have for women are impossible. Be trim but not too much muscle mass. And you can’t wear most work out gear or else you’re a slut. Beautiful hair, makeup, and style but don’t spend too much money on those items. Also take care of the kids and do all the chores but find time and energy to look beautiful by the time hubby comes home. All the while most of the men run around looking like they’re from duck dynasty. (I hate long scraggly beards, I’m sorry to anyone who likes them don’t mean to offend) 

[Alisamer]

Somebody needs to find various recordings of that song that goes "they'll know we are Christians by our love" and play it at top volume outside Lori's house for a few days.

Because Lori is nothing but hatefulness and spite, and looks and sounds nothing at all like a Christian.

[Pammy]

Today Lori blames God for her misunderstandings of the Bible and her pathologically urge to degrade women. God "commands" her to do these things! What choice does she have?

Here are the components of 'godly womanhood' in a list of Lori vs the Bible.

Modesty... Lori: Don't wear sexy clothes. Bible: live simply and generously, giving up the outer adornments of wealth and class.

Gluttony... Lori: Embrace diet culture. Bible: don't enrich and indulge yourself at the expense of other people's suffering.

Obedience to husbands... Lori: obey by doing what you are told. Bible: doesn't call for obedience, only for putting others first and considering their needs 'above' your own.

Being keepers at home... Lori: do housework, or have your spouse pay someone to do it for you. Bible: the word is better translated "home-oriented" being loyal to your extended family's reputation, economic success, and political interests.

Being silent in the churches... Lori: during 1h/week services, sing loudly, but avoid casual talking or public speaking roles; everything else is fine. Bible: at all times, be mindful of the conflict between contributing to what is going on and adding to the chaos: worship should not be chaotic, so know when it's best to avoid speaking out even if you are spiritually moved.

Sexual purity before marriage... Lori: men prefer virgins! Bible: sexuality has an important role in sealing the bonding of a secure marriage, and it should be kept for that purpose, however human purity comes from Jesus' love and forgiveness not human efforts (not even from chastity).

Having meek and quiet spirits... Lori: women should be shy and demure, avoiding raised voices, anger, fun, laughter, etc. Bible: all believers (men and women) should imitate Jesus in his meekness, and in his quiet contented spiritual relationship with his Father.

Being shamefaced and discreet... Lori: shame is good for you and keeping secrets is healthy. Bible: (when it's not the KJV) it says "modesty" (defined above) and "self-control" which is a respectable virtue, a fruit of the Spirit applicable to all believers, especially to those in leadership.

These are the "Truths" Lori thinks are "offensive by nature". This is obviously why Christ was crucified! (For attacking and upsetting women online?)

Lori is Just Like Jesus! It's her words online that sort "sheep" from "goats". That role is not for her Lord and Saviour at the end of time: she can do it now! True believers accept Lori, anyone who argues with her just proves that they are destined for hell. Isn't it obvious?

For prooftext, Lori takes a step back from presuming to Jesus' role as Judge of all humanity, and merely claims the role of Isaiah the great prophet. The words that "goeth forth" out of Lori's mouth are equal to the words God gave Isaiah for the people and to be recorded in the Bible. Modest. Isn't she?

[Pammy]

Lori's message today is that the best kind of medical science is the outdated kind. The older the better.

Today's rant launches with mild anti-vax sentiment situated boldly in a soup of misogyny and anti-intellectualism.

Did you know the main reason not to trust medical advice about children is that women doctors are either childless or "don't even raise" their own children? Because utilizing professional childcare and educational settings means that you aren't actually raising children. And it's impossible to learn and understand anything about children without spending 100% of your time with your offspring of your own -- the only kind of knowledge that matters is your own direct experience.

Therefore consult an "old mother" for all of your needs instead of a medical professional. It's "wisdom" because it's old.

Lori supposes herself a fountain of such wisdom (in spite of using a nanny for years) because she knows "everything concerning being wives, mothers, and homemakers" and is perfectly willing to share.

Popping back to anti-vax sentiment Lori affirms that she neglected routine medical care for her children when they were "well" -- avoiding all of those unnecessary  vaccines. (The vaccines are unnecessary because the relevant diseases aren't current any more. But it isn't vaccines controlling them. They "aren’t even around anymore due to sanitation and clean water".)

Lori also objects to the way science has established corporal punishment as both unnecessary and potentially damaging, and how extended unattended crying also has potential long-term impacts on children. She wouldn't want readers to hear such normal modern parenting advice from a credible source like a doctor. Avoid those appointments folks! Ask an "old mother" instead, and perpetuate well-meaning child development ignorance to another generation.

