Response to "True Women's Empowerment."

       Today I thought I would try something different from my usual habit of responding to The Transformed Wife blog, and instead reply to one of her Youtube videos. I don’t generally do this because, compared to her blog, her videos get very few views. But this one seemed particularly ridiculous, and there is also at least one advantage of watching her videos over reading the blog (more on that below). 

       Lori has recently been dealing with a sinus infection and shared that since she hasn’t been feeling well she didn’t feel like doing anything except watch TV (we’ve all been there!). Then she makes the following strange comment: 

“I did watch a few movies on Amazon Prime, that were G rated, that were decent.” 

G rated? What did she watch, Elmo’s World? Is she saying she doesn’t at least occasionally embrace her wild side and check out a *gasp* PG rated movie?!?

       All joking aside, I thought it was odd that she felt the need to clarify for everyone that she only watched clean movies. Normally, if we hear someone say they watched some movies on Amazon Prime, we don’t think anything of it. We certainly don’t immediately assume that they were watching something “filthy”, right? So why the need to make this clear? And then it occurred to me: this is literally the way Lori thinks of others. If she heard someone say they watched a movie, she literally WOULD immediately assume that it was something “filthy.” And because she is so accustomed to being so judgmental of others, she must assume everyone else is the same and had to make sure to clear her name. What a sad, paranoid way to live your life! 

       She then shares her reaction to some of the shows she turned on: 

“On Rachel Ray, they were giving advice to a married couple. And Rachel Ray looked at the guy and said ‘why don’t you pick up food on the way home and cook dinner.’ And the whole audience clapped and cheered and thought that was awesome, even though the wife is home full time.”

What a horrible thing! The thought that occasionally it might be nice for the man to cook dinner! 

“...and Maria Shriver was talking all about women’s empowerment. Women’s empowerment this, women’s empowerment that. Equal pay. You know, we can do what we’re doing right now on this TV show because of the women before us.”

Her condescending and sarcastic tone as she says this is not appreciated. And how ungrateful of her to be so critical of the women who fought for rights Lori herself enjoys, whether she realizes or is grateful for it or not. 

“What is the women’s empowerment that they’re spouting? It’s not for women to be content at home, loving their husbands, serving their husbands, bearing more children, raising them up in the Lord and to be good citizens. No, that’s not women’s empowerment to them at all. Women’s empowerment to them is to have a career and to make money. That’s it. To be able to do things that men do.”

As if it weren’t clear before, this is definitive proof that Lori doesn’t even understand what “empowerment” means. In her mind, there are only two possibilities: confinement to being at home, or confinement to having a career. She happens to prefer being at home, and so tries to impose this on other women. But she doesn’t think of it as oppression because she isn’t capable of imagining a scenario in which women simply aren’t oppressed in the first place! 

       Needless to say, empowerment is all about freedom and choices. For so long women were excluded from certain roles and activities, and now those opportunities are open to them. They don’t have to take them if they don’t want to (such as in Lori’s case). 

       And once again she includes her typical claim that women who have careers are doing “what men do.” This is no different from saying that slaves in the 1800s who wanted to own property just wanted to do “what white people do.” No, women who want the freedom to choose a career are not trying to be men; they are trying to be fully human, something Lori and those who share her beliefs try to deny them. 

       Next, she criticizes shows such as The Waltons and Little House on the Prairie for...make sure you’re sitting down for this one...for pushing a feminist agenda! I'm not even sure what else could be said about that. 

“In the churches, you don’t hear them teaching young women the value of being wives and mothers and raising your children, staying home full time, that your worth and value doesn’t come from career or money ...In fact, I’ve been forbidden from teaching some of  that in the churches close to me.”

An interesting point can be made here. Lori is against telling women their value and worth come from a career or money (and I agree!), but she then turns around and implies that womens’ worth and value comes from being wives and mothers, raising children, and staying home full time. This is no better! I suggest the value of every person is derived from who they are, their unique identity, and who their Creator made them to be. In her mind, a woman’s value ultimately derives from how well she is able to serve a man. 

       Next, she tells about a woman she saw one day: 

“...a women that looked completely like a Jezebel. Tons of makeup, fake hair, tons of jewelry, immodest clothing. And I was just like “YUCK!” This is what our young women, daughters, are being raised up with.”

Notice there is nothing in her rude and shallow description that has anything to do with the woman’s character or personality? She has judged her entirely based on her appearance. Could this be more unChristlike? 1 Samuel 16:7: 7 “But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.’”

