Response to "Many Women Seem to Enjoy Tearing Down Other Women's Marriages"

First of all, what a spiteful, misleading, irrelevant, childish title! 

I suspect the women to whom Lori refers reacted out of genuine concern to a situation that displays many red flags. When your position could not possibly be defended rationally, I suppose you must resort to attacks on the motives of those who disagree with you. Lori is attempting to manipulate us to be predisposed against these concerned women before we even read the blog; if she can get us to stop thinking, perhaps we won’t be able to disagree with her? Fortunately, we are not so easily tricked!

"Why do many women seem so ready and willing to tell other women that their husbands are doing wrong, thus trying to tear their marriage apart? Why aren't women more willing to encourage women in their marriages and build them up instead?"

Encouraging women in their marriages is great, but I would argue that it’s the last thing Lori does. Telling women they are inherently unimportant except to the degree they serve a man, and pushing them to never protest any sort of mistreatment for the sake of “peace” in their homes is anything but “encouraging.” 

Once again, Lori features a comment from another post. It’s rather long so I’ll just provide an overview. The woman said her husband likes to have a quiet dinner when he gets home from work, during which he can talk about his day in a relaxed atmosphere without being interrupted. So, she says, the unwritten rule in their family is that he is the only one allowed to talk at the dinner table unless he specifically asks her or one of the kids a question or gives them permission to speak. She adds that if at any point she talks too much, he will cut her off by saying, “That’s it. End it.” She recognizes these are not biblically mandated rules, but this is what works for her family and has helped them have quiet, peaceful dinners. 

Lori adds the following comment: 

"MANY women commented under her comment telling her that her husband was wrong, she was being abused, and he was being cruel and unreasonable. They seemed determined to destroy her marriage and speak evil about her husband. I didn't publish any of these comments since our goal, as Christian women, should be to want to build marriages up, NOT tear them down."

Lori isn’t concerned about whether the arrangement is harmful to this family; her only concern is making sure no one talks about it. Discouraging all criticism, regardless of what is being criticized, is itself reminiscent of an abusive relationship!

Allow me to state the obvious for a moment: there is something seriously wrong with this situation! Why does the husband alone have the right to speak without interruption? Why is he the only one whose need to talk about his day is acknowledged? Is it assumed that men always have more stressful lives than women? Or is it simply that only men have the privilege of sharing their feelings and unwinding? 

Interestingly, many of the comments suggested that men who work do indeed have a much more stressful life than women who stay home. Many of them referred to him getting home from “a long day at the office,” a hint as to the economically privileged perspective from which many of these people write their judgments of, for example, dual-income homes. On this point, I work in an office, while my wife stays home with our two children, and I can say with confidence (based on my time home on the weekends) that her job is FAR more stressful than mine! However, that’s not the point. The point is that each of us has an equal right to talk if we need to. 

Isn’t mealtime supposed to be an opportunity for a family to bond and enjoy each other’s company, to share about their day with each other? If only the husband is allowed to speak, how is this possible? 

Further, I have to wonder what kind of man would be okay with (let alone demand) such an arrangement. What kind of man desires most of all to deliver a monologue at the dinner table every evening, rather than hearing what the rest of the family has to say? Is this really the type of man who would lay down his life for his family? 

From another perspective, it is harmful to him as well. How is it healthy to give someone the impression that they are the center of the universe, that anything they do is permitted simply because of who they are (or, more specifically, their gender)? I suggest that this sort of arrangement is harmful to a person’s character development. 

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect is the fact that he tells her to stop talking when he’s decided she’s been talking too much. Seriously? He has the right to talk exclusively, and yet the concern is that sometimes she might be talking too much? What if he talks too much? Apparently there’s no option for her in this case. And as if that weren't enough, many in the comments section seemed preoccupied with the fact that women supposedly are the ones who have a problem talking too much, while defending the right of men talking exclusively. 

In fact, Lori herself writes in the post that "most women's nature is to talk A LOT and he doesn't want this." Again, it's the women who have a problem talking excessively, but if a man talks exclusively it isn't "too much." And it's getting pretty tiring hearing these constant claims regarding "most women." No evidence is ever presented to back up these claims; they are simply made based on a prejudice against women.

