We haven’t looked at Lori Alexander’s “older woman” teachings for a while because not much has changed. Yesterday’s doodle stood out to me, though, and offered another prime example of how Lori continues to pile on spiritual abuse.
Many women want to continually discredit God’s clear commands to them. “My husband is disabled so I have to work!” So does this woman’s experience negate God’s command for women to be keepers at home? Wouldn’t women with disabled husbands and single mothers who work away from the home understand that it would be far superior for them to be home full time caring for their children and homes, if they had a hard working husband who provided for them? Wouldn’t they easily be able to understand that God’s ways are indeed the best? Many women don’t want to accept God’s commands. They try to invalidate them for ALL women because of their experience. Instead of acknowledging that YES, God’s ways are best, they try to cancel them for all women by judging God’s will for women by their experience, emotions, and feelings instead of truth and what is best.
My job focuses on employees who are medically disabled to work either short term or long term. This can cause a lot of stress in a person’s life, especially financially, as there are medical bills to deal with and loss of working time. I would venture to guess that if there is a female spouse who works, she will continue to work to help support the family. I know several women who work because they have a disabled spouse. Their ability to work helps provide health insurance and income to keep the household together. There is nothing shameful or non-honoring to God about this. It’s how life goes.
How is a woman with disabled husband supposed to be home full time caring for her children and rely upon an income-earning spouse if the husband is totally disabled to work? I’m not the only one to ask this question. Several other readers asked for clarification on Lori’s statement. Lori’s response was that they misunderstood what she wrote. (::cough:: Sounds like Piper ::cough::)
Lori responded to the comment, and then edited her comment. Here are both versions:
Notice she edited “Life is MUCH easier for ALL women when they have…” to “Life is MUCH easier for ALL women IF they have…” Women can only have an easy life when/if they have a man providing money for them?
Lori is saying that women should feel guilty if they don’t following God’s will for them to be home.
As long as Lori is fully supported in her teachings, all is well.
Lori tries to argue that women who say they need to work because they have a disabled spouse are only making their arguments based upon personal “experience, emotions, and feelings.” I say that Lori does the same. She gleans off her own experience of working for two years when her oldest child was born. She desperately wanted to be home and compromised her birth control method to make that happen.
She is able to live a comfortable life at home while her husband earns a comfortable living. Because she is able to live this way, she tells women whose families are struggling to make ends meet that nothing is impossible with God. In my opinion, Lori is abusing Titus 2 and feels entitled to her teaching because she is an “older woman.”
Instead of offering support to women who have to work because their husbands are unable to, she tells them that it would be “far superior” to have a hard working husband who provides for them. After all, this is God’s best plan for their lives. Does she even hear how this comes across?
Lori continues to spiritually abuse when she uses phrases such as:
- “God’s command for women…”
- “God’s ways are indeed the best.”
- “Many women don’t want to accept God’s commands.”
- “Women focus on experience, emotions, and feelings instead of truth.”
- “God commands that husbands be the providers and women be the keepers at home.”
- “Acknowledge God’s will for women is to be keepers at home.”
- “Nothing is impossible with God.”
- “Women should feel guilty for not following God’s ways.”
Women, no where does God say that it is dishonoring to work outside the home. God does not care about your relationship status if you need to work to provide for yourself or your family. Do what is best for yourself and your family. If you are home, great. If you need to or want to work, great. Please do not believe the myth that complementarian doctrine promotes: that the only way for women and men to live is if one provides and the other submits.
This doctrine is promoted as “biblical truth.” Truth is, Jesus wants us to follow a greater commandment:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.
144 thoughts on “Spiritual Abuse: Lori Alexander Says Working Women with Disabled Husbands Should Know Where They Belong”
Lori’s ‘handle’ – quite simply – should be “The DELUSIONAL Wife”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My life would be awesome if I were independently wealthy! Should I feel guilty that I’m not? Sheesh.
Everything Lori says to clear this up is even stupider.
She is dangerous! There is no grace, mercy, or the heart of Jesus in her teachings…just legalism.
One has to wonder if Lori has ever read the Bible. Where is she coming up with these odd ideas? Someone needs to introduce her to the Proverbs 31 woman who was trading things, making money, making investments, buying fields.
Once again, Serena Joy is compelled to lecture all the Handmaids.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just because Lori is an “older” woman, does not mean that she is all the more “wiser.” I know young women in their 20’s much wiser, filled with more fruits of the Holy Spirit, and the knowledge/mercy/grace of Jesus Christ than Lori, herself.
I would suggest that Lori re-reads the teachings of Jesus, rather than preaching her own “life experiences” and desperately trying to fit them into the New Testament somewhere. Praying that Lori with someday climb out of the hole she has dug for herself in destroying the souls of women around the world with her false narrative.
She desperately is in need of Jesus Christ in her life (the One of the Holy Scriptures.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheryl beat me to it; exactly why shouldn’t we read Titus 2:5 in light of not our own cultural prejudices–really upper middle class prejudices of the previous century–but rather in light of Proverbs 31 and the Acts 16 story of Lydia? For that matter, you’ve also got the women who left their homes to minister to Christ and the Apostles. For that matter, I’d have to guess that a huge portion of sellers in ancient markets as a whole were women. (as well as other examples I’m missing)
100% applause on my part to women who take care of disabled loved ones–and men who do the same–as disability can be almost a death sentence for many who lose a sense of meaning through their disability. That noted, two big parts of being able to do that are obtaining the resources to do so well, and also decompressing from the stress. Work outside the home can be a big part of both.
@ Bike Bubba.
I believe poster Christianity Hurts had a question or two for you on an older post, one from about a week ago?
She (and I believe one other poster) was verifying that you have in the past posted favorably to Doug Wilson and/or Bayly blogs (favorably, as in, you support their views on complementarianism). Is that so?
I also asked you some complementarian-based questions a few months ago, but you did not respond to my questions.