I would like to close by commenting on the additional insight provided by watching a video of Lori’s rather than reading her blog: we get a chance to see and analyze Lori herself. It’s harder to hide things about yourself in a video than it is in a blog. If you haven’t seen the video already, I’d like to suggest you first listen to a little bit of it without looking at the screen. This will work best if you listen to the final few minutes during which she talks about things that ought to make her happy (such as being surrounded by family). As you do, imagine in your head what her face must look like as she’s talking. Then, go back and actually watch it. My guess is that, like me, you’ll imagine her with varying expressions, smiles sprinkled here and there, and at least a hint of joy in her eyes. But there’s nothing. There’s no hint of anything in her eyes. Besides a forced smile at the beginning and end, she is almost completely blank through the entire video, even when discussing happy things. To be honest, it has a very weird feel, almost as if I’m watching a video of a hostage reading a prepared statement of their guilt. 

But, sadly, it’s no surprise. She tries to convince us that she has a wonderful life and if we just do things God’s- I mean Lori’s- way, we can have the same joy and peace. But I can’t imagine how she expects to convince anyone of that while she looks so defeated, depressed, and hopeless. I actually feel pity for her. Somehow, she has come to the conclusion that the subjugation of women is required by God, and she is so deeply convinced that she refuses to change her mind no matter how damaging it is. The effects are clearly showing. And yet, her only source of consolation is trying to convince other women to do the same. She can’t handle the thought that all this could be for nothing and other women may actually be happier than she is, so in order to maintain the illusion she must try to set other women “free.” If you’re truly miserable, it’s impossible to hide it in a video, no matter how hard you try. But it actually seems like Lori isn’t even trying. 



Link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_9Q-mj2bhc

Response to "Marriage is the Ministry Exalted for Young Women."

       Lori begins this blog with two of the only few Bible verses she ever talks about: 

"The Apostle Paul commanded the “aged women” to teach the “young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Titus 2:3-5). Then in 1 Timothy 5:14, he commands this of the young widows, “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

These two verses are the only ones in the entire Bible that can be used to suggest women should remain in the home. To rebut this idea, I submit the following quote: 

“We must remember that we should not build a theology based upon a few verses.” 

Source: “Let’s Stop Exalting Singleness”, written by Ken and Lori Alexander!

       I wish Lori would stop and consider why exactly the adversary would be given occasion to speak reproachfully if women work outside of the home? If, as she believes, it is God’s eternal command that women keep the home, is she suggesting that “the adversary” is actively upholding God’s command? This makes no sense. Rather, Paul’s concern here is that the Christians follow social customs as much as possible so the people they were trying to reach with the Gospel would not be turned off by behavior they would consider socially subversive. 

"When I use this verse in 1 Timothy to encourage young women to marry, bear children, and guide the home, women have angrily responded to me by saying that this verse is only for young widows. Why would Paul’s instructions to young widows be any different than those for all young women? Is it simply a way for women to get out of doing what God asks them to do? Do they use Scripture to manipulate it to say what they want it to say? Is there anywhere in God’s Word that commands women to leave their homes each day and work for a boss? Paul’s instructions to young widows are no different than his instructions to all young women."

It’s the oldest trick in the books: rather than addressing objections directly, simply accuse anyone who disagrees with you of getting out of doing what God “asks them to do.” It is Lori who twists the Bible to say what she wants it to say (by obsessing over a few verses and ignoring all others). Let’s see for ourselves what these verses say: 

       In 1 Timothy 5, Paul instructs the church to maintain a list of widows over the age of 60 and meeting certain other qualifications. These widows would be eligible for financial support from the church (since, at that time, supporting themselves was not an option as it is now). Paul goes on to discuss widows below the age of 60:

1 Timothy 5:11-14

“As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.”

Notice how Lori leaves out the preceding verses? These are important. Paul’s point was that the church should not be supporting women who are still young enough to get remarried and have a normal life (again, in that culture the women were dependent on either their fathers or their husbands for financial support). He wants to make sure these women are not being idle or mooching off of the church, so he instructs them (in verse 14) to do what was customary in that culture for them to do. But the main idea is who should and should not be included on the list of widows, not the purpose of women for all time. 

“We don’t have a problem with “toxic masculinity” in this culture.” We have a problem with toxic feminism. It’s feminism that is toxic and has destroyed biblical womanhood for most women in the churches who have gone the way of the culture. Women are taught to not want to be married. They’re taught to not want children.”

I’m getting tired of Lori and others pretending they don’t understand what “toxic masculinity” means. “Masculinity is not toxic!” they cry, as if the term refers to all men (or anyone who exhibits masculine tendencies). If the term itself offends her, I don’t want to argue about it. Let’s forget labels and simply say that any mindset is harmful that A) asserts the superiority of men, B) excuses men from bad behavior by simply saying “boys will be boys”, C) assumes women are responsible for men’s behavior and expects them to change because of it, and D) discourages men from showing emotion because it’s “not manly.” If we can agree on this, it doesn’t matter what we call it. But why do I have doubts that Lori would even agree on these basic points? 