  Lori posted this blog before I was blocked from her page, so I was able to add a few comments to it. Mostly I got responses telling me it's not my business how this particular couple wants to go about their marriage and that I should just leave them alone. This is a bit odd coming from people who follow a woman who writes a blog that exists to criticize other people's marriages! Still, in the end, it's not my business if that's how they want to do things. If a couple decides they want to wear tutus every 3rd Friday of the month and communicate with each other only in song, what right do I have to interfere? But this wasn't my point. My problem is with the fact that this was being presented as a worthy example for others to follow, as is evident in Lori's conclusion:

"Instead of trying to tear apart this woman's marriage, women should have been encouraging and praising her for her example of submission to all of us even when it isn't easy."

What about normal conversation? Two people who respect each other should be able to converse naturally,each having the opportunity to speak and respectfully listening to the other, without setting up artificial rules that for some reason are skewed entirely in favor of one gender at the expense of the other. If a couple can't even figure out how to have a normal conversation, there are serious problems.

Lori also concludes by quoting James 1:19: "My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry..." Let me make the radical suggestion that this verse was not written only to women, but ought to apply to men as well! Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/many-women-seem-to-enjoy-tearing-down-other-womens-marriages/

Response to "He Won't Take Out the Trash!"

     I am particularly eager to respond to this post since it was due to my comments on it that I got blocked from Lori’s page!

     Lori wrote this post as a response to a woman who wanted to know how to get her husband to remember to take out the trash without nagging him or becoming mean about it. Her response is made up mostly of comments made by some of her readers. 

     One woman says she just takes out the trash herself:    

"I just take out the trash myself. I expected my husband to when we got married because my father always did. When I asked him why he didn't take out the trash my husband looked at me like, 'Are you handicapped?!' So, I have taken it out for over 20 years and it isn't so bad. In fact, right now we don't have trash service so I have to take it to a dumpster. Sometimes I look forward to taking it out so I can stop at the thrift store, etc." 

    Nearly as disturbing as this husband’s reaction is the fact that his wife apparently sees nothing wrong with it. And, of course, neither does Lori, who includes it as an exemplary model for the woman who asked the original question to follow. I thought husbands were commanded to lay down their lives for their wives in Eph. 5:25; how willing is this husband to do such a thing if he isn’t even willing to take out the trash if she asks? He hasn't taken out the trash a single time in 20 years? That doesn't sound like much of a servant to me. 

 Lori adds a brief reply to the comment: 

"Instead of getting offended and angry with her husband, she obeyed him and found good that came from it! Instead of tearing her marriage down because her husband wouldn't take out the trash, she decided to take out the trash and build up her home." 

     Seriously, if a marriage can be "torn apart" by one spouse asking the other to take out the trash, it is an extremely unhealthy marriage! In fact, this is what I said in my last comment on her page before being blocked. 

     Another woman says she never asks her husband to do anything if she can help it: 

"In my marriage, I no longer ask my husband to do anything, if I can help it. if I want the trash taken out, I either do it myself or I tell one of the kids to do it. This doesn't mean my husband does nothing around the house - he's very domesticated as his mother raised him to be - but it means there is no more bitterness with me feeling annoyed that I have to keep asking him to do stuff, and him getting annoyed at my nagging." 

     This is held up as the ideal for marriages? So women can’t even ask for a favor and should have no expectations of their husbands in order to avoid disappointment? This sounds very depressing and defeated to me. 

     Lori then makes this comment: 

"She has decided that instead of nagging a husband to do something, she will do it herself since she desires a peaceful home over being a contentious wife. She is pleasing the Lord as she serves her husband." 

Once again, a false dichotomy is presented. If it's not one extreme it must be the other. Apparently merely asking your husband to take out the trash is "nagging" and being contentious." May I suggest that mature, loving husbands actually don't mind being asked to do things (or reminded when they forget)? 

     Next, she features a long comment )and goes out of her way to point out that it was written by a man): 

"Different husbands lead (and delegate) in different ways. Some husbands will just tell their wives what they expect of them, what they desire, what they prefer, and what they don't prefer. For example, they want their wife to be responsible for taking out the trash. Other husbands will let their wishes, preferences, and desires be known through indirect comments and/or through their actions. M's husband expressed his wishes with a 'look' and M got the message, submitted to her husband, and has experienced blessings (from God and her husband) for doing so every day since."