Some of my same questions to you in that older post here on SSB were ones I brought up (in one case, I directly copied my question from you) in this post at my Daisy blog:
_Gender Complementarianism Does Not Adequately Address, or Address At All, Incompetent, Loser, Or Incapacitated Men_
That post would also address Lori Alexander to a degree – this nonsense about how women, even single moms or women with disabled spouses – should not work outside the home.
Alexander believes women should ignore the reality of their situation.
I’m not sure of Alexander’s exact age – she in her 50s or 60s? I am in my late 40s, and hence, I might be (I don’t know) thought of as an “older woman” per biblical standards.
This “older”(? is 40-something “older” by biblical standards? -dunno) woman – Daisy – is telling any younger women out there:
Do not buy into any flavor of complementarianism, whether it’s coming from Lori Alexander, Doug Wilson, John Piper, CBMW, Mark Driscoll, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, Mary Kassian, anyone else.
Lori Alexander said,
Thanks for ignoring the cultural context of the texts you cherry-pick, Lori, and trying to make cultural-and-time specific guidelines applicable to American women in the year 2018.
Lori A said,
I thought the Bible says there is now more no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus?
Who says that Lori’s interpretation of the Bible is “God’s Ways”?
-continued in next post or two (sorry, my reply is long)-
Lori A. said,
My personal lived experience is not working out that way so many Christians say it should.
I get into this in some posts at my Daisy blog, but, Christians who say they believe in the Bible, who maybe also claim to be sola scriptura, are constantly disagreeing with each other on major to minor topics, everything from when is the timing of the Rapture, should babies be baptized, is Once Saved Always Saved true or is Conditional Security true, to, is Calvinism true or Arminianism true?
In light of the fact that Christians cannot really agree on what the Bible means and/or how to apply it, why would any one waste their time taking life advice from some Christian who claims you should agree with her (or his) interpretation of that book on Subject matter X?
Lori’s response still does not explain how complementarianism can or should apply to women for whom her stock answers simply are incapable of working.
And here is where a lot of Christians get uncomfortable, start playing Defense Attorney for God, or get angry:
the Bible’s promises do not work for all people at all times.
All those lovely verses about God meeting your needs, and doing anything you ask in his name, and so on and so forth, sure have not come to pass for me in my own life, and not in that in the lives of Christian family of mine.
Though I grew up as Southern Baptists, and many SBs will mock the crud out of Word Of Faith, they too cling to some WoF without giving it much thought… Lori A seems to be doing the same.
WoF believe if you just pray enough, have enough faith, believe in God’s word and promises enough, and do steps X, Y, Z, that God will answer your prayers when and /or how you want God to.
For example, for years, I’ve had anxiety and I used to have clinical depression.
A Southern Baptist woman from my dad’s church whom I’ve confided in a bit in the past basically drops hints that she feels that I would not have depression or anxiety if I had ever been “truly saved.”
If I “really knew Jesus” and really had the Holy Spirit in my heart (like her and her family), why, I would only know inner peace and joy, never anxiety. That’s her attitude. That, or, I must not be praying hard enough, must not be doing X, Y, or Z enough.
That is a very WoF view to hold, and SBs aren’t supposed to be in to WoF, but a ton of them believe in an “Emotional Health Gospel.”
(But they mock Pentecostals / Charismatics who believe in a Physical or Financial Health Gospel.)
I’ve had Christians quote verses at me about anxiety – perfect love casts out all fear, etc. If I just “cling to the word,” my anxiety should magically disappear. What a bunch of bunk.
I prayed for my mother to be healed, but she died.
Don’t ask me why, but the Bible’s promises simply sometimes do not come true.
-continued in next post-
LikeLiked by 1 person
So as to Lori Alexander dismissing out of hand people’s actual and lived personal experiences…
You do have to at times put your Personal Life Experience above what the Bible says.
You don’t have a choice.
You have to put your experience above what some Christian tells you about these things, because as I said, Christians cannot even agree with each other on what the Bible means, or when what verse is applicable to what group of people, etc.
The Christian interpretation of what the Bible supposedly means has not come true for me in my life.
So, as a Christian, you have to admit either the Christian Faith itself does not work, or how you are teaching the faith (what you say the Bible says) must be in error.
(Or, maybe you are using the Bible for purposes for which it was not meant – you can admit to that.)
It makes little sense to me (though I can speculate why this is so because I was brought up complementarian) why any adult woman would listen to and heed the commands of Lori Alexander on whether or not they “should” work outside the home, or feel guilty if they do so.
If you’re an adult woman, you should be deciding for you what is right for your life – rather than taking cues, direction, or guilt trips from the likes of the Lori Alexander busy-bodies who claim they are “speaking for the Lord” or telling you that they are merely “telling you what the Bible says.”
My mother and her mother (my maternal Grandmother) were very devout Christians who believed in complementarianism – and I learned and observed from them that complementarianism did not make their lives easier, better, more peaceful, or get them “closer to the Lord,” but actually compounded some problems they had in their lives.
I also saw the problems complementarianism was creating in my own life (some of which were entirely avoidable or more easily managable once complementarianism was rejected).
Among other reasons…
Taking my mom and grandmother’s personal experiences into account, as well as my own, I realized how bunk complementarianism is.
Comp doesn’t work for all women in all situations, as it should, if it is really a gender theology designed by God himself.
Anyway, as I’ve grown older, it’s become a pet peeve of mine for people like Lori Alexander to dismiss people’s personal experiences as though they are nothing, as though adults should not factor or nor consider wisdom they’ve gained through life lived, or from observing what other people have gone through.
Paul in the New Testament says that the Old Testament – (which largely consists of sharing people’s personal experiences!!) – is to serve as lessons for Christians under the new covenant.
That is, when you read, for instance, about the unwise decisions that King David made (that got him into so much trouble with his family, friends, and/or with God), you will perhaps stop and think,
“Hmm, maybe that was a poor choice David made in his own life, and I should not do something similar in my life.”