       Also, as much as Lori uses the term, there simply is no such thing as “biblical womanhood!” All believers are called to become Christlike, but this does not come in two different varieties depending on gender. 

       And regarding feminism supposedly being toxic. No, feminism does not “teach” women to not want to marry or want children. It tells them they have the freedom to choose whether they want to do these things. But this is what oppressors must do if they are to gain any followers: in order to force people to do what they want, they must convince people that their opposition wants to force them to do the opposite, while all they really say is that people shouldn’t be forced to do anything in the first place. Sadly, many fall for it. 

       Finally, her closing paragraph contains the following: 

“Most godly young women want more than anything to be married and have children..” 

Here is yet another example of the subtle, manipulative language that characterizes the message of those who would subjugate women in the name of God. Lori states (with no evidence as usual) that “most” godly young women want more than anything to be married and have children. The implication is that if you don’t desire this above everything else (including serving God apparently), you must not be godly. Anyone, therefore, who disagrees with Lori must not be godly. Rather than simply trying to be obedient to God and teaching others to do the same (as she claims), Lori is using God to further her own agenda. God has a unique plan and purpose for each one of us, and the Bible is clear (for example in 1 Corinthians 7) that this does not always entail marriage and children. But Lori would have us believe that men’s callings are unique, all women must be exactly the same. Fortunately, God does not agree. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/marriage-is-the-ministry-exalted-for-young-women/

Response to "Rooted and Grounded in Love"

       The first half of this blog doesn't start off too terribly. Lori emphasizes the importance of being raised in a loving home and setting a good example for your children. She elaborates on what it means to love according to 1 Corinthians 13, and urges us to love one another despite our imperfections. 

       But then she takes an interesting turn, and no doubt she fails to notice the irony. 

"Loving your husband means that you don’t think that your ways and opinions are higher than his. As Christ has forgiven you, you freely forgive him. You don’t seek your own way or what’s best for you but you seek what he wants and you try to make his life better. You’re not easily offended by him and your “feelings” aren’t easily hurt."

Though incomplete (and containing questionable portions such as the word "feelings" being used sarcastically), generally speaking this isn't a bad good description of what it means to love sacrificially. But isn't it interesting that she does not believe husbands should love their wives in this way? She teaches that the ways and opinions of husbands are higher than those of their wives. She teaches that husbands should call out their wives' imperfections rather than overlooking them. She teaches that husbands can expect their wives to submit to what they want and that it is her job to adapt her life to his. And she enables easily offended men who are driven primarily by their insecure egos by warning women to cater to their fickle emotions. In other words, the love she describes above is not mutual, but only goes one way. 

       The ultimate irony of this is that in Ephesians 5:22-28, wives are told to submit to their husbands, while it is husbands who are told to love their wives. Of course, any amount of thought on the matter and study of the text makes clear that these are not exclusive instructions; submission (in the sense of putting them first and being willing to sacrifice for them) should be mutual. In the same way, the fact that only men are specifically given the instruction to love their wives certainly doesn't mean that wives shouldn't also love their husbands (although this should necessarily be Lori's conclusion if she is determined to take the command to submit unilaterally, if she is to be consistent). 

       However, instead of reading the Bible for what it says, Lori, for some reason, has decided to exempt husbands from the command plainly given them in the text and has instead demanded that wives alone are to follow these instructions as well! One must ask, are there any obligations at all for husbands in Lori's world? It would seem not..

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/rooted-and-grounded-in-love/

Response to "Women Were Created to Nurture."

       "Women were created to nurture. It’s the way God made us. If women don’t have children, they will nurture something or someone. Have you noticed in all this fight for women’s rights that most women choose to take on the careers that are nurturing such as nursing and teaching? Women are dominant in these fields because it is in their nature to nurture."

Lori doesn't seem to know the difference between nature and nurture (or heredity and environment). Those who believe in traditional gender roles impose on young boys and girls the idea that they must be a certain way, and then when they turn out that way, they assume it's because they were that way naturally all along! Of course, the truth is that each one of us is an individual, and if left alone to develop into who we are naturally, we will not fit into such tidy categories. 

“Men and women are not equal in many respects. If we were, we would have fifty fifty men/women as firefighters, secretaries, construction workers, nurses, engineers, ditch diggers, teachers, police officers, having babies, lawn care specialists mowing your grass, social workers, race car drivers, and lawyers. Men/women are suited for tasks that are not equal but vitally important to how we as humans can survive. But, that does not mean we don’t have equal value. Feminist seeks to throw the natural abilities we have out the window that messes up the balance that God has created.”