It's fascinating how fixated he is on the husband's preference. I would like to propose the radical idea that perhaps the wife's preference is important too! In fact, maybe the best solution is simply for both of them to talk each other and agree on whatever distribution of various household duties works best for them. This certainly seems better than arbitrarily deciding that maleness somehow entails the exclusive privilege of having preferences. 

     And let me speculate for a moment that any "look" that communicates the message that you consider taking out the trash beneath you and are offended by the fact that your wife even asked you is likely to be anything but a kind look. I don't know the details of that marriage, but the idea of husbands communicating such things through only a look and wives reading the message loud and clear and obeying it unconditionally sounds a little too much like an abusive relationship to me. 

     I'll conclude with three obvious points: 

1. IT'S JUST TRASH!!! Do we really need to make such a big deal about it? If someone sees that it needs to be taken out, take it out, rather than philosophizing about the role gender ought to play in such a task. And the same goes if your spouse asks if you would mind taking it out. 

2. Lori's use of the word "peaceful" (in this and other posts) is interesting. She seems to equate "peace" with a lack of conflict, as well as "happiness" with a lack of disappointment. Her solution, then, is to avoid conflict (even at the cost of communicating) and disappointment (at the cost of resigning oneself to having literally no expectations). There are far worse things than conflict, such as, for example, a marriage in which there is no communication. Can such artificial avoidance of conflict really be called peace?  

3. As I mentioned before, the image being put forth is (not surprisingly) not one of a healthy marriage at all. Are there really couples out there who would be driven toward divorce if the wife asked her husband to take out the trash? It would be funny if it weren't so sad that, apparently, such marriages very well may exist.  



Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/he-wont-take-out-the-trash/

Reponse to "Women Are More Unsafe these Days"

     I'm shocked at how often Lori's chosen topic has something to do with keeping women out of higher education!

"Women were much safer when they lived under their father's roof until marriage (IF they had a good father) and then under their husband's roof when they married (IF they have a good husband). Feminism has made women unsafe. They have fought for women to attend universities. Are women safe in the universities? 'Sexual assault on college campuses is a common problem that often goes unreported. It includes any unwanted sexual activity, from unwanted touching to rape. Alcohol and drugs often play a role in sexual assault on campsuses.' They have fought for women to have careers. Is the workforce safe for women? 'Workplace sexual harassment is widespread, with studies estimating that anywhere from almost a quarter to more than eight in ten women experience it in their lifetimes.'"   

What a big, scary world out there! The solution? Instead of trying to make the world a safer place by helping women learn to stay safe and teaching men not to do such things in the first place, let's just ban women from going anywhere! For their own good, of course. 

     Let's be clear about the real motive behind such ideas. This is not about keeping women safe, it's about keeping them powerless and subservient. If women are denied education and the ability to support themselves, they will forever be dependent upon men, and the men gain absolute leverage and control as well as the benefits of having a housekeeper for free. 

     Warning bells ought to go off in our heads anytime someone tries to restrict someone's freedom "for their own good." The view of women being presented here is that of children who are unable to take care of themselves and totally lack good judgment. How "kind" of the men to step in and "rescue" them from their own ineptitude! Women are empowered when they have the opportunity to become educated and support themselves, so it's no wonder these are under attack by men who prefer to have the world all to themselves, as well as by the women who have been brainwashed to support that desire. 

     Yes, there is danger in the world. There is danger on college campuses and in the workplace. But there is also danger at the grocery store. There is danger in driving or going for a walk. There is danger anytime you leave the house. Would Lori suggest women should literally never go any of these place, or leave the home at all? If she doesn't, why the inconsistency? And if she does, well, that speaks for itself. 

     For that matter, there is even risk in childbirth! But I suspect it is as this point that Lori would suddenly drop all concern about danger. Lori is constantly telling women that to live as a Christian is to embrace danger, that they should not be concerned about themselves, that they should not leave abusive relationships, and that they should never protest mistreatment from their husbands. Forgive me if I don't find it quite convincing that suddenly, NOW she is worried about womens' safety!