Apostle Paul says that is one of the very reasons God gave believers the Old Testament – so we could all learn from the mistakes of the people who came before us!
Wisdom is not to be found ONLY in the Lori’s favorite headship passages, or in the New Teastament alone – and not in the Bible alone.
You can learn a lot from what has happened to you in your own life and from what other people share with you about what they learned from their experiences. I think it would be positively ignorant and foolish to chuck all that out the window and ignore it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Awhile back I did a study on this area. But to do it properly I had to read the previous chapters on who and what and why people were being addressed in the first place.
It is about appointing elders and all the requirements. The list is long, not being drunk, quick tempered, violent , undisciplined…..anyhow the list goes on. It struck me when reading that, that obviously some of the elders or they were of the mind that it was acceptable that elders behave in the ways listed. So obviously they needed the lesson on what it was to be blameless.
Interestingly enough it is about the circumcized group who is leading others astray through meaningless talk, and deception. they are disrupting households teaching them things they ought not to teach.
To quote Marg Mowzcko she states that” oikourgos and oikouros have similar meaning. Both words are about staying home and domesticity but oikourgos has the added meaning of being productive in the domestic setting”.
Anyhow then we get to Titus 2 where he addresses the women.He is telling the women THE OLDER WOMEN, to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to wine but to teach what is good. THEN, they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and kids be self controlled and pure to be busy at home etc. so obviously the older women were behaving badly by not being self controlled or pure…..
OBVIOUSLY like the men the women were out having a great old time. They were irrereverent…mmm so probably loud and obnoxious, gossipy, and drunks. BUT TO TEACH WHAT IS GOOD……….so don’t go teaching the younger women it is okay to run around the neighborhood partying it up, running at the mouth , getting into everyone’s business , and being addicted to wine…..so being the local floozy.
So between Titus 1 and 2 the church as it would seem was pretty messed up if these things were happening and needed to be corrected.
To quote Marg Mowzcko on the word keepers at home, she states that” oikourgos and oikouros have similar meaning. Both words are about staying home and domesticity but oikourgos has the added meaning of being productive in the domestic setting”.
So if you put that together with scripture…….these women were out all hours, partying it up and neglecting the domestic running of the household and obviously not being productive because they were too busy out having a good time.
This whole thing is NOT ABOUT working outside the home. It is about character and SIN and what Christian’s she be like if they know God, otherwise their actions deny them.
That does not sound like a woman having a job outside the home is off the tables or wrong. It doesn’t sound anything like the sort. It never even addresses the women having a job…And if you couple that with the Prov 31 description of a great wife who was busy working outside doing all sorts of business and domestic things……
Ironically enough if you look at Titus 1 it addresses people in the church leading people astray in verses 10 and 11…..something in which Lori Alexander is doing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am just learning to dabble in finding out greek words. but the word Teaching in this text (kalodidaskalous) — 1 Occurrence only occurs one time in scripture. That makes me curious as to what kind of teaching that is meaning.
Is that teaching by example? And NOT what Lori Alexander thinks it is, in some biblical scholarly way?
to me it makes sense to teach by leading a christian example to the younger women.
Not writing massive guilt, and false doctrinal statements hand written in some fake journal leading people astray.
Anyhow those are my thoughts and if anyone knows how to decipher the meaning of that word , go for it.
Good point, BB. I’m sure it is a mental health break.
Perhaps she forgot to mention how, in her dream world, the never failing support of the local church swoops down to care for the families of men on disability.
How else does she expect these women to lock themselves at home, if indeed this is what her scripture says. or will there be daily manna from heaven and regular Amazon shipments from Dorcas, who sows to clothe her family.
A dear friend of mine gets up early to meet God in prayer, then tends to her family’s needs before heading off to her full time job. Her husbands disabilities continue to worsen. Also, she sees to her mother’s regular illnesses and subsequent hospitalizations.
Good grief, Lori, you have a heart of stone and a deaf ear to God if you dare label her as anything but a long suffering Saint.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lori takes one verse and creates a whole mandate for women about it, ignoring the problems Titus was facing in Crete with the struggling church.
It bugs me because women who do have spouses with all sorts of disabilities including mental illnesses how are they to even cope after trying to maintain her demands? She is not satisfied with condemning all women but has to spotlight a group of marginalized families probably already stressed to the max.
All I can think of is how difficult life was for Vyckie Garrison and her blind husband.
Chapter 1 Verse 11 says those who deceive must be silenced.
He is talking about the Crete’s typically always being liars, evil brutes , lazy gluttons. And he goes on to say rebuke them sharply, so THEY WILL BE SOUND IN THE FAITH.
What Lori is , is a liar. Lying about what scripture means. She is an evil brute leading women astray in any way she can.
For mercies sake the Church must rebuke Lori, and silence this woman.
Am I off base here?
I just saw this Tweet about this post in Julie Anne’s twitter time line and wanted to say something about it:
What a “Well, duh” statement.
I’d guess there are a lot of working married women who’d probably prefer being stay at home wives, if they could.
But we do not always get what we need or want in life, even if we follow all the rules, believe in Jesus, follow all of Lori Alexander’s rules, are “good, nice, godly” people who live “biblical” lives.
I had wanted to be married from the time I was a kid.
What did I hear from the brand of Christianity that I was raised in (which was Southern Baptist, evangelical, conservative) but that if I was a good, godly, virginal, trusting, faithful Christian (and I was), that God would eventually send me “Mr. Right.”
But despite the fact I lived a clean life, trusted God, prayed for years for a spouse, I still find myself single past the age of 45.
I see a lot of stories on these blogs by Christian women who did get married – only to discover weeks or years into their “Christian” marriages that their “Christian” husband is a child molester, wife abuser, or serial cheater.
And I’m sure none of those women prayed and asked God to send them a pervert or abuser for a spouse. But God permitted them to walk into marriages with scum bags anyhow.
How does Lori Alexander explain all that away?