This was a comment on one of Lori's posts. Once again, this logic does not follow. For the vast majority of history, women were excluded from such fields, and yet somehow this is assumed to be irrelevant. 

"I love driving by construction sites on the roads or highways. If you look closely, the ones who are managing the large cranes, climbing the electrical poles, and doing the heavy lifting are always men. Sometimes I will see women holding the signs to direct the traffic but the majority of the difficult, back breaking, and dangerous jobs are held by men because they were created to do these things." 

This seems to be a strange thing to get excited over, but okay.

"Most of the careers that women are seeking outside of the home can be used at home. We nurse our children to health the best that we are able. We teach them the ways of the Lord and how best to live. We help our husband with his tasks as a secretary helps her boss."

This may be the most problematic part. Lori seems to be obsessed recently with this idea that men are "the boss" and women are their assistants. It's not enough anymore for her to refer to men as leaders, now they are must be the "boss" as well. But, of course, this idea that wives are like secretaries is the furthest thing from biblical. The idea that husbands are leaders is entirely based on the idea that "headship" in the Bible means leadership. But in Greek, "head" did not mean leader at all; it only has that connotation in English. Are we to suppose that Paul had the English figure of speech in mind when he was writing the new testament? Wives, then, are not subordinate assistants, but equal partners. 

"Teaching young women to be keepers at home isn’t something that I made up. It’s something God commands that I teach (Titus 2:3-5). If you have a problem with it, you have a problem with God’s commands. You can try to water it down all you want by giving examples of other “career” women in the Bible but I would rather trust that God’s commands are perfect and simply obey Him. God’s commands to us are clearly stated."

In Titus 2, Paul urges all Christians to live according to the social customs of their time and place in order to avoid distracting anyone from their central message. One aspect of this is urging the women to be productive in their homes (rather than lazy). But to take this single verse and stretch it to mean that all women, in all cultures, for all time, must work only in the home and never have a career, is quite a stretch. To interpret it in this way is to entirely miss what Paul was trying to say. He was concerned about the Gospel, not about who cooked and cleaned. 

       Instead of supporting her view with arguments, Lori simply declares God to be on her side and tries to scare anyone who may disagree of actually disagreeing with God. But, of course, everyone thinks God is on their side; saying so adds nothing to the conversation except revealing that she has no real arguments to make. She simply falls back on the idea of taking the words in these verses as they are. But is it possible to apply this method of reading the Bible consistently? I will close with two verses that, I hope, would suddenly cause Lori to backpedal on her stance: 

John 12:25: "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal."

Luke 14:26: "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."

Did Jesus really command us to hate our life and our family? Obviously, there are some contextual as well as linguistic ambiguities here. And I'm sure Lori would agree. But that's exactly the point. Either Lori stands by reading every word as it appears and refusing to do any further study, or she doesn't. She can't have it both ways. As much as she would like to convince herself and everyone else that she simply and purely wants to know what God actually says, she has instead been caught up in the twisted thrill of a set of ideas that promise "wonderful" marriages (which, of course, are anything but!) and has tried to adapt the Bible to say whatever she needs it to say in order to support those ideas. How ironic that she accuses her opponents of doing so!

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/women-were-created-to-nurture/

Response to "When Women Didn't Leave Their Kitchens."

       Based on the title alone, we know this is going to be a particularly provocative one!

       This blog is based on a fake Hardees advertisement that says “Women don’t leave the kitchen! We all know a woman’s place is in the home, cooking a man a delicious meal. But if you are still enjoying the bachelor’s life and don’t have a little miss waiting on you, then come down to Hardee’s for something sloppy and hastily prepared.” Lori initially thought the ad was real, but edited her blog when someone clarified for her in the comments. 

       Regarding the ad, Lori says: 

“I am positive an advertisement like this would not go over well these days but it should among Christian women!”

I often say that the more extreme a view is, the more difficult it is to distinguish it from satire. This is a perfect example; Lori takes an ad that most likely was meant to make fun of her views and agrees fully with what it says!

“God tells us a woman’s place is in the home. It’s the best place for us to be! We have been called to be our husband’s help meet and a keeper at home, therefore, we are responsible for fixing them food and taking care of them.”