     Beyond that, Lori is using fear for the purpose of manipulation. When, for example, people point out the importance of women having some way of supporting themselves in case their husbands leave them, pass away, or become disabled, she criticizes them for thinking about "what if's" and letting fear influence their decisions. But now, apparently, women should tremble in terror for their very lives (and follow her instructions in order to remain safe)! 

     Lori fills the remainder of the blog with comments from other women in her chat room. 

"Some young women go out into the workforce at a young age, many get jobs as young as 15 and 16, and are exposed to all kinds of filth. I listened to a sermon about this not long ago. It talked about how a father would be wise to provide all the daughter's needs until he passes her off to her husband at which point the husband takes over." 

Same idea, but even less attempt to hide the true intent. If a woman is completely dependent on her father until he "passes her off" (what is she? A football? A piece of furniture?? Cattle?) to her husband, how easy it is to maintain control over her! This is a sinister, thinly masked plot. 

"Promiscuous sex is a result of no father. I went to parties and was in many situations where I could've easily been raped. I also willingly gave myself to men. If I had a father watching out for me, I would've been home waiting for a husband who is worthy of giving myself." 

Apparently women are incapable of having good judgment and making good decisions on their own without a man to graciously lend his common sense. 

     Lori concludes with the cunning, crafty, deceitful declaration that "feminism is a war on women's safety and security." No, feminism was all about women having the same freedoms as men and being able to make their own choices. If someone women prefer to cower from the world let their husbands do their thinking for them, they are welcome to do so. But they have no right to remove all other womens' freedoms in the name of "protecting" them (as if that was ever really the goal anyway). Sorry, Lori: as much as you attempt to convince us otherwise, women are quite capable of thinking for and taking care of themselves. 

     Lori closes with the following Bible verse: 

"Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them acording to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

1 Peter 3:7

Oops! "...heirs together of the grace of life;" She must not realize she accidentally just posted one of the verses that most directly supports complete equality between men and women!


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/women-are-more-unsafe-these-days/

Response to "Men Prefer Debt Free Virgins without Tattoos"

     This is, without a doubt, the post that must be addressed by any blog responding to The Transformed Wife. There have been countless responses to it already, so I'll try my best not to be redundant. I also want to take into account some of the responses that have already been made, both by Lori and others. 

   Let's begin with the obvious question: on what basis does Lori make this claim? In a follow-up post ("Rack Up Debt, Sleep Around, and Get Tattoos"), Lori says she came to this conclusion with nothing but "common sense", but then claims to have researched the matter and come to the same conclusion. But, of course, she doesn't share any of this research. I'm not going to spend much time disputing this, as certainly many men do have these preferences (although, more importantly, each individual has their own preferences and it's hasty to generalize), but I would like to point out something I find interesting. When defending these standards for women, inevitably she refers to the Bible. And this makes me wonder why she didn't simply title the post something like "God wants you to be a debt-free, a virgin, and avoid tattoos"? 

     But, of course, this runs into the obvious problems pointed out by so many others who have responded. The supposed prohibition against tattoos is found in Leviticus 19:28: "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord." It has been pointed out that this was a prohibition not against tattoos in general, but against tattoos that were for the purpose of worshiping the dead. Still, even if this were not true, does she not realize we are no longer under the Old Testament law? If she uses this verse to prohibit tattoos today, does she also avoid wearing clothing made of multiple types of fabric (Lev. 19:19)? What is the justification for cherry-picking this particular verse?     

     The most any opponent of debt can come up with from the Bible is Prov. 22:7: "The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender." This is nothing more than a description of the relationship between two people (borrower and lender). It is not a universal prohibition against debt. If it were, I suppose being poor would have to be considered sinful too? 

     Finally, the point about being virgins was seldom in dispute by those who did not appreciate this post, and yet those defending it insist on bringing the discussion back to this point. Most criticisms were met with the accusation that that person was suggesting everyone ought to be promiscuous or that there would be no consequences for doing so. But this was nothing more than an intentional distraction from the main objections. 

     It must be said that a godly man will judge a woman based on who she is on the inside, not whether she has tattoos or debt. And virginity is important to many, but we should be judged based on who we are now, not who we were or what we did in the past. At least two of these three criteria are superficial and focus on what is external rather than what is internal. Why is it that Lori considered these the most important ones to feature in her blog? 