What will readers do then, while they are neglecting competent medical care for their children? Of course, they should treat anything that arises with various "natural cures" that they have read about on the internet! At least Lori acknowledges a role for emergency medical care, but she's much more in favour of the grandmotherly sources and reference books from quack doctors for everyday ailments.

Of course, the more outdated the better, so cottontop churchgoers are vastly superior to trained professionals -- who are only "practicing" medicine. Their good social skills make them experts in everything because they are pleasant and warm to talk to.

Today's prooftext is a snippet of Jesus' instructions to his disciples. It's good advice: be aware that people may wish to harm you out in the world, so watch out for yourself, but don't become the kind of people who harm others. (A terrible conclusion for such harmful advice from Lori!)

[Sarah92]

BRB let me go grab my lead based makeup. Can’t wear any of this new makeup gotta go with the old recipes Queen Elizabeth style

[KDA]

How old, exactly are the "old mothers" Lori is talking about? 

I have a Modern Mothercraft book printed in 1945. Written by the founders of Plunket - Sir and Lady Truby King. Here in New Zealand, Plunket does the "well child" visits that Lori is so against, and has done so for 60 years. I had them when I was a baby, and my own 4 children all had them. They don't do vaccinations - that's the role of the GP - but they weigh the baby, measure baby, make sure he/she is meeting all their milestones. The Plunket Nurse offers parenting advice if it's needed, they offer tips on sleeping and routine and feeding and pretty much everything. They ensure the mum isn't suffering from post-natal-depression and if she is struggling, they support her in getting help. They facilitate playgroups so both mum and baby can socialise in a safe environment. They screen for domestic violence. 

But back to this old parenting manual. I imagine the "old mothers" are younger than mothers who raised children in this era, so the advice given in this book was probably how they were raised themselves. It does have some absolute gems: mother should rest in bed as much as possible for the first six weeks and have help in the home (which is no doubt frowned upon by Lori's "good Christian" men because they expect their women to do everything). But it also has some ridiculous advice: avoid handling baby or cuddling them too much as this is not good for the baby.  And also: breastfeeding should not be continued beyond nine months old. Weaning should begin by then, and be completed within a month.  Oops! My Plunket nurse recommended breastfeeding for as long as possible, and to cuddle baby lots.. This is the same Plunket founded by the authors of this book - but modern health professionals use the most up-to-date advice. Unlike Lori.

 

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

FB put a message banner about COVID vaccine's rigorous testing on top of the comments to Lori's "we don't need no stinkin' modern medicine/ vaccines are bad" post.

Expect a post about FB tyranny and suppressing her right to free speech in 5..4..3...

[Pammy]

Today, Lori, our Bible teacher puts on a lovely display of her reading comprehension skills deficiencies.

I wonder why "feminists" believe that in the Bible "It was only due to the Fall that man was to rule over his wife"??? -- Maybe because the Bible says, "So the Lord God said... Because you have done this... he [your husband] will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:14-16)

I wonder why "feminists" believe that in the Bible, "Christ came and obliterated sin, these roles no longer apply"??? -- maybe because the Bible says, "Count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness"

Yes, Lori, the desire to "rule over" other people is wickedness. It shouldn't be happening in Christian relationships. This is indeed "where the idea of an egalitarian marriage comes from"!

Lori, of course thinks Men should always indulge in their sinful desire to rule over their wives. Here are a few of her reasons that are complete nonsense. 

1. The Bible wants men to rule women because God created man before he created women? By that logic both men and women should be ruled over by grass and ladybugs... they were created earlier still! If "authority" came from the timelines of Genesis, nothing would make sense. Which is why "authority" is never mentioned between Adam and Eve.

2. The Bible wants men to rule women based on an obscure word in ancient Hebrew that means something like 'matching partner' or 'counter-part' that was once translated 'help meet'? Lori thinks that means helper, which she interprets to be subordination. In the Bible a person's "helper" is often a powerful person, like a king or God's own self coming in rescue. A person needing "help" is not usually considered superior to the person giving "help".

3. The Bible wants men to rule women because Eve sinned. Sure. How do we treat sinners? Give other sinners the power to rule over them? That sounds sensible!

4. The Bible wants men to rule women because Eve "convinced" Adam to sin? No she didn't. They were both there, and they both ate. Adam didn't require any "convincing" in the Bible's story of the event.

5. The Bible wants men to rule women because God held only Adam accountable for these sins? No he didn't. God expressed accountability and consequences for the snake, Eve, and Adam.