There are a grand total of two verses in the Bible that could be interpreted to command all women to stay home, and one of them is only referring to young widows, not women in general. Lori herself has said that we should never form our theology on the basis of a handful of verses, but I guess she sees no reason to take her own advice when it’s not convenient. Of course, when reading these verses, we must keep in mind that it was already the norm in Paul’s culture for women to be keepers at home. So why would he be telling them this? The reason is that many women apparently were being unproductive, and he was urging them to use their time wisely. In other words, the choice for women was not between working at home or working outside of the home, but between working at home and not working at all. This is likely why some translations say “busy at home” rather than “keepers at home.” The point was not that women should never have careers, but that they should be productive. We can’t read the Bible as if it were written in 21st century America. To us, confining women to the home sounds odd, but in Paul’s day it was normal. So he certainly wasn’t telling them to go against the culture, but to conform to it! 

“Yes, we are to serve them. Many, even Christian women, hate this concept but they will leave their homes all day and serve a boss and/or their clients willingly and happily. What’s up with this? Why is it so easy for them to serve everyone but their husbands whom they have chosen to love all of their days? One reason – rebellion.”

“Rebellion” - the favorite word used to bully people when you don’t have any good arguments. I could just as easily say Lori is in rebellion to the equality for men and women taught by God and the Bible; because, in fact, she is! She has chosen to uphold the social customs of secular 1st century society rather than the principles of the Bible. 

       But another key point must be made here. Lori doesn’t seem to understand the difference between serving a boss and serving a husband (according to her understanding of how wives should serve husbands). A boss has authority because he/she has earned it, not because of gender; and their authority is limited by the duration and scope of the job. By contrast, Lori believes husbands have comprehensive, unlimited, God-sanctioned authority over their wives. It’s not difficult to understand why women would be okay with the former but not with the latter. One is a perfectly legitimate and dignified subordination, while the other is completely arbitrary infantilizes women!  

“God commands wives to submit to and obey their husbands. He doesn’t command them to submit to and obey their bosses but this is what many choose to do.”

No, God doesn’t command women to obey their husbands. The word “obey” is used when referring to children and their parents, as well as slaves and their masters (see Ephesians 6), but is avoided when referring to wives and their husbands (except by one or two Bible versions that have changed the meaning of the original Greek). This is because submission is not the same as obedience. All believers are told to submit to each other, meaning to honor one another, prefer others over themselves, so serve one another, and to not try to be the greatest (see Philippians 2:3, Matthew 20:25-28, Ephesians 5:21). 

       In fact, Lori seems to get this point at the start of her next paragraph: 

“He tells us that the greatest of all is the servant of all.”

       But then she blows it: 

“I can tell you, women, from experience that the more I have learned to serve my husband and not expect to be served, the better our marriage has become.” 

What she doesn’t understand is that egalitarianism does not do away with submission and service; it simply teaches that husbands and wives should submit to and serve one another, not out of obligation, but out of mutual love and respect. I cannot imagine who anyone believes this model of marriage is inferior to one in which wives should serve and respect their husbands, but husbands have no similar obligation in return. Besides, in Ephesians 5, wives are told to submit to their husbands, while husbands are told to love their wives. If Lori says the command to submit does not apply to husbands, would she also say wives are not required to love their husbands? Of course not! And this reveals her convenient inconsistency. 

       Lori concludes with this verse (a favorite of hers, but entirely misunderstood): 

“For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.”

Ephesians 5:23

Again, Lori is reading the Bible as if it were written in English. We commonly use the word “head” to mean “boss” or “leader”, but it meant nothing like this in Greek. Did Paul write with English figures of speech in mind? Of course not! In Greek, “head” was a metaphor for “source of life.” When Paul tells husbands that they are the “head” of their wives, he did not mean they should rule over them. Rather, this is part of the command to husbands to love their wives. He was acknowledging that in that time and culture men had greater privileges and status than their wives, but telling them that rather than taking advantage of this to rule over them, they should instead lay down their rights and honor their wives as equals. If this is not a command to husbands to submit to their wives, I don’t know what is. What a contrast there is between what Paul actually meant and Lori’s male-worshiping, male-originated interpretation!


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/when-women-didnt-leave-their-kitchens/

Response to Men Are Attracted to Women who are Feminine, Cheerful, and Good Cooks."

       This title sounds weirdly like it's meant to be some sort of sequel to the one about debt-free virgins without tattoos. 

“Brometheus tweeted this recently: ‘Steps for women looking to get engaged: 1) Wear a nice sundress; 2) Smile a lot; 3) Carry a plate of bacon; 4) When people mention the bacon, say, ‘Yes, I made it.’ Men will instantly rate you far above the vast majority of modern women. This ain’t rocket science. It’s that simple.’”

I’m not familiar with “Brometheus”, so I don’t know for sure whether he’s entirely serious or is just making a joke about bacon. Of course, sadly there are many men out there who do think this way, so I have no trouble believing he’s serious. Still, while the inclusion of bacon in the tweet could be taken as a sign that he’s speaking in jest, Lori definitely takes it 100% seriously! 