Christians such as her need to start living in reality and accepting life how it actually is for most people, rather than spouting off all these fantasies about how life “should” be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lori Alexander like many others from the ultra conservative comp position misinterpret the Titus 2:5 verse to pigeon-hole all wives and mothers into the role of the traditional “June Cleaver” model of what a wife and mother should be which is usually a legalistic view of women’s roles. She fails to understand the history behind that meaning was about Apostle Paul assigning gender roles to women as she likes to believe. The letter Paul wrote to his fellow worker Titus left on the Island of Crete to set up a church were the residents had a bad reputation. Paul was simply instructing the older women to teach the younger women how to be better wives and mothers by not neglecting their families and be more loving. The Greek translation to keepers at home was “oikouros” meaning watcher, warden and guardian of the household. Wives were not to neglect their homes and families but watch over them being attentive to their needs and well being, making their homes their foremost priority. During that era the way women were the “oikouros” of their homes was different than how they are today. Today women can take care of their homes through various ways, some working a job to bring in an extra income, if the children are little it would be more ideal if she worked part time if she could. Some stay at home to looking after their small children, others work from home or homeschool or do both. There are some single mothers through widowhood and unfortunately divorce but these women are hardly neglecting their duties at home. Many women juggle and balance their jobs and their families, caring for the needs and well-being of their children and helping bring in an income. There is nothing implying that to be keepers at home women have to do all the housework and child-care as these days more men are contributing to both these things in their homes. I think understanding the history behind the context of the bible scriptures taking the culture and customs of the Ancient times into consideration can also help understanding the bible a much better while still living in Christ-like ways. God Bless
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I am just learning to dabble in finding out greek words. but the word Teaching in this text (kalodidaskalous) — 1 Occurrence only occurs one time in scripture. That makes me curious as to what kind of teaching that is meaning.”
It literally means “good teaching.”
Lori ought to read some history. The stay at home mother, of which I approve particularly when children are very young, is a recent phenomenon. Historically women have had to work, including down the mines with their children doing all sorts of demanding physical work until it was banned in the Victorian era. Traditionally they have often learned their husband’s trade and helped him provide for their families.
It is simply not possible to buy a house or even rent sometimes unless you have two incomes, so staying at home is increasingly becoming the preserve of the well-off. The traditional working class don’t have this luxury.
I wonder where Lori gets a command of God for women to work only in the home. Is she being a reactionary against the feminist ‘you can have it all’ thinking? I could understand that. The pendulum has swung so far the other way that motherhood and children are now often seen as something second-rate compared with a career.
There is an assumed differentiation of labour in the bible, but I would be wary of adding rules to this. To me it is a mixture of setting priorities and free will, with a pinch of common sense.
Any woman who is having to look after a disabled husband probably doesn’t have the time or has better things to do than read Lori on the internet anyway!
I don’t believe the phrase ‘you can have it all’ thinking applies to the ill defined term “feminism.” In my heart, I believe that phrase applies to both genders, equally. In my neck of the woods, complementarianism is the golden calf of our culture with the engraved words below its trophy image, ‘I can have it all because I am entitled.’ The health, wealth, and prosperity apostate gospel is the bread and butter (and huge money maker for the 501c. 3’s) of the visible c’hurch, preached and taught in various forms, whether boldly or ever so subtly. It is the proverbial leech on the c’hurch, sucking away the true faith of many a folk.
This has nothing to do with feminism, which I have found to be a label given to those women who don’t tow the complementarian party line, of which I was indoctrinated to believe that was “god’s way/mandate for women.” In my line of work here on the prairie, I have had to work “as a man” for decades with the ugly hands/aches and pains to me body, to prove it (I cannot ever, ever again, shake the soft, pretty hands of a pastor man going out the door of a c’hurch building, for in my mind, I am visualizing the Apostle Paul’s hands from his tent making business……not pretty!) He had a secular job to earn his keep as he was able bodies and led by example, not being a burden to the Body of Jesus Christ. For the offerings given back in that day, were to be distributed to the widows, the sick (who could not work themselves – equally applicable to the disabled loved ones at home in today’s society), the orphans, and others who could not care for themselves. So precisely “where” are the offerings distributed in our modern c’hurch complexes today……clue……”not the sheep desperately in need.”
The word “feminism” isn’t even in my every day vocabulary, and it wasn’t present when raising our children either, Praise Jesus Holy Name! As to the “differentiation of labor” as you termed it, what I have discovered through my life experiences it this, as I have stated before, “it doesn’t matter which gender does the job, just as long as the work gets done.” As well as, “the farm equipment doesn’t care which gender is operation it, just as long as the work gets done, safely and efficiently.” As well as, “the animals don’t care which gender feeds and cares for them, just as long as they are fed and well cared for.” I don’t do “feminism;” I no longer abide by the lifestyle of the “complementarians-which is so painful to my well being and especially my faith in Jesus alone for salvation,” and I no longer believe that Jesus and His True Body of believers, actually hate women (I used to believe this due to the way in which card holding members of the c’hurch treated me – abusively.)
Is our LORD so caught up in the gender dispute, the false teachings of complementarianism, that He has specifically defined precisely “who” shares His Gospel Message, as well as precisely “who” does what job in the secular world? I believe the visible c’hurch is messing up more folks with their “god’s police radar” and the tiny little gender jail cells they are locking Jesus’ sheep into! And this is precisely why it is difficult for many of us women to sit in pews and listen to the jibberish being promoted by c’hurches who have a defined agenda of manipulating and controlling folks with twisted Scriptures = spiritual abuse. When religious leadership promotes self serving doctrines apart from Christ, you will find every kind of sin in their own households that is deeply hidden from the lower laity, by design.
And when the truth is revealed concerning these Nicolaitan households, the sheep take a step back, and realize they have been used and abused, all in the name of another jesus. And these folks, addicted to the “leadership paradigm- which Jesus specifically stated “lording it over shall not be done amongst His people,” along with the Lori Alexander types, secretly desire in their hearts to be “worshiped” above and beyond Jesus Christ, calling it “their ministry.” And this is exactly what it is….THEIR….MINISTRY. Their self imposed “mediator-ship.”
