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/

Response to "Why are so Many Women Not Getting Married?"

     In this blog, Lori laments the fact that fewer women are getting married than in the past. She begins with this paragraph full of claims without any backing evidence:

"Marriage is becoming less and less popular. Many women are grieving the fact that they never married in their 20s, because they put it off for higher education and careers. They thought they would get married in their 30s and begin having children, but it's not happening. In pondering this, I am coming to som conclusions of my own why this is happening."  

"Many" women are "grieving" the act that they didn't marry earlier? According to who? Is Lori suggesting that it's always best to marry as early as possible? (this is a rhetorical question...I know this is exactly what she's suggesting). In my own experience, marriage is wonderful, but it's not something into which someone should rush. There are many freedoms one has prior to marriage that should be taken advantage of. No one should marry until they're ready. 

     She also seems to imply that for women who wanted to get married in their 30s, "it's not happening." Again, where does she get this idea? I know numerous people who have gotten married in their 30s or older. She is trying to scare young women into marrying the first creature with an X chromosome and a Y chromosome who proposes to her, to make sure they don't end up alone. Lori's unspoken (but quite obvious) point is that women in their 30s apparently are "getting old" and no longer attractive. 

     And, amusingly, she notes that she has come to her own conclusions on why this is happening,  based on nothing but her own pondering. No surprise there. 

     Next, she tells us about her own college experience: 

My college friends and I weren't career-oriented. We all wanted to just get married and have children. We weren't hard-core feminists AT ALL! We enjoyed talking with guys and were all still very feminine. We had no desire to be competitive with the guys or be like them! We liked being feminine and enjoyed being in the company of guys. 

We spent a lot of our free time with guys, just hanging out with them and getting to know them. None of us were book worms and cared all that much about our grades. We cared a whole lot more about getting our Mrs. degree rather than a real degree."

There are a few things to note here. First, she admits that she did not have any learning in mind when she went to college, but was merely looking for a husband. She even points out that she and her friends were not bookworms and didn't care about their grades. The shocking point is that she portrays this as a positive thing! I've heard people talk about how they goofed off in college and didn't care about their grades, but it's always to point out that since then they have matured and realized how such behavior is wasteful of a good opportunity. But Lori implies she did nothing but sit around and flirt with the guys, and that this was a good thing! 

     Furthermore, notice how she uses the word "femininity" without clearly defining what she means. She will do this throughout the rest of the blog. Here, it certainly seems that she equates "femininity" with avoiding a good education, not caring about academic performance, not being competitive, and being obsessed with boys. 

     She follows this with a key insight into another reason why she fears women going to college so much: 

No, it's compete with the guys for the grades, the colleges, and then the jobs. This is NOT conducive for men wanting to marry women.

I believe this highly competitive and feministic culture has made men less and less attracted to women. They see that women no longer need them and I am not sure they enjoy having the competition that they have with women these days. I still think that men want feminine women! They want women who aren't in competition with them. They need and want to marry help meets, not competitors."

Besides the fact that Lori feels all women should do nothing but be wives, mothers, and servants (and of course college has nothing to do with any of that), it seems Lori's major concern once again revolves around the men! She is afraid men will not be attracted to women who go to college. We must again wonder what qualifies Lori to speak for all men. But, setting this point aside, apparently to men the ideal woman is one who is markedly his inferior intellectually, educationally, and competitively. Again, she slips in the word "feminine," apparently using it to mean uneducated, simple-minded, and unambitious. I'd like to know where she gets these hinted definitions from. 

     As a man, let me speak for men for a moment: any man who is intimidated by a bold, motivated, educated, intellectual woman is not a real man. He is nothing more than a wimp with such a fragile ego that he must insist that the women in his life intentionally dumb themselves down so he can maintain an illusion of superiority. It seems Lori doesn't only have a low view of women; what a sad, cynical impression of men! 

     Ladies, never settle for anything less than a man who admires and appreciates you for your intelligence and ambition, and who, instead of trying to hold you back to protect his own pride, are excited for you to reach your full potential and use all of your gifts!