“Many women don’t dress feminine anymore. Most wear leggings ALL the time which are NOT feminine. Everywhere I go, women are wearing leggings. On a few women, they are very sexy since they outline the body parts clearly. On other women, they are not attractive at all. Few women have perfect bodies. Women, leggings are not feminine nor modest in the least. A pretty sundress or skirt are much more feminine and attractive to men.”

Notice how often people like Lori tell women to dress in a feminine way, but they never define what exactly “feminine” means in this context. Only wear dresses? Skirts? Burkas? She just assumes she will be understood, but in reality everyone will have a different opinion, even among those who are very conservative and old-fashioned. 

       But there is a bigger problem with Lori’s statement above. She is telling women that all men (or at least the ones worth catching) care mainly about external appearance, and that therefore this is what women should primarily focus on in themselves. If you want a man, you’d better make sure you look pretty, or no one will want you. What an anti-biblical teaching!  

“Men worldwide have been asked what they find most attractive in a woman and almost all of them respond, “A woman who is cheerful.” Cheerfulness comes from having a thankful heart. You can’t be cheerful if you aren’t thankful. Instead of looking at what you lack in life, look at all of the good in life!” 

There’s nothing wrong with cheerfulness, of course, but Lori’s version of cheerfulness is entirely superficial. In other words, act cheerful so keep your man from becoming angry with you, whether you’re actually cheerful or not. And never tell him if something is bothering you or show your emotions. Needless to say, this is not the recipe for a successful relationship. 

“Many women don’t cook these days. Either they go out to eat all of the time or they eat food already prepared. If you don’t like to cook or don’t know how, learn to cook! Men like to eat good food. Home-cooked food is healthier since you know exactly what is in it. It’s cheaper, too. My husband loves me to make my freshly ground whole wheat bread for him so I have been doing this for years.” 

I guess a woman’s worth to her husband is based on her ability to cook food for him? 

“Did you notice that feminism has created women who are mostly the exact opposite of these traits?” 

No, Lori, feminism hasn’t “created” anything like this. It has simply provided women the freedom to be whatever they want to be. If women want to be cooks and housekeepers, this is not a problem so long as they weren’t forced to do so by men or cultural expectations. 

“Feminism makes women angry because their minds are not on what is good in life but what is not “fair” and how they need to make it right. It teaches women to hate men, marriage, children, and seek their own dreams. (Read the feminist leaders’ words for yourself.)” 

Imagine having such an inflated and idolatrous view of men that denying them a position of complete supremacy over women is equivalent to “hating” them! 

       The words “Read the feminist leaders’ words for yourself” above are a link in the original blog. The link led to an old blog written by Lori containing a bunch of cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes. Sure, they were fairly radical (and I wouldn’t agree with much of what they said), but unless Lori is comfortable with all of Christianity being represented by the members of Westboro Baptist Church, these quotes prove nothing about mainstream feminism. 

       Also, there absolutely is a place for focusing on fairness and trying to make things right. Shall we see what the Bible says about this? 

Isaiah 1:17: “Learn to do right. See that justice is done — help those who are oppressed, give orphans their rights, and defend widows.”

Psalm 103:6: “The Lord works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed.”

Psalm 82:3: “Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.”

Jeremiah 22:3: “Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.”

Luke 11:42: "But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.”

Lori, you need to read the entire Bible, not just your favorite passages (like Titus 2, Ephesians 5, Genesis 1, 1 Peter 3, and Colossians 3). 

“Always dress and act feminine. Learn to be cheerful and cook good food. Ask the Lord to bring a godly man into your life and then wait upon Him. Find the best Bible believing and teaching church around and get involved. Do what you can and leave the results up to Him. In the meantime, concentrate on being holy in body and spirit as God commands (1 Corinthians 7:34). Oh, and most men do prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos!”

Of course she had to include an advertisement for the blog she is most proud of. 

       What’s interesting to me is that Lori seems to have a low view not just of women, but men! This may seem odd, given the fact that she also seems to worship them, but it makes sense when considering typical behavior of hostages toward their captors, or those in abusive relationships toward their abusers. They hate them, but in a strange way, they also think they need them. 

       She views all men as being simple-minded brutes who just want food and sex. It’s no surprise that she views men this way, as this is overwhelmingly the type of men who can be found commenting on her Facebook page verbally abusing and bullying the women who comment. But instead of protesting this and calling men to a higher standard, she simply tells women to cater to such un-Christlike appetites and becoming nothing more than eye-candy that cooks. Her proposed standards are entirely external. I’ve said it before and will say it again: a man who is worth marrying will value you for who you are on the inside. If there is ever a man interested in you who cares only about how you look and how you can serve him, run! This may be the only type of man with which Lori aquants herself, but you don’t have to settle for such a thing. There really are better men out there. 