Not the ministry of our LORD, Savior, Master, Teacher, Good Shepherd, Great Physician, High Tower, Humble Servant…..
Jesus. And I believe He truly loves “His sheep.” And this day, I can confidently say, “I am loved by Him, and I “feel” loved by Him”…..every second of every day, because my trust fully rests in Him.
And to this day, I am still beyond fascinated by that encounter of the woman at the well (working hard to get water to bring back to the village, by the way), and her Master, Jesus Christ, who wasn’t supposed to be talking to a “woman like that!” For shame! And when that woman went back to her village, speaking to both men and women, about her encounter with the real Messiah…….how dare her for educating men in the public arena…..was she not out of line? After all, who should even listen to a woman “like that?”
Was Jesus accused of being a “feminist” for speaking to a woman? And was He so brutally hated by the religious crowds (just like today) for going against the cultural norms of that day? It’s no wonder He had such powerful words for the “religious folks” of His day, and for our day as well.
Katy everything you have written has been in my thoughts. Although not raised in a strictly complementarian church scene at all (Canada), it seems to me it is a relatively recent development, as in the last 30 years. It seems to have been gaining significant momentum.
I grew up within an anabaptist culture but within that I don’t ever recall women being desparaged for working. The christian women in my whole life worked and held all sorts of jobs and careers.
Many of my friends mothers were stay at home mothers, although my own mother worked as she was a single parent.
I stayed home with my kids and still do even though they are raised. I consider my situation extremely fortunate as with those around me who had the priveledge to stay home if they wished. I am not sure that will be attainable with my own children in this day and age.
Lori Alexander is wrong in so many ways and I do not see Jesus commanding women to stay at home in any of his commands to the apostles and the church. Love the lord your God and your neighbors as youself, go into all the world and preach does not come anywhere near commanding the wife to stay at home.
Katy thank you for your well written statements.
Well, I am older than Lori so she should listen to me, right? I say she seems to be trying to create discontent and dissatisfaction in women’s hearts when their world isn’t perfect (according to Lori’s description of perfect). The results of her post is that women will be unhappy with any husband who isn’t “hard working and providing for them” so they don’t have to work. So she wants them to covet another better man? She wants them to get up each day feeling guilty and miserable due to circumstances that may be beyond their control? She wants them to resent that God isn’t letting them in on his “best ways”? How many women with disabled husbands is she supporting financially so they can stay home? Jesus came to set us free from the nit-picking rules of the Pharisees… including modern day female Pharisees. Gal 5:1 “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s a photo of Lori’s post on Wednesday. It’s based off a song from the late 70’s. Lori says: “Did anyone even listen to or learn from the lyrics? It’s pretty much what God commands that I teach!”
Lori’s belief is that women are subtly whoring themselves if they work outside the home, go to college, don’t have children (purposefully), take birth control, wear “unmodest” clothing, don’t cook with organic ingredients, get vaccinated, etc. Of course she’ll say all of this comes from God, not her.
Great comment Kathi!
One thing I’ve learned on my journey out of fundagelicalism (I escaped the Calvary Chapel cult) is that they (‘they’ is generic, reformed or non-reformed it makes no difference) hate and despise human freedom.
Thank-you Bunkababy for your encouragement today. Have had the privilege of visiting Canada on a number of occasions and it truly is a beautiful country filled with picturesque scenery!
Kathi, interesting post from the transformed (?) wife; cringe, cringe. I have had so called Christians grace my doorstep with evil intent in their hearts, identifying itself quickly when self imposed righteous words come out of their traps! And it has been a joy to share with these wolves in sheep’s clothing this statement, which comes from my heart for Christ, “I would rather fellowship with a prostitute or a whore, who is born again from the Spirit of God, than I would a self righteous church goer who hasn’t a clue Who Jesus Christ is.” Works every time :).
It has blessed my life so in the fact these vipers no longer have a “hold” on me soul, and it bothers them to no end. The mentality of Diotrephes is still alive and well within the c’hurch, and perhaps Lori is burdened with this mentality as well.
My freedom and liberty is in Christ alone as Mary27 has so graciously pointed out. Great Scriptural reference; Galatians 5:1………thanks for that good word today!
Katy – I think you have missed the point of what I was getting at. Not really much to do with complementarianism except perhaps for the unavoidable truth that women have babies and men do not. Mother and father are not interchangeable terms, and their relationship with their offspring is not identical.
The ‘have it all’ myth of modern secular society has been criticised by someone like journalist Melanie Phillips, who is Jewish and definitely socially conservative. She would describe herself as a feminist in the first and second wave sense.
I don’t think she would subscribe to the more recent anti-natalism, nor the idea that you can bring children into the world and carry on, careerwise, as though nothing had happened. Some priority setting is essential, in this sense you cannot have it all. Children are a more important priority than climbing the career ladder.
If an ‘abundance of possessions’ is the overriding goal of life, it might be better not to have children.
There are many women, especially working class, who would love to get out of the job rat race for a while and spend time with their young children, if only pre-school, but who today have little chance of this due to financial commitments that cannot be avoided if they want a roof over their head and food on the table.
Her reference to whoring gives me a creepy sense that she’s a monster under a woman’s wig. Really creepy terminology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did this Lori ever read Proverbs 31 which basically describes a business woman making business decisions? Likewise, did she ever read the Gospels that describe women “supporting” Jesus and the apostles with their own monies? It’s just amazing that someone thinks they know what others should or should not be doing with their lives based on a few hand picked verses out of context and through the lenses of a wealthy middle class white woman’s eyes? The Bible also has very sterns warning about being a “busy body” which is what she just has become. Basically and pardon my French, “who the hell is she to tell others how to live their lives and support themselves?”
thinking straight – She doesn’t consider the Prov 31 woman a good example of someone working outside the home because the Prov 31 woman doesn’t work for a boss. It merely a twisting of literal interpretation.