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/why-are-so-many-women-not-getting-married/

Response to "Stop Causing Division Over the Non Essentials of Child Raising"

     This may be the strangest post from Lori I've ever read. 

     Lori begins by reminding us that different parents will do things differently. Some will give birth in a hospital, some will give birth at home. Some will let them date young, others will forbid dating until they're 18. Some will put them in the nursery during church, others will keep them in the service. Some will forbid them from dating until their 18, others will allow them to date earlier. And so on.

     Lori then shocks those of us who have been following her for any length of time by saying, essentially, "so what?" 

"Why am I telling you all of these things? I want you all to know that none of these things have anything to do with the salvation of their souls. We must not allow our differences in the way we raise our children to divide us as believers in Jesus Christ! There is too much pressure on mothers today. We are to raise godly offspring in the nurture and the admonition of the Lord. This is what God cares about. He doesn't give us the exact methods how to do this and this is where we have liberty. It should never cause division!"

Did someone hack Lori's blog? She seems to be saying that different people will make different choices, and we shouldn't criticize them for it! As she goes on, I began to suspect I was dreaming, as she said more and more things that actually didn't sound crazy to me. It seems more and more that parents are quick to judge and criticize other parents. I had to agree with a lot of what she said. Even though I recognized this doesn't in any way nullify the harm of her other posts, at least, for once, I thought I had found a post that wasn't filled with terrible ideas and judgment.

And then, abruptly, came a reminder that this was, in fact, still the real world. I wasn't dreaming after all. She had spoiled the blog by slipping in a subtle point about the authority of husbands:

"They have every right to raise their children the way they feel is best for them. If a husband wants his children vaccinated, vaccinate them and pray that the vaccinations won't harm them. God cares a whole lot more about wives submitting to their husbands rather than if the children are vaccinated."

Now, this is not about the vaccine debate. Lori shares a lot of misleading and false information regarding vaccines, but I won't get into that here. For now, my concern is that she herself (as she states in the blog) is opposed to vaccines and feels that they are harmful. Regardless of whether it's true, this is her strong conviction. And yet, she advises that if the father decides he wants his children vaccinated, rather than protesting, the mother ought to simply give in and pray that the children won't be harmed. 

     This may be harsh, but seriously, what kind of parent would silently step aside and allow something to be done to their children that they honestly thought was harmful, all for the sake of "submission?!" According to Lori, the point of submission is to have a happier marriage and avoid conflict with your husbands. So, essentially, she is suggesting risking the health and safety of your children for the sake of maintaining peace with your husband, putting your relationship with your husband above the safety of your kids. 

     Not only is this nonsensical and has no biblical support whatsoever, it is dangerous advice. Again, I don't believe there is any danger in this specific situation because I believe she's wrong about vaccines, but that is not the issue. The problem is the idea that wives should go along with whatever their husbands want even if they strongly believe the husband may be putting the children in danger. Where is the limit? What if he wants his kids to not wear seatbelts in the car? What if he wants them to eat nothing but fast food every day? What if decides it's okay for them to play video games for 12 hours a day? According to Lori, instead of simply pointing out the problem, she should instead keep it to herself and merely pray that God will supernaturally nullify the potential harm.

     Of course, the obvious fact is that parents ought to make healthcare (and all other) decisions for their children together, and neither has the right to make such decisions on their own. When one parent may miss something or be uninformed, the other can provide important input. This is a safeguard against at least some bad decisions. They work best as a team, not with one as an arbitrary leader and the other as the silent follower who merely nods like a robot and won't even warn of danger.


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/stop-causing-division-over-the-non-essentials-of-child-raising/
      

Response to "Was this Truly Marital Rape?"

       Quite honestly, this may be the most horrific blog I've ever read from The Transformed Wife. That doesn't mean there aren't any that are more horrific, since I haven't read more than a small fraction of the vast total she's written. Nevertheless, I have a feeling this one would at least make it into the top 5. I've had a busy few days and haven't had time to write any blogs, but when I saw this one I knew I had to respond to it. 