       Since Lori always ends with a Bible verse, I thought I would try doing the same. What would Lori think of this verse? 

Isaiah 10:1: “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression…”


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/men-are-attracted-to-women-who-are-feminine-cheerful-and-good-cooks/

Response to “Living with Him and Has Children. Now What?”

       This may be one of the most shocking blogs I’ve ever seen from Lori. Of course, they’re all shocking in their own way. But in this one her advice is quite the opposite of what I would have expected from her! 

“A woman asked me for counsel. Here is her situation: ‘I became saved after already living in sin with the father of my now two children. We are still not married. Since becoming saved, I have seen and learned why God wants us to be married before having children and living together. My partner, however, is not a believer and doesn’t see the need to ‘rush into’ getting married even though I want to honor God and do so. How do I handle this? He is a great father and I don’t see leading him to Christ by breaking apart our family?’”

Apparently the women in the chat room (Lori’s “go-to” experts on everything) were split on the issue. One shared a story about a woman in a similar situation who moved out, hoping this would motivate him to marry her; but instead he simply lived with another woman. Lori states that “We all know that sex outside of marriage is wrong and that we are only to marry believers. But we also know that children desperately need their mother and father.”

       This alone caught my attention, because it’s not often we see a weighing of both sides of an issue in her blogs. She then offers her advice (taking care to emphasize that it’s only an opinion!): 

“The Bible makes it clear that fornication is sin but a man and woman living together and having children become a family. God also hates divorce. It’s devastating to children so I am going to answer with the children in mind.”

“Children need their mother and father under the same roof. I would counsel this woman to live a godly, holy life in front of this man.”

Pardon me while I retrieve my jaw from the floor. Not only is Lori approaching this issue from a practical perspective (rather than insisting on inflexible principles), she is also actually suggesting that she’s okay with a couple living together outside of marriage! This is, needless to say, completely out of character for her (though you can tell how reluctant she is by the roundabout way she says it).

       But she quickly moves into more disturbing territory: 

“She needs to win him without a word by her godly behavior even though he isn’t her husband. Some suggest she do this but not have sex with him. I can see the logic in this, but I don’t see it in practical application. I doubt most unbelieving men would agree to continue to live with a woman who wasn’t giving him regular sex.”

She is suggesting, first of all, that women have the same obligation to men who are not their husbands as they would to a husband! She is also suggesting that a woman is responsible for the salvation of a man to whom she is not even married! Let me be clear: I do not believe wives are required to obey their husbands or that they are required to submit to them with no submission in return. Nor do I believe that wives are necessarily responsible for winning their husbands to salvation. However, it is at least possible to see how those who read the Bible very casually and without deeper study could come to these conclusions. But the idea that similar requirements apply even when a couple is not married has even more troubling implications. 

       I’m not sure why she makes the distinction that “unbelieving” men would not agree to live with a woman who won’t have sex with him, since it seems she seems to think the same is true of Christian men (and that there’s nothing wrong with that). Either way, shockingly, she is suggesting one of her most cherished moral principles (that sex should only take place in marriage) be broken. What could drive her to make such an allowance?

       I can only guess, but the likely reason seems to me that Lori literally worships men as if they were God. It’s as if she’s going beyond the idea that wives owe certain things to their husbands, and expands a woman’s obligations to all men simply because they’re men. She would rather push women to live what she considers to be a terribly sinful lifestyle rather than suggest a man should have to go without sex. It’s as if women owe men sex in general. To Lori, it seems the sexual needs of men reign supreme over everything else. And she still denies that she contributes to rape culture? 

       I’m not entirely sure how I myself would advise the woman who asked the original question. But I can at least say that, if it is her conviction that she should not continue to live with the man, she should not be told that her own convictions should take second place to other considerations simply because she’s a woman. 

     And I also would say that she has every right to put her foot down and say that if he wants to remain with her, he must marry her. If he would leave her if she were to do so, then the relationship is not healthy and wouldn't last very long or be good for the children anyway. Lori is instead suggesting that she avoid pushing for marriage and continue having sex with him in order to manipulate him into staying in the relationship. And that's pretty messed up.  


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/living-with-him-and-has-children-now-what/

Response to "Feminism Forgot the Obviousness of Women's Biology."

       Lori is back! Bad news for the world generally, but good news for those of us who base our content on her blog!