Oh no. I see that KAS has been posting to this thread.
KAS usually taints every thread he appears on, especially ones pertaining to gender issues. 😦
(I’ve not yet read all posts in this thread, btw….)
Anyway, Kathi, you said,
I’m a virgin who is over 45 years of age – because I was initially waiting until marriage to have sex, never found a partner.
I was engaged, but I made it clear to the ex that there would be no hanky panky.
Okay. Having said that.
However, I did go to college.
I tried taking birth control for a year or more, due to menstrual problems I was having (I was not taking BC for sexual reasons).
I have worked outside the home.
I guess I sometimes cook with inorganic ingredients (not sure what that means, though).
I’m not going to have children, as I am single, and I don’t have the money to raise a kid alone, and no, Lori, I’m not going to “trust the Lord to provide,” because I know he will not.
Please, Lori, define what “immodest” clothing is,because what some people consider chaste, conservative, and modest dress, others would consider smutty. (Men in some Islamic countries would think YOUR American style dress, with no hijab, is immodest, Lori – actually some of them would think you are a bimbo for that).
For many years, I stuck with biblical teaching about refraining from sex outside of marriage.
I am a literal virgin – not one of those bogus “born again virgins” or “pure in spiritual terms only virgins” (that generally Christian progressives yammer about and promote) – yet this clown, Lori Alexander, would likely accuse me, of all people (again, literal virgin in my 40s) of being immodest or a great big whore? She needs to rethink her views.
If just about everything can make a woman a whore, then nothing can make a woman a whore.
From what I’ve seen on this blog and ACFJ blog, and seen in articles by Ruth Tucker, Christians do a dismal job of protecting and assisting Christian women who are married to abusive Christian husbands.
Most Christians are also terrible at empathizing with, or helping (in practical ways) anyone who has a mental health malady, anyone who is divorced, and in a million other difficult or painful life circumstances.
So I’d be highly surprised to see a church – or a large percentage of them – actually get off their butts and financially or otherwise come to the aid of a women married to a disabled dude.
I saw an article a few years ago by a pastor. He and his wife had a son who came down with some disease that had him acting like a toddler by his mid-20s.
It was to the point that the wife and the husband had to take turns changing their adult son’s diapers or putting him on an adult potty by the bed.
The adult son had lost his ability to talk coherently, seemed to be sort of “out of it.” He required round the clock care. His parents were physically drained taking care of the son.
Nobody from his church ever offered to help him or his wife with the kid.
I came across many stories like that several years ago when I was researching churches, death, Christianity and grief, after my mother died. I found anecdote after anecdote online (and in some books about why people stop going to church) by people who said they were Christians, but their church they had been attending for 5, 10, more years, did nothing for them after a loved one died or came down with a serious illness.
A lot of Christians and churches “talk the talk” about helping people who are having problems, but few of them “walk the walk,” or they don’t do it enough, or not consistently.
Since many Christians are so terrible at showing regular support for anyone and everyone (they seem to only enjoy helping the “extreme” cases, like homeless alcoholics, or foreign orphans in third world nations), I would not expect them to assist Christian wives in need, who are exhausted, or who could use financial help, in taking care of a sick or mentally disabled spouse.
And I don’t see the God of the Bible usually supernaturally healing most of those people, or sending them funds, or free maid / nurse service for a month, so the wife can catch a break.
On an older thread here (sorry I do not recall which one, but one from within about the last three months), KAS, insultingly stereotyped all single, older ladies as being owners of large number of cats, and I forget what all other insulting things he also said about single women.
I never married, so I never had children.
That should be CELEBRATED by conservative Christians who act in a sexist manner (such as KAS), because I am not having the dreaded “out of wedlock” children, so I am not a single mother that so many of my fellow conservatives like to villify and demonize…
Yet I get demonized, put down, or mocked by guys like KAS for NOT pro-creating.
Many of them also assume if one is a woman, over 40, not married, and childless, that we must hate all men, hate marriage, hate children, and we must all be liberal feminists.
Oh, and there’s also usually an assumption single women over 30 deliberately stayed single – the idea that women are “single by circumstance” never crosses their cavemen-like thinking.
Mary 27 said,
All excellent points!
I wanted to comment on this more:
In the New Testament, Jesus talks about how the Pharisees burden the people with lots of rules and regulations, he adds weights to their shoulders, but they do not offer to lend so much as a finger to lighten that load they put there in the first place.
You’re right, Lori is doing the same thing.
If she’s going to complain and shame about women working outside the home to get pay checks to help pay bills, she should be offering to take up a regular collection to send to them so they don’t have to work.
Her husband (Ken is it?) has a job? How about Ken take his earnings and turn them over to women with disabled husbands every month?
KAS. KAS. KAS.
Some women (and men, for that matter), never want to have children. They are generally referred to, and usually refer to themselves, as “Child Free” (which is not the same thing as “childless.”)
Is it really “feminist” thinking about women “having it all”?
Or is it that most cultures have sexist expectations in place that a wife (the woman in the marriage) should do all the parenting?
That is, even if a woman HAS TO hold a job to help put food on the table…
Most cultures demand and expect that a wife still has to come home after pulling a nine to five shift AND fix dinner, help the kids with homework, mop the floor, while society tells men, “It’s okay just sit on your butt sipping beer and watching sports while the wife does all the work”.
If a man does Parenting, culture either applauds him (for doing routing kid care work WOMEN do NOT get applauded for), or other people refer to the man taking care of the kids as “baby sitting.”
(That is, it’s “parenting” when mommy looks after the kid, but when daddy does it, it suddenly becomes “baby sitting”)
To return to your obnoxious, stupid assumption about women wanting or not wanting a kid and feminists.
I’m not a feminist. I’ve never identified as one.