     But let's set that discussion aside and focus on some of the more subtle points in the blog that I think may have been the most offensive. For example, there is more of Lori's extraordinary claims about colleges: 

"Secular universities teach against the God of the Bible and his ways. It's far from what God calls women to be and do: it teaches them to be independent, loud, sexually available, and immodest instead of having meek and quiet spirits." 

I don't know what kind of university Lori attended that taught her to be sexually available and immodest, but she should not assume all the other universities are like that. But the word that stands out to me the most is "independent." I may focus on this point in more detail in another blog, but for now, Lori believes it's wrong for women to be independent (able to take care of themselves). She prefers women to be entirely dependent on men, as if somehow this was God's design (got any scriptural reference for that, or is it just another opinion?). It is simply shocking to see the word "independent" in a list of what she considers to be negative traits. 

"The husband will need to take years teaching his wife the correct way to act, think, and live since college taught them every possible way that is wrong." 

The underlying assumption here is what, exactly? Assuming for a moment that colleges really are servants of Satan that exist for no other purpose than to turn away young women from God and homemaking, the husband needs to teach his wife the correct way to act? Is she too stupid to know the right way to act on her own? Or is it simply not her place to make such a judgment for herself based on her own relationship with God? I'm not even sure which is worse, but either way, Lori has set up women as mere children who must be disciplined by their fathers- I mean, uh, husbands. There's something very creepy about that. 

"'They will start having babies later in life. That is if they can still conceive naturally.' Is college worth having fewer children? I will never understand how women prefer careers over having warm, cuddly babies. Never take your fertility for granted, young women! Children are gifts from the Lord that keep on giving." 

I have no doubt Lori doesn't understand why someone would want to do anything with their life other than have babies. But God made women to be more than simply baby factories, and for those who do wish (or feel called) to have a family, fortunately, college degrees have no impact on fertility. And if her concern is that women who go to college will have fewer children, is she suggesting that the goal ought to be to simply push out as many babies as possible? If that's the case, does she think the legal marriage age should be reduced to the earliest a young woman is able to conceive? (I'm not making this assumption, I simply truly wonder). 

"'they lost a handful of years of experience learning to cook large meals and learning how to work in the garden. College kids don't cook. If they do, it's typically for themselves.' Young women learn nothing about biblical womanhood nor what it takes to run a home when they go to college. They don't learn to serve others, either. They learn the ways of the world, selfishness, and feminism instead; all which make a good marriage unattainable." 

This is an unfair generalization. People who attended college don't know how to cook? Again, where does she get this idea? We all know plenty of college graduates who are excellent cooks, and who are not selfish either. And that's okay, no one goes to college to learn how to run a home or work in the garden anyway, so no loss there (I don't know why it takes years to learn these things anyway). 

"It's actually protection for young women to live under their father's roof (if he is a good father) until they get married, if they are able, and there's nothing wrong with doing this. Universities are definitely not safe places for women!"

  Protection from what? Bears??? "Protection" is a euphemism for sheltering and infantilization. If you can convince women that you're doing them a favor by protecting them from the big scary world with all those opposing ideas (that apparently they're too dumb to process and evaluate on their own), it's easier to control them. 

     Lori concludes with the (by now) redundant reminder: "Stay virgins until marriage, out of debt, and don't get tattoos!" Sadly, I suspect Lori believes this is all it takes to find a worthy marriage partner and have a long, happy, productive marriage. Thankfully, God sees women as more than simply a list of these three criteria. And a man worth marrying will as well. He will look for traits such as intelligence, maturity, wisdom, and, yes, even independence. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/men-prefer-debt-free-virgins-without-tattoos/

Response to "Raise Your Daughters in the Ways of the Lord"

     There is so much to say in response to this post that I’ll have to do my best to not let it get too long. If I fail to address anything written that was offensive or inaccurate, please know that does not necessarily mean I consider it to be anything less than nonsense. 

     Lori begins with this: 

"Recently, I wrote this on twitter: 'Raise your daughters from an early age that thier highest and best calling is to be a wife and a mother! They will hear the opposite from culture.'" 