     "Last April, I made a video called Should Wives Have Sex With Their Husbands When They Don’t Feel Like It? It was viewed by many, and many were very angry with me and accused me of promoting marital rape because a woman wrote to me and told me her husband asked to have sex with her one night. She told him no but found him having sex with her in the middle of the night. She asked if this was considered marital rape."

We all remember this. Why is Lori bringing it up again, except to cause more controversy or get more views? 

       Before I even get to what Lori thinks, I'll state the obvious. Yes, this is marital rape. A marriage must be built on mutual respect, and this respect is especially important when it comes to each other's bodies. If one spouse wants sex and the other does not, no one has the right to forcibly take it from the other. How does this even need to be said? Even if one were to believe it is sinful for a wife to refuse her husband without a good reason (which, of course, it is not), this still does not give him the right to do such a thing. And any husband who respects his wife would not do such a thing. But, of course, I'm not even sure Lori thinks husbands ought to respect their wives in the first place. 

       Lori begins her answer with the following: 

"I told her that no, this wasn’t considered marital rape. Marital rape is when a husband forces himself upon his wife on a frequent basis while drunk or high on drugs or is simply an abusive, mean man. If there is true marital rape, there is physical abuse that comes with it. Every woman who has told me that they were raped by their husbands, also told me that they were physically abused by their husbands. In this case, the authorities need to be called and the wife needs to be protected from her physically abusive husband."

Lori is not the one who gets to define marital rape. But her definition is interesting. She thinks it must happen "on a frequent basis" in order to qualify as rape. So if it's only once in a while, it's okay? Notice that she would also be the one to decide what "frequent" means, and likely would never consider anything to be so. No, rape is rape. It has nothing to do with how frequent it is. If it happens once, it's just as wrong as if it happens many times. 

       Note also it must be done by a drunk, high, or abusive man. In her mind, if it's done by a nice man, it's not rape and is totally okay. No, Lori: actions are actions no matter who does them. If anyone forces themselves on someone else sexually without consent, that's rape. I don't care who does it. And I would also say that anyone who does so is definitely not a nice man in the first place!

       She proceeds to make a bunch of excuses, exceptions, and technicalities: 

"He woke up in the middle of the night (maybe he wasn’t even fully awake, for all we know) and began having sex with his wife. What does this mean? Was he having full on intercourse with her or was he having foreplay with her? We don’t know. She didn’t tell me. If he was having full on intercourse with her, she must be a very deep sleeper but even if he was, I would never consider this marital rape."

"Maybe he wasn't even fully awake." She'll even go so far as to make up hypotheticals in order to remove any guilt from the man. And Lori knows good and well what "having sex" means. But suddenly she pretends ignorance and says "it could mean anything," again to protect the man. Having sex means having sex, even when you don't like the implications. "She didn't tell me if he was having full on intercourse with her"??? What did she want the lady to do, send her photos? And "she must be a very deep sleeper? Obviously not, because she woke up! How else would she know it had happened????

       She then proceeds to try to bully this woman into keeping quiet by filling her with fear: 

"Let’s say I told her that yes, this was marital rape. Then she would report it to the police in the morning. Her husband may be put in jail, then lose his job. He would have no means to support his family. He may even divorce her for considering him having sex with her one night as marital rape." 

We have to notice what a low view of men Lori has, and yet she seems to see nothing wrong with them supposedly being that way. What kind of man divorces a woman because she asked for him not have sex with her in her sleep? Does she really think this is a normal kind of man? If the men who comment most frequently on her page are any indication, likely she really does think this is the way men are. 

"So he divorces her and remarries. Her marriage is destroyed. She’s left alone to have to support herself and her children, if she has any, just because I told her that her husband was committing marital rape because he was having sex with her one time during the middle of the night. I won’t do this. I am in the business of restoring marriages and trying to make them better." 