And for the most part, I never wanted to have kids. I was only very marginally interested in, or lightly considered having at least one kid, IF, and only if, I had married prior to the age of 35.
Even then, going back to my youth, I was not interested in having a baby. I’m not interested in babies, toddlers, or kids, the way some people are not interested in watching NFL, attending the opera, or listening to rap music.
Not being interested in having kids of one’s own is not on par with being feminist, or hating kids generally.
I think kids are loud, annoying, too much time and trouble, had no interested in getting pregnant, going through labor pains, waking up at 2 in the morning to feed a crying, screaming baby, didn’t want morning sickness,
(and all the other annoying and super painful stuff that MEN do not have to worry about)
– I could go on and on and on with a list of reasons I personally never found the idea of having a kid appealing.
If others want to have babies, fine with me, but I resent the holy hell when people such as yourself start making assumptions about people like me who don’t have one, never really wanted one, and just were not interested in being a parent.
Correction, I said,
“for doing routing kid care work”
That word should be –
“For doing ROUTINE work…”
To add more to this…. comment by KAS
For me personally, it is.
If my choices were
a.) to work on a job with other adults
b.) stay at home all day with a toddler or infant cleaning up baby spills and messy diapers,
You dang skippy I will go with option A.
And I should not be shamed for that, nor should any woman.
Parenthood should be a choice, as should marriage, or whether to stay single or not have kids.
(The Bible presents each scenario as an equally valid life choice or situation, not as a mandate.
God no where says that, “Motherhood is superior to childlessness, so hence forth, any woman who does not have a kid whatever the reason is a horrible, selfish shrew, and icky feminist.”)
My feeling on this – on not being terribly vested in having a kid – has zippo to do with liberal feminism, and everything to do with personal preference.
When I was a girl, I was a tom boy.
I preferred toys and hobbies that were considered “masculine” (though in my opinion, they were general neutral), such as bike-riding and reading “Batman” comic books.
I hated wearing frilly dresses. I preferred sneakers and worn, frayed blue jeans.
My mother tried to interest me in stereotypical girly pursuits, such as Barbie boll playing.
When I was about four or five years old, I recall my Mom once bought me a toy baby doll the size of an actual infant that came with a toy bottle, so I could play “pretend Mommy.”
But I had zero interest with such maternal, girly toys – as young as age five. I didn’t even have much of an idea of how one was supposed to play with a Barbie or with a real sized baby doll, even though I had female friends who I watched play with such things.
I also found the idea of playing with a doll (I guess you were supposed to rock it back and forth for an hour?) terribly boring. Oh so boring.
– If other girls wanted to do that, it was fine by me, but it was not something I personally was interested in.
If you visit forums by Child-free women and men, you will find this is a very common thing.
Many of us CF (I’m borderline CF, I don’t consider myself 100% CF) knew at very young ages, before we ever learned about politics or feminism, that we did not want to be parents.
It’s a personal preference we’ve had since girlhood (or since boyhood), it has nothing to do with feminist indoctrination.
Same is true for CF men. Many Childfree men knew when they were boys they never wanted to have children.
I don’t see culture taking dumps on men who choose not to have kids, by the way.
I don’t see culture or most complementarian Christians questioning the life choices of MEN who don’t want to have kids.
This sort of skepticism and suspicion is always directed AT WOMEN. Women are viewed, by complementarians and by some extreme, secular conservatives, as basically nothing more than baby incubators, as though our only purpose in life is to act as broodmares.
Sometimes Christian and secular conservative culture elevate motherhood and marriage to a point they turn both into idols.
Jesus says you are to put him before everything and everyone – even above your son, daughter, your wife, and your mama, and if you do not, he says, you are not fit to follow him.
Being child-free is something almost always only women get shamed about, or treated like monsters, or accused of being feminists, over.
Your own Bible says in 1 Co.r 7 that it is better to remain single (and therefore childless) than it is to marry…
But if a woman today remains single and childless she is said by conservative Christians to be capitulating to feminists on some level.
There are mothers out there who regret having kids, by the way.
But it is very Taboo in most cultures for women to openly admit to hating their own kids and/or to hate parenting.
So, these women who secretly hate their own kids (or doing parenting) form these anonymous forums and blogs where they can gripe about how much they hate their own children or the work that goes along with it. You can find online articles about these women and their forums.
I really do not see men get shamed or scolded that often for being “un masculine” or being “selfish” or for “not fulfilling their roles’ for refusing to have a baby
Working men never get asked by journalists, like famous women CEOs or movie stars do, “Tell me, how to you handle having a job AND being a parent” – that sort of question is only directed at working women who also have dependents at home.
So, I don’t think it’s “feminists” who started or maintain a “you can have it all” attitude. Society enforces that.
Correction, I said
“such as Barbie boll playing.”
That was Barbie DOLL.
Doll with the letter “d” not a “b” up front.
I was not interested in playing with Barbie Dolls.
That view is based on secular gender stereotypes and expectations that women are supposedly more gentle and nurturing than men.
Tell me, what can women do in parenting that men cannot?
When five year old “Susie Snowflake” gets a scrape on her knee and comes inside boo-hooing and crying about it, you’re telling me that Daddy (a biological male) is utterly incapable of doing the stereotypical, society-expected womanly role of kissing the boo boo, cooing in baby’s ear, hugging her, and telling her everything is okay?
Or is Daddy unwilling to, or not aware HOW to do so, because his complementarian church and secular culture has not taught him how to be empathetic with a kid, or not given him permission to behave in a caring and sensitive way?
We went through this topic months ago on this blog with poster “D” who buys into this garbage.
D was telling Mark, Lea, and myself that he prefers his kids to be taught by women kindergarten teachers because, in his opinion (though he states this as objective fact, not merely his opinion), that female teachers are more nurturing and gentle than male ones.
Where-upon I then cited “D” with a billion links to studies and articles that explain why his views are grounded in sexism, and not in biological reality.