According to who? The Bible certainly never says such a thing. How can she presume to know the highest and best calling of every woman who ever existed? What about women who are not married, or married without children? In fact, what about women who may one day marry and have children but haven’t yet? Is everything they do simply a waste? If confronted on this point, I’m sure Lori would protest that this is not what she means. But we certainly don’t see any attempt to clarify this in the blog itself. 

     As is often the case, a comment from a reader makes up the bulk of the post. Although these are not Lori’s words, she is presenting them and agreeing with them, so I feel it’s fair to respond to them as if she said them.  

"I absolutely love swimming against the apostate tide of this world and going against its ungodly opinions/culture (so do I!). This is one such case and suffice to say, I agree with The Transformed Wife." 

One of the most ironic points about those who insist on adherence to traditional gender roles is this is a cultural, not biblical, idea. The Bible recognizes and works within the framework of such cultural norms as women not being educated or working outside the home, but it does not explicitly command it (if it did, it would be far more obvious than one or two verses about homemaking stripped of their context). So the writer of this comment is upholding not a biblical culture, but the culture of ancient Rome. 

"According to the Bible, the highest calling for a woman is to be a helpmeet unto her husband (Genesis 2:18), a homemaker unto her family (1 Timothy 5:14), and a mother unto her children (Psalm 131:1-3, Deuteronomy 32:11, 12). 

This is not opinion. It is scripture."

Let’s look up these verses and see if they really say what they think they say. 

Gen. 2:18
“The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

The Hebrew word for “helper”, “ezer”, is used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God Himself helping us, so clearly it does not in any way suggest inferiority or subservience. Either way, this verse says nothing about women’s highest calling. This is added in an attempt to pretend that mere opinion is a biblical principle. 

1 Tim. 5:14
“Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach..”

This is an example of a case in which Paul was merely recognizing the social customs of the time, not commanding they be followed for all time. Paul is instructing Timothy to create a list of widows over 60 so they can be supported by the church, but pointing out that younger widows should not be put on the list because they have many productive years still ahead of them. Therefore, he preferred that younger widows continue to do what was expected of young women at the time: marry, have children, keep the home, etc., rather than becoming idle. His focus is not specifically on what they do, but that they should continue to be productive rather than idle. So no, this has nothing to do with such duties being a woman’s highest calling. 

Psalm 131:1-3 and Deut. 32:11-12 have literally nothing to do with our topic, so I’m not even going to bother addressing them. If you’d like to see what they say go ahead and look them up. 

     Then, of course, there is Lori's favorite verse: 

"Titus 2:3-5: "That the aged women...teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chase, KEEPERS AT HOME, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Do you know what it means to give the adversary "NO OCCASION FOR SLANDER"? It means do nothing that the Devil can go to God to accuse you of. In this particular case, the scriptures are referring to a woman's primary purpose." 

When this verse says “that the word of God be not blasphemed”, it is not referring to the devil accusing us before God. Rather, it is referring to an idea that appears numerous times in the New Testament, that of avoiding needlessly breaking the social customs of the culture so that people who may otherwise be open to the Gospel won’t be turned off by the behavior of Christians. In other words, Paul is encouraging the Christians to conform as much as possible to social standards, just the opposite of what Lori suggests. Of course, Christians ought to go against cultural standards when there is a clear contradiction with God’s commands, but obviously this is not one of those cases (or else Paul would not be giving this instruction). 

     And where in the Bible does it say these things are a woman’s primary purpose? I would suggest a woman’s primary purpose is no different from a man: to have a relationship with God, to spread the Gospel, to reflect the image of God, etc. Women have a far greater purpose than merely cooking, cleaning, and popping out babies. 

"The sad thing is, many of those (husbands) appointed spiritual leaders and mentors over them, and who are meant to lead them in the ways of the Lord, are the ones actively promoting and encouraging this ungodliness and rebellion. Like Adam before them, they have partnered and become one flesh with them in disobedience." 

Where does the Bible say this? Once again, the idea that a husband is the leader of his family is a cultural idea that some have read into the Bible for convenience. Nowhere is the husband identified as the leader or mentor of his wife. The typical objection to this point is to quote verses that refer to the husband as the “head” of the wife, but those who do this forget that the Bible was not written in English, and therefore figures of speech that are unique to English cannot be assumed to be relevant. In Greek, the word for “head” did not mean leader, but “source.” The Greeks believed the heart, not the head, was the center of rationality and decision-making. 