No, Lori, you're in the business of protecting sexual predators. 

"I am sure there are many wives who would admit that their husbands have woken them up in the middle of the night trying to have sex with them. It’s not that big of a deal!"

Of course Lori doesn't think it's that big of a deal. She sees women as non-human possessions who literally exist only so men can do with them what they wish. But it certainly (and rightly) is a big deal to all women out there who know their worth and are mentally stable. 

       Not only is Lori victim-shaming and victim-blaming, but she is also actually trying to scare women in order to keep them quiet in order to protect the men who are committing these disgusting acts! She is nothing less than an accomplice to all such men. It's sick. 

      "Most husbands married because they want to have sex on a regular basis." 

Again, it's so sad that this is how she actually thinks of men! And it's inexcusable that she thinks it's okay. Do I even need to say it? NO, men who are worth marrying DO NOT get married just to have sex on a regular basis! Maybe the men Lori prefers do, but certainly Godly men do not. Men who actually love their wives and view them as human beings with feelings and a personality and intelligence and talents and something to offer besides being a sack of meat certainly do not. 

       There is also a (not so) hidden underlying assumption in all this: that sex is primarily for the benefit of the husband. Would Lori similarly defend the wife's right to demand it from her husband whenever she wants? Almost certainly she would not? Once again, a loving husband recognizes that his wife's happiness and fulfillment is just as important as his own. How can she enjoy herself if she's asleep? 

       She closes with this thought: 

"Be wise in the counsel you give to other women. Always fight for marriages rather than tear them down."

Somehow she believes telling women to cower in a corner and let men do whatever they want is fighting for marriages, while encouraging couples to have mutual respect and healthy boundaries and good communication is tearing them down. If Lori has never known anything different than abusive men who view women as slightly more inconvenient sex dolls, then she has my pity. But she has no excuse for spreading this poison to other women. This has to stop. 

Response to "Household Inequality is Domestic Abuse?"

       Lori begins her latest blog with the following excerpt from an article she read: 

“We need to stop framing equality as a nice bonus to a happy marriage. It is the bare minimum. Inequality is not inevitable. It’s not just the way men are, or a minor inconvenience. It’s time women listen to their own needs and value their own work. Household chore inequality exacts a real toll on our health and well-being. It is abuse. Like other forms of abuse, it exploits one person for the other’s gain. And like other forms of abuse, there is no excuse,” declares Zawn Villines in her article entitled, “Household Labor Inequality is Domestic Abuse.”

What is her solution? “A man who can happily watch his wife work herself into illness and depression does not care about his wife—or his children. Kick his a** to the curb. Every woman deserves better. Every child deserves to grow up in a house that acknowledges the full humanity and needs of both parents. This abuse can stop with our generation of mothers, but only if we demand better.”

I agree with pretty much everything written above. Surely Lori couldn’t be against such a message? Yes, she absolutely can:

“This is what feminism has led to, women. It’s led to the deterioration of marriage. “Abuse” being the term used for many things that aren’t actual abuse.” 

The word “abuse” tends to bring to mind violence, but this isn’t necessarily the definition. It can more broadly mean simply mistreating someone. And yes, I would agree that insisting that someone else carry a greater burden in a relationship is mistreating them. 

“Women becoming angrier and initiating almost up to 80 percent of divorces and devastating their children’s lives.” 

Lori loves to spout this statistic even when it has nothing to do with what she’s talking about. She gets a sick joy from putting down women. Even if it’s true (and I’m highly skeptical any time Lori says the words “statistics”, “study”, or “facts”), she fails to ask why this is the case. Perhaps men are more likely to be abusive or unfaithful! What a thought!

“God created women to have this job and this is why there is such a struggle with housework. Even full-time working mothers have most of the housework fall upon their shoulders, because they were created to do this no matter how much they hate it.”