6. The Bible wants men to rule women because Paul instructs Timothy to set up theological learning for the women of their fledgling congregation? Lori thinks that because learners are expected to be respectful in that scenario, it means that a role of perpetual rulership is being established for all men for all time.

7. The Bible wants men to rule women because Eve was "deceived"? Lori thinks that means women are inherently stupid and unfit to manage their own lives. Paul, however, mentions Eve's deception as a reasoning why it is essential to educate Christian women so they are no longer in a position of ignorance and susceptibility.

8. The Bible wants men to rule women because Lori misquotes, re-words and re-orders Paul's headship metaphor? Yes, "Christ is the head of 'man'" -- head means 'source' and Jesus is seen as the active Creator of humanity as a race (and of everything else). Yes, "The head of 'the woman' is 'the man'" -- head means 'source' and in the creation poem, the flesh of womankind was formed from the 'source' of Adam's rib. Yes, "The head of Christ is God" -- head means 'source' and God-the-Father is the 'source' of God-the-Son in the theological sense. Lori has no idea what 'head' means, nor what it implies... but by her logic it should imply that Jesus is easily deceived and needs God to rule over him!

But Lori has some comfort for weak and deceived women. We wouldn't want to be in charge anyways! God is too mean and stupid to hold sinners accountable individually. He will blame your husband for your sins, and you should be grateful instead of wishing for that 'role' yourselves! Don't worry. You deserve to be ruled. Just make sure you pick a good man! (But not one that is 'good' enough to see you as an equal. That would be horrific!)

[HoneyBunny]

Instagram is satanic and is making LazyLori’s photos blurry by attacking her camera. She compares her private account to her Transformed Wife account. 
 

In other news, women are gullible. 

[feministxtian]

4 hours ago, Pammy said:

1. The Bible wants men to rule women because God created man before he created women? By that logic both men and women should be ruled over by grass and ladybugs... they were created earlier still! If "authority" came from the timelines of Genesis, nothing would make sense. Which is why "authority" is never mentioned between Adam and Eve.

Oh, she'd hate my pastor...He popped up with "God created Adam first because you make a prototype first", while admitting that his wife (who is 8 months pregnant) is stronger than he could ever dream of being. Did I mention we have 3 ordained female pastors?

[nokidsmom]

On 2/8/2022 at 10:56 PM, Sarah92 said:

Any man that uses the term sexual market value has “the market value” of a chewed stick of gum. I have yet to meet one decent man that used that term…. Not that any decent man would. But you get what I mean. Every single one has been an egotistical creep. Anyone who puts a market value on a person is clearly an individual who sees people as little more than cattle. 

I always hated that term.   The other one was "used goods".  I never heard either from guys I dated even from the one who turned out to be the most creepiest.

I did, however, hear it from a guy who was a friend.  He actually used it in reference to his own wife when back in their dating days, they had a breakup and she was with another guy in the interim.  I was shocked and rather pissed to hear that from him.   I was also tempted to point out that he still married her but I refrained.

[Pammy]

Today Lori provides a fantastic example of how well off people imagine their lives to be "frugal".

This woman has a home, with property and a garden, plus multiple vehicles. She imagines that she lives "frugally" because all of these expenses are covered by her husband's income while she participates as a stay-at-home parent.

She props up her self-image by taking pride in her hobbies. She loves gardening. (She lives somewhere where this seems to be possible and productive year-round, with many food plants suitable to her local climate.) 

She preserves that produce and uses her preserves. This good luck and hard work probably saves her 20 to 30 percent of local food costs in her area.

She also makes 'medicinal' compounds, which maybe saves her $50 per year. (How much do "salves, healing balms, Vaseline, Neosporin, chest congestion rubs" really cost?) And she makes cleaning products... but I doubt she makes them from the garden! She probably buys various basic cleaning products and then compounds them into the things she wants. Things like borax, castile soap, and vinegar may be cheaper than Tide detergent and Windex, but they don't cost nothing. My guess is that a year's work of this type could save up to maybe $200 or $300.

The real trick to this "plan" is that she started it 30 years ago (when life was cheaper) and that her husband makes a reasonable property-owning wage with respect to living expenses in her area. Her efforts make her feel good, but if the income wasn't sufficient, no amount of home canning and borax detergents are going to help a family make ends meet.

Lori loves to offer middle class solutions to the problems of poverty. I've never met anyone so unconnected to the actual problems of making ends meet in harsh economic times.

[feministxtian]

30 minutes ago, Pammy said:

Lori loves to offer middle class solutions to the problems of poverty. I've never met anyone so unconnected to the actual problems of making ends meet in harsh economic times.

