Response to "Provoking Men to Wrath."

       This post is yet another case of Lori defending one of her controversial tweets (indeed, it seems more and more of her posts, rather than containing any new information, are simply overly sensitive self-justification). One must wonder if her goal isn't really just to go viral (a term she derives quite a bit of satisfaction from using based on the frequency with which she uses it). 

The other day, I tweeted this: “A wife has a much greater chance of being abused if she is quarrelsome, contentious, and abusive towards her husband rather than if she is kind, loving, and submissive. God’s ways are for our good, NOT for our harm.” It’s an eternal principle. We will reap what we sow but as so many hate God, they hate His principles. As expected, this tweet received a ton of outrage. (It’s easy to outrage and offend women these days. You would think they would simply ignore me as I ignore them.)

Ignore them?!? Lori, you're not ignoring them; you're literally writing a post in response to them! Did you really think we wouldn't notice? 

       Of course, we must address the content of the tweet, which is extreme even for Lori. This is undisguised victim-blaming. She is defending a man who blames a woman for his hitting her by claiming something she did "made" him do it. This is a classic practice of abusers, and Lori has chosen to take the side of those abusers. If a woman is in a marriage in which she will only be treated well and not abused if she is "nice" to him, she needs to get out, not wonder whether the abuse is ultimately her fault.  

If women think that they can never provoke men to wrath, they’re fooling themselves.

This is one of her characteristic attempts to subtly change the topic because she can't really defend her original statement. She is pretending anyone who was outraged at her tweet must be saying that women can act however they want, or that nothing they could make a man want to abuse them. But of course, these objections are made up. Of course there are inappropriate things women might do that may provoke men. Of course they shouldn't do these things. And obviously there are even cases in which women abuse men (both physically as well as in other ways). That's beside the point. It is the responsibility of every person to restrain themselves no matter how angry someone makes them. And there is never an excuse of someone allows themselves to lose control and physically harm someone else, unless in self-defense (and given how Lori relishes talking about how much stronger men are than women, I doubt there's ever a case in which she would believe a man would need to act in self-defense because of a woman). 

I provoked my husband to wrath on numerous occasions but thankfully, I married a man who can control his anger and would never harm me. Unfortunately, some men weren’t raised to control their anger.

It's as if she's throwing up her hands and saying "men will be men!" It's nice to be married to a man who can control himself, but if you're married to one who can't, just go along with it and try not to make him angry. What a recipe for a healthy marriage!

My tweet wasn’t to give men the green light to physically abuse their wives. I don’t teach men.

Amazing. She claims (unconvincingly) that she's not giving men permission to abuse their wives. But the reason she gives has nothing to do with the fact that abuse is, you know, wrong. Her main reason is simply that she doesn't teach men. Is she implying that if she did teach men, she would give them the green light regarding abuse? 

Yes, we are responsible for our actions just as men are responsible for theirs, but some women today falsely believe that women can do no wrong.

Again, she tries to completely change the objections made to her tweet because she can't deal with the real ones. No one said anything about women not being able to do any wrong! What does that have to do with any of this? 

This is why the Bible speaks about foolish women tearing their homes down.

If you ask me, abuse is a much more concerning way of tearing down a home. 

 It’s a mean, angry, or evil man who physically abuses his wife. These men need help but in the meantime, the wife needs to seek protection. 

This is a point she's made before. She claims it's only abuse if it's from a mean, angry, evil man. Otherwise, it's just a slip-up and women should keep quiet. They wouldn't want their husbands to go to jail, would they? I wonder, though, what kind of man Lori would consider mean, angry, and evil, considering the wicked, domineering men she praises (and who comment on her Facebook page). I suspect her standard is set so low it would be impossible for any man to fall below it.  

But I do want to make this very clear: an abusive man will abuse his wife whether or not she is submissive. 

Wait, now I'm confused...I thought she said in the tweet that women are less likely to be abused if they are kind, loving and submissive. Which is it? Seriously, what is her opinion? She can't even get her own story straight. By the time she reaches the end of her post, she doesn't even remember what she wrote at the beginning. Which makes me all the more suspicious that this is all just another desperate attempt at attention. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/provoking-men-to-wrath/