The Bible never even hints that there is a decree from God that women do the housework. Lori is quick to point out when something isn’t explicitly commanded in the Bible, until she’s discussing her own made up ideas. And it certainly never says women were created entirely to cook and clean. Quite the opposite in fact. How could anyone ever respect women if they were made for nothing but this? It is little wonder that those who believe as Lori do have such a low view of women, no matter how much they pretend not to. 

       Also, how can she be so blind to the obvious fact that it is because of people like her that full-time working mothers have most of the housework fall on their shoulders? She fantasizes that somehow it’s due to biology or God’s command or something, but has she considered that if you arbitrarily tell men they are exempt from helping around the house, they probably won’t help around the house anymore? And that if you brainwash women into thinking it’s their burden alone, they probably will push themselves to do it and not ask for help? She might as well abuse a litter of puppies and then declare their behavior is evidence that dogs are naturally timid. 

"Yes, some husbands help and share equally in the household chores but many do not. This is what my first viral post was about. Housework has destroyed way too many marriages and it’s due to women leaving their God-ordained roles. God created women to be their husbands’ help meets not the other way around but feminism has forced husbands to be their wives’ help meets even if the husbands don’t want to be. Women demand it."

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if a marriage can be destroyed by arguments over housework, it was a weak and sickly marriage in the first place. Rather than going to the source and trying to strengthen the marriage, Lori consistently suggests we just artificially avoid and ignore the conflict. And if a husband would leave a wife because she isn’t doing all the housework, he never wanted a wife at all. He should have just hired a housekeeper. 

       Also, once again, Lori doesn’t understand what “help meet” actually means. She seems to imagine it means a wife is to be her husband’s assistant or secretary. But the Hebrew word for “help meet,” ezer, is used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God Himself as He helps humanity. Clearly, a subordinate position is nowhere implied in the text and comes only from Lori’s own mind. The man and woman in Genesis are to be partners, not employer and employee. If Lori wants to be a secretary that badly, she should go get a job. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/household-inequality-is-domestic-abuse/

Response to "Questions Asked of Me."

       In this blog, Lori answers a series of questions sent to her in an email. These are rather general questions, and I suspect Lori's answers would be known to anyone who has followed her for any length of time, so it’s difficult to tell if they are serious or if someone is just trying to trip her up. You’ll have to be the judge. 

What do you think of infertile women who choose to have a career because they can’t have children?

It’s not what I think; it’s what God commands. Just because a woman is infertile doesn’t mean she has to have a career. There were many women in the Old Testament who were infertile for a long time (Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Hannah), yet not one of them left their homes all day and worked for a boss. 

Lori constantly plays this card to dodge criticism and avoid having to justify her position. She wants us to believe she’s not presenting any of her own ideas, but is simply speaking for God. And yet seldom (if any) of her ideas actually appear in the Bible! We can be very thankful that Lori does not, in fact, speak for God, and I believe that one day she will have to answer for using His name to push her own agenda. What exactly does “taking the Lord’s Name in vain” mean, if not this? 

       And to support her position, she presents four women who lived centuries ago in a completely different culture. Of course these women didn’t leave the home and work for a boss! Does she think there was a Starbucks down the street that was hiring? This says nothing about whether it’s okay for women to work outside of the home today. 

What do you think of women who choose not to have children because they have a history of miscarriages in their family and don’t want to go through that pain?

I would encourage them to trust in the Lord. Just because there is a history of miscarriages in their family doesn’t mean that these women will have miscarriages. We must not live our lives by fear but by faith, knowing that whatever we go through, God will work all things together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).

This is Lori’s typical advice when medical issues are involved: to use caution due to medical issues is to “not trust God” and to live by fear. According to this standard, merely exercising common sense is a sin. This is how cult leaders gain a following: they pressure their followers to not trust their own ability to think. This is the result of Lori’s belief that women are nothing more than baby factories (an accusation she was careful not to deny!). I have no doubt those who have taught such ideas have blood on their hands. 

What do you think of women who believe that God called them to have a career and not have children?

God doesn’t call any women to have a career. You can’t find one verse that states this. He calls them to marry, bear children, and guide the home (1 Timothy 5:14) and to love their husbands and children and be keepers at home (Titus 2:4, 5). 