Yeah, I could probably save a few bucks by doing the "domestic thing". Where would I find the time though? I started "spring cleaning" yesterday morning and managed to grab a nap about 4am. I still need to sweep/mop the wood floors that show in my living room, take a shit ton of trash out, dust, put the living room back together, move my office furniture so I can put the carpet down, write an essay and study for a psych test. Fortunately I already have my lesson plans for the week done. Oh, I have a meeting with my principal tomorrow to discuss expanding our STEM program and try to attract females to the program. I'm the (currently unofficial) STEM department head too. I mean, if I could train the felines to do things like dust and shit, I'd be in better shape. Must be nice to have a partner....this single shit is exhausting! All the shit he used to do, I have to do now. Hell, it'd almost be worthwhile to find a LTR. 

[HoneyBunny]

Yeah, this is circulating on SM today. I think it says it all when it comes to comparing how women might have been able to stay home 30 years ago but couldn’t dream of it today. The only role feminism has played is to make some progress as to the types of jobs and levels of pay available to women, NOT as the motivator for them to leave their homes. But LazyLori will never be convinced. 

[HoneyBunny]

I felt fairly certain that LazyLori wouldn’t like the Super Bowl halftime show, but apparently she didn’t even make it that far. The commercials were too defrauding for her. So, did she turn off the TV if Ken still wanted to watch, or just go in another room?

[Jackie3]

On 2/13/2022 at 4:45 PM, HoneyBunny said:

I think it says it all when it comes to comparing how women might have been able to stay home 30 years ago but couldn’t dream of it today.

I know lots of SAH parents. Hell, most of the people at school pickup are SAHM or SAHDs. And I don't even live in a particularly fancy town. 

Lots of people manage to stay at home. It's a combination of luck, income, savings, family help, choice and other things. I know several SAHMs who made a bundle at their jobs, invested it well, and were able to stay at home when they had kids in their late 30's. They aren't dependent on their husbands' income (though lots of people might think so, looking from the outside).

The quote about the home costs is interesting, but really, you don't have to have a house to raise a child. I spent much of my childhood in a tiny apartment and I was so happy there. 

The stay-at-home parents I know are good people (not spoiled housewives) who have made a choice they feel is the best for their family.  Some of them live pretty cheaply because there's only one income, others have more money. 

Either way, it's pretty common in my area. 

[Hane]

On 2/13/2022 at 7:45 PM, HoneyBunny said:

This would have been me in the mid-‘80s. I was in a perfect position to buy a house on my own. I wish I had—but things got serious with my boyfriend and we got engaged and built a house after we got married. (On land I owned, with me paying the points and closing costs, because he was in debt. God, I was an idiot.)

[Pammy]

Today Lori reports a social media exchange between two women. 
The first woman advises that women who are 'against feminism' should either acknowledge the privileges that the women's rights movement has won for them -- or give them up.

The second woman claims that she is perfectly happy and free to turn her back on such gains, because she has a good husband and a comfortable lifestyle. I have never read anything so selfish as a woman bragging about her privileges while actively hoping that other women lose their civil rights.

Because "my" spouse provides for me financially, other women should live without the right to work.

Because "my" spouse invites me to freely drive the vehicles he buys, other women should do without the ability to purchase one of their own.

Because "my" spouse put my name on a secondary credit card for his account, other women don't need to be able to apply for one in their own name.

Because "my" spouse pays the bills and keeps me in blissful ignorance, other women shouldn't be able to receive or pay bills.

Because "my" spouse kindly advises me how to use my vote, it would be fine for me and other women to lose our voting rights.

She "doesn't understand this woman's post" because her comfortable setting means that she has never needed to fall back on her basic rights and the protections under the law. She says "I am free because I am loved by a man who has committed himself to me in marriage" -- but she is not only free because of that. She is free because if that man ever turns his back or becomes a jerk to her face, she has the protections of law and the status of an equal. And she knows it. Being protected by a man is a fickle thing. Being protected by the law is what her allies, those "deluded" feminists, have fought for on her behalf.

But this proud and happy woman feels perfectly comfortable saying, 'I've got my good man and my easy life. Screw the rest of you. Nobody cares if you need basic freedoms, civil rights, and dignity on your own legal standing. Just get a man and hope for the best.'

[Hane]

@Pammy, and what infuriates me most about Lori is that she thinks any young woman who is thin, well-groomed, and pleasant of personality will be able to just snap up a desirable husband with minimal effort. Back in college, I remember some pretty, sweet-natured friends of mine who wept about “What’s wrong with us?” because the Average Joes in their circle wouldn’t give them the time of day.