God did not create mothers to be more tender and gentle with children than fathers.
Men are just as capable as being tender with kids (or with anyone) as women are, but are discouraged from being so by a secular culture and by churches that instruct men that doing stuff like kissing a boo-boo is “womanly” and “feminine” and therefore something any man should feel shame for doing and so should avoid doing it.
I actually have one woman online friend who says her father (who died years ago), was the nurturing one in her family, between her two parents.
This friend told me her daddy (not her mother) was the one she was close to, who she felt safe talking to and confiding in, who gave her non judgmental emotional support…
While she did NOT get along with her mother, who was more a cold, judgmental, and “prickly” type.
Not everyone fits into the gender stereotypes / gender roles prescribed to them by Christian gender complementarians.
Daisy wrote KAS, insultingly stereotyped all single, older ladies as being owners of large number of cats, …
Stereotypical feminists with dogs. Like any stereotype it has some truth but is not necessarily universal in application. I’m sorry if you found it insulting, but I’m not sure 119 paragraphs in reply was quite necessary.
Tell me, what can women do in parenting that men cannot?
Breastfeed. I lack the wherewithal …. 🙂 (That’s not entirely tongue-in-cheek, it does make a difference.)
A mother’s relationship with her children is not the same as a father’s. Believe me, I’ve seen it first hand often enough. There may be a huge overlap in responsibility, but no man ever had that new life growing inside him, as I well remember a mother of three telling me whilst I was still a batchelor.
That’s just an assertion.
And what you are discussing there is only based on PHYSICAL differences.
I brought up social and religious conditioning, which are based on gender stereotypes, not innate capabilities or interests.
Your post did not answer this:
The part about it taking X number paragraphs is just condescending and unnecessary.
Also… no, it doesn’t have a grain of truth. I have zero dogs and zero cats. Take your sexism and your sexist assumptions and insulting sexist stereotypes and cram it.
~ Goal Shifting and Re-Defining the Argument Alert ~
I would like to emphasize (regarding my post right above this one) just how quickly KAS starts redefining an argument and goal-shifting.
My post prior to the last made it clear I was not aiming at physical biological differences in a discussion about parenting.
A baby does not have to receive breast-feeding from an adult to feel loved, nurtured, or protected by said adult.
Men can be just as loving and maternal as women are, but culture and complementarians often tells them that no, they cannot and should not be, that it’s a “woman’s duty,” and to leave it to women, who are supposedly “better at it” mothering and providing nurturing, though women like me don’t feel particularly maternal towards human babies, and I sure as hell wouldn’t breast-feed one if I did have one.
(We don’t all fit the gender stereotypes.)
Daisy – I’m not going to get into discussions about bringing up children, it’s veering off topic, and starting to get unnecessarily personal.
When making general comments, I do not have you in mind, you are not in the centre, it’s not about you. I don’t care how many dogs or cats you do or do not have! None of my business.
I’m also happy not to discuss complementarianism as well, my life does not revolve around it. Never has, never will.
I understand your points perfectly, no need to redefine them. And yes, women have babies (I love being a MOTHER!!!!!) and men do not, by the LORD’s design. A perfect design by Him, not by mankind. And yes, I do believe mothers and fathers have different relationships with their children due to their genders for that very concept is lived out in our own home due to the personality our LORD breathed into each individual. This is based on my own life experiences and I cannot speak for other family relationships; I respect the fact that we are all created individually, not communally, herd-mentality-wise, tribally, or group-think-wise……but as individuals; uniquely and wonderfully made by our LORD. Is this really the point of Lori’s posts?
With that said, I believe the points made by Lori’s posts are crippling to the Body of Jesus Christ. She is in fact, “whoring” the Word of God to justify her belief that she is a part of “god’s police force” in telling other women how to live their lives. I came out of religious institutions called c’hurches, that do the very same thing. And if some of us women, didn’t swallow the worms at the end of their wicked fishing poles, then we were labeled and marked with all kinds of shaming names…………horrid names.
KAS, those of us who do not confirm to the conservative, evangelical, religious, visible church paradigm any longer, are called some of the most vile and wicked names I have ever heard…..and this coming out of mouths who claim to know jesus far better than the rest of us plain sheep. For example, when a male c’hurch leader doesn’t get his way with us women…..we are called “jezebels and feminists.” When we don’t laugh at some of these c’hurch men’s jokes about mocking, making fun of women, and especially mocking women’s body parts, we are labeled as “angry and bitter women.” When we don’t bow down and brag and boast up the p’astor man’s sermons and wait on his family hand and foot with money gifts, meals to their homes, and all the extra perks the lower laity will never receive, we are labeled as “unbelievers” because we are not giving to the high priest of the c’hurch……and yet many a woman secretly makes and takes meals to the sick in their homes, give money to assist with other’s medical bills, and give words/cards/phone calls of encouragement to those who are in need…….without boasting and bragging of their deeds….they just live the life of a Christ follower with no badges of honor to show the c’hurch world how great they are. Did Jesus ever stick around to receive praise and adoration when He healed and tended to the least of these…..no, He quietly disappeared, giving Praise, Honor, and Glory to the Father.
So when the word “feminism” is used by others within conversation and debate, I simply shake my head and laugh, thinking, now what context is that individual using the word, and for what purpose. The same goes with the word “jezebel.” I have experienced many a c’hurch goer, mostly those from the indoctrinated complementarian crowd (both genders included here), when losing a debate regarding the “roles” of men and women, call me “a feminist” with a reviling mouth when losing their case, in order to shut me down. So please forgive me if I focus on the word “feminist,” because frankly, not one person has given me an acceptable answer to me question: “What is a clear and concise definition to the word “feminist.”
Many definitions posed, but none are adequate…..no one clear definition…..just silly putty as far as the east is from the west.
I did not grow up in a complementarian home, nor did I attend a gender bender c’hurch…….had a wonderful childhood with great, loving parents on a small, rural, prairie farm, where I worked, played with my