God would also never call women to intentionally not have children. He created women to have children! Look at their bodies. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. He calls children blessings and wants us to be fruitful and multiply. He has never taken this command away. God’s will for married women is to have children.

Lori actually believes she can take two or three verses out of the Bible and declare that she knows God’s entire will for all women for all time. No, Lori: every woman is a unique individual and has a unique calling from God, despite your efforts to erase their personhood and turn them into faceless, indistinguishable servants and human incubators.

       And, for the record, my fists have the ability to punch people every time I see someone, but that doesn't mean I'm required to do so simply because my body has the ability. It is a highly suspicious, opportunistic leap to claim that every woman must have children simply because her body has the ability to do so. 

Do you think that God could have given some women less meek and more boisterous personalities?

God gives us free will. Are we going to live for Him and obey Him, or are we going to go with our natural bent which is usually opposite of God’s will? He wants women to have meek and quiet spirits. Those with boisterous personalities need to learn to tame them. It doesn’t mean that they can’t laugh, have opinions and discussion, and enjoy life. It means they don’t dominate conversations and insist on being right and don’t act and dress in a way to be noticed by others. They do think before they speak, and discipline themselves to be kind and loving in all that they do and say.

Allow me to be blunt: the only reason Lori feels women should have meek and quiet spirits is so that they never take the focus away from egotistical men who feel mistreated if they’re not constantly in the center of attention. 

       An interesting point can be made here. If asked, no doubt Lori would say the command to have meek and quiet spirits is given only to women. And yet, the description she gives, such as not dominating conversations, not insisting on being right, not drawing attention to oneself, thinking before speaking, and being kind and loving, are not gender-specific principles! Common sense (and the New Testament) tell us that these commands apply equally to men as to women! And yet, to be consistent, Lori must believe these are qualities only women should have. She views all men as dominating conversations, drawing attention to themselves, and thinking they are always right; and worse, she believes men are perfectly justified in being this way. It is only women who are held to any sort of standard. 

What do you think of female representation in the media: characters such as Captain Marvel, and Rey from Star Wars?

I haven’t watched any of those shows but I am sure it’s in order to make women look superior to men, therefore, I am not a fan. Feminists don’t like acknowledging the differences between the sexes. Men are generally stronger, faster, taller, and have ten times the testosterone than women have. God made men to be the protectors and providers. He had men over 20 years and older to go to war (Numbers 1:45), not women. Women and children have always been the ones who were protected up until recently. God calls women the weaker vessel for a very good reason.

Notice how she literally admits that she’s not familiar with these movies, and yet she goes right ahead and judges them. Also, isn’t it interesting how there’s no problem with making men look superior to women, but if they want to throw in a few female characters just to balance things out a little, suddenly this can’t be done because it’s “making women look superior to men”? 

       Also, isn’t it creepy how much she worships men? She never seems happier than when she’s listing all the attributes men have that women supposedly don’t (all external attributes, by the way). This is not normal. Doesn’t it seem like Stockholm Syndrome? 

What do you think of women who use birth control for health reasons such as endometriosis?

Birth control doesn’t heal endometriosis. As Dr. Jolene Brighten wrote in her book Beyond the Pill, “Did you know that women on the pill are more likely to be prescribed an antidepressant? That they are at significantly increased risk for autoimmune disease, heart attack, thyroid and adrenal disorders, and even breast and cervical cancer?” The birth control pill, along with most birth control contraptions, are dangerous to women’s health. Those with endometriosis and other conditions, I encourage to seek out a Naturopath and get to the root of their problems so they can heal.

Lori. PLEASE stop giving medical advice. Seriously. 

       I didn’t address every question in order to keep this blog from getting too long. Still, there is certainly enough here to be terrified of the thought of any woman taking Lori’s advice. Sadly, we know some do. Let’s hope and pray that somehow they can be set free! 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/questions-asked-of-me/

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