       In this blog, Lori discusses comments posted on a picture containing the words “Feminism Ruins Everything. Change my Mind.” She criticizes one woman who points out that feminism gave women the right to vote, and praises the response from the man who posted the picture which included, among other things, the now familiar claim that “the female vote put people in office that have no business near it.” Since this man sees no problem with removing the right to vote from anyone who disagrees with him, and since obviously his problem is with Democrats, I would seriously like to ask him whether he also wants to take away voting rights from all non-whites. 

       Following this, the remainder of the blog features a response from a woman determined to participate in her own oppression (called “incredible” by Lori). 

“It seems that you are conflating two separate issues. No one is saying that women ‘can’t’ be generals (or any other vocation mentioned). I’m sure that there are women who are quite competent in their field and can best many men. Dr. Jordan Peterson attests that more women succeed and are promoted in the field of law at a faster rate than most men.“

I’m honestly surprised Lori approves of a comment that could be so damaging to the egos of fragile men. 

“Dr. Peterson (who isn’t a Christian) has found over his years of clinical study that women often outpace men in academia and in their field of study, but swaths of them are found wanting around the age of thirty. Why? Because the obviousness of biology catches up with them. They want marriage. They actually find that they DO want children (and often when it’s too late). They want a more relational and nurturing existence. They want family.”

How many times does this type of fallacy need to be pointed out? You can’t just make universal statements about an entire class of people. Every woman is an individual, with different desires, and any one of us can think of multiple women who do not fit this description without even trying. And Lori realizes this, because it is this type of women she has made it her mission to attack. And yet, this woman (and Lori) ignorantly claim they know the desires of every woman who ever lived. Of course, if you point this out, they’re quick to backpedal and say they understand there are exceptions, but they still insist there is a general rule and often even claim that somehow the exceptions prove the rule (I’m still trying to figure out how that works).  

“What feminism has preached is that women should be ashamed of agreeing with their biology and their psychological/physiological make up and pursue mightily things that go against their very nature. So, they live like men and spend the first two decades of adulthood denying the obviousness of their sex. They are more hardened like men. They are constantly out to ‘prove themselves’ like men.”

Here is a classic rhetorical tactic by anti-feminists. Deep down they understand it is they, not their opponents, who stand for oppression. So in order to deceive people into continuing to follow them, they must fallaciously portray feminists as the ones who oppress others. This is done with subtle misrepresentations and the inclusion of negative words such as “shame.” Of course, the feminist position does not shame women for anything, but tells them that they are free to make their own choices. It is Lori and people like her who shame women for living any life other than the one they would like to impose on all women. It seems so obvious to those of us who are able to see through it, but sadly many fall for it. It’s easier to fall for it, of course, if you have been kept in the dark and are not well-educated (perhaps another reason Lori discourages women from going to college and leaving the home too often?). 

“I’m an educated and cultured woman and have spent quite a bit of time in academia and surrounded by those who are entrenched in it. Honestly, I have yet to find one feminists (who has lived her life by the feminist play book) who is truly happy and fulfilled.” 

Obviously this is anecdotal evidence that is not even worthy of a rebuttal. I could just as easily say that I’ve never seen an anti-feminist who is truly happy (they certainly do seem rather bitter toward women who have freedom and are respected as well as men are!). Needless to say, the problem with such a statement is that they simply disbelieve any feminist who tells them they are happy.

     We should also be wary any time someone attempts to force someone else to make a certain choice "for their own good." Anyone can state their opinion, but as soon as they attempt to take away certain rights in order to force the other to be happier, their goal is control, not the good of the other person. 

“The root of feminism is to get women to deny the obviousness of their sex, and it has mostly been a scourge on our society.”

No, the root of feminism is that sex does not always determine everything about what an individual can and should do. That is, after all, the main post of this blog: Lori is suggesting that since women's bodies are capable of bearing children (most of the time), this implies that must be their primary purpose in life. Further, she actually expects us to believe her weak assertion that feminists have "forgotten" this. No, feminists are fully aware of womens' biology (probably more so than Lori!). They simply view women as being more than their reproductive organs; they value them as human beings, not baby factories. 

       Lori ends by saying that “God certainly doesn’t intend for women to compete with men…” This is a recurring theme among those who would deny women basic human rights and confine them all to the same arbitrary mold. They begin by declaring certain things to belong only to men, such as being assertive, having careers, leading, preaching, etc. Then they declare that women should not do these things because to do so would be “imitating men.” But the whole thing is entirely circular, because there was no reason to designate these activities as belonging to men in the first place! To have the right to do these things is simply to be human; but, of course, Lori and those who agree with her don’t seem to recognize women as fully human at all. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/feminism-forgot-the-obviousness-of-womens-biology/