"More so, if a man is supposed to be a provider to his family - as the Bible states and many agree, why on earth are women leaving their homes, marriages, and children to work outside? Is it that his provision is not enough?"

Once again, the Bible simply does not say men are supposed to be the sole providers for their families. The closest I can find to this idea is 1 Tim. 5:8, which says “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” The focus of this verse, of course, is on the act of providing, not on the gender doing the providing. This entire idea is based merely on the pronoun used in this verse, which makes sense in a culture in which men were indeed the providers. 

"Of course, it is because many have bought into the lie of dual income households; all because of abject greed, crass materialism, and shameless covetousness.

If people were to let go of their desire to look a certain way, drive certain cars, live in a certain house, send their kids to certain schools, and live in a certain way, they will find one income is MORE than enough for a family to live on."

This is such a privileged and ignorant comment. Usually (if not always), the people who make such assertions live quite comfortably themselves and simply have no idea what it’s like to struggle financially. Lori (and the writer of this comment) have no idea of the income and expenses of each individual family, and yet they are guilting and shaming those they know nothing about because they don’t conform to their personal standards. Lori is quick to condemn women contributing financially to their households because the Bible never explicitly commands them to, but ignores the fact that neither does the Bible explicitly tell them not to!

     Beyond that, the commenter actually has the nerve to suggest all those who struggle and need two incomes do so because they’re obsessed with living in luxury and having things like fancy cars. It's hard even to figure out how to response to such an absurd, ignorant claim. I would simply ask anyone who makes this claim either to back it up with real data, or stop making such claims and admit that they simply have contempt for and prejudice against those who are less economically fortunate than themselves. 

     Lori ends this post with the following: 

"Now, all this is based on the WORD OF GOD, rather than the worldly wisdoms of feminist icons like Michelle Obama. So, if you'd like to opine on this post, please make sure it is also based on the word of God. It is the ONLY thing that reigns superme here!" 

No. Merely saying something is based on the word of God does not make it true. Nothing reigns supreme here besides Lori’s narrow and ignorant opinion. She disrespects God's word by giving her own ideas the label of “the Word of God” in order to bully others into following what is otherwise a completely indefensible position. I would turn this request around on Lori and the author of the featured comment: YOU need to go back, admit that you cannot find biblical support for what you teach, and start actually basing your ideas on the word of God.  


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/raise-your-daughters-in-the-ways-of-the-lord/

Response to "Regretting Her College Education"

     Today Lori Alexander continued her crusade against higher education for women:

"A woman named Kathryn Beal tweeted this the other day: 'I regret my college education. If you want to be a wife and a mom, you will likely feel aimless like I did. Many people see college as necessary, but it isn't. For aspiring homemakers, the cost may not be worth the benefits.'" 

     One gets the impression, especially due to some of the comments she includes regarding how colleges are godless and full of false teachers, that Lori doesn’t approve of anyone going to college, male or female. But, of course, she is careful not to teach men, so her opinion on this matter must remain a mystery. On the other hand, I do wonder if she sees no problem with men going to college because she thinks somehow they’re more resilient to “bad influences.” But I suppose we'll never know. 

     Lori declares that the purpose of college is to prepare people for a career and paycheck. Sure, those who attend college generally hope that their degree will benefit them in this way. However, there is so much more to be gained by going to college. It’s an opportunity to further our ability to be productive citizens, to learn how to defend our own viewpoints and also hear and benefit from opposing views, to think critically, to make friends and connections, and to grow on a personal level. However, this is a digression so I won’t spend further time on this point. 

     Lori says God never calls women to have careers or make money in His word. This is a common argument from Lori; perhaps we could call it the argument from omission. In other words, if the Bible doesn’t specifically mention it, it must not be allowed! But does Lori apply this principle universally? I’m pretty sure the Bible doesn’t command women to write blogs either. 

"Colleges' purpose is to prepare people for a career and a paycheck. God never calls women to careers or making money in His Word. It also exposes them to godless teaching and feminism which is the opposite of being feminine." 

     Having attended college myself, I can confirm that I was exposed to a lot of godless teaching. In my Operations and Supply Chain Management class, for example, there was not a single mention of God. I’m sure my friends who took math, engineering, or economics classes will agree. 

     And she says feminism is the opposite of being feminine. I suppose “femininity” means simply having inferior social status compared to men?

     She then asks the women in her chatroom for their opinions, and of course they too felt that their college degrees were wasted and that they regretted going. I guess the argument is that since a few women wish they hadn’t gotten degrees, you shouldn’t either!

     She ends with the following verse, which, of course, is referring to marriage, not going to college. This is what is known as twisting the plain meaning of the Bible.

2 Corinthians 6:14:  "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

     Women, if you want to go to college, go to college. If you don’t want to go, don’t. There are many factors on which your decision ought to be based, but your gender is not one of them. It would be a sad world indeed if our universities were entirely devoid of the perspectives and talents of women. 

     Because there was no such thing as a modern university when the Bible was written, there is very little (if anything) the Bible says that could be applied to the question of whether women should get a college education. The only passage that comes to mind is the story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-42. Mary chose to take the opportunity to learn, while Martha fulfilled the role of a woman by keeping the house. Let’s not forget which one of them Jesus praised.  


Link to original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/regretting-her-college-education/

Response to "Let's Stop Exalting Singleness"

     In this post (written jointly by Lori and her husband, Ken), we are told that marriage and producing offspring is God's design for us. Here and there they seem to acknowledge that it may be God's desire that some remain single, or that some are single even though they wish they weren't, but they fall short of positive affirmation of the choice to be single. 

     This is a long post, so I won't be able to address all of it. There are, however, a few points I would like to make. 

     I suspect their motive in writing this post is to protest the declaration that singleness is somehow superior to being married. But in doing so, they revert to the opposite extreme and heavily imply that marriage is superior to being single! Why not a middle ground, in which God has a will for each individual (for some marriage, for others singleness), and that neither is inherently or universally superior to the other? 

     As a side note, in response to Paul's statements about the advantages of remaining single in 1 Corinthians 7, it's particularly ironic that they remind us not to "build a theology based on a few verses." Complementarianism itself is based on only a handful of verses, most of which either have translational ambiguities or are snatched out of their context. But this is a digression, so I won't pursue it further. 

     My major contention with this post has to do with some comments made near the end. Here are the two closing paragraphs: 

"Marriage is God's design and it is GOOD! Singleness isn't His design. Yes, it happens even to those who would love to be married because we live in a fallen and imperfect world. There are very few who don't truly burn, never want to marry, and want to devote their lives to the Lord, so let's stop exalting singleness as many are doing. Far too many are staying single well into their thirties because they simply do not understand how they fit into GOd's plan for creating the family of God. And too many Christian parents are not taking the investments of their children God has given them seriously to deliver to Him someday soon as godly offspring. 

Marriage and bearing children take great sacrifice or maybe a better word is investment. Every moment of the day that we invest in our children and even grandchildren, we are multiplying the talents God has given to us and for this, there is a great reward that can only come from a godly marriage and family. Singleness is for a few, but it is marriage and family that accomplishes the plan of God for eternity." 

They state clearly that singleness is not God's design. I suspect they would deny that they are shaming those who are single (especially voluntarily single), and yet, how else are we to understand this comment? If singleness isn't God's design, this must mean those who are single are living in disobedience to God. Or, at the very least, they must be abandoning their greatest purpose in life and therefore must be failing in life to some extent. 

     The other sentence I would like to point out is the final one: "Singleness is for a few, but it is marriage and family that accomplishes the plan of God for eternity." Again, either this is simply very poorly communicated, or else they are suggesting anyone who is single (intentionally or not) is not accomplishing God's plan for eternity. 

     Fortunately, God judges each of us by His own standards, not by those of Lori and Ken. If He calls any of us to singleness, we certainly don't have to answer to Lori and Ken for it. On a personal level, since I got married I have come to understand Paul's comments about the advantages of singleness so much better. Marriage is a blessing in many ways, but it also necessarily involves less time spent in such things as ministry. I now urge unmarried people not to be in a hurry to get married, and instead to be sure to make the most of their time while single, doing things they may not be able to do once they're married. Singleness is absolutely a gift, and should not be belittled, especially for those God has called to it. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/lets-stop-exalting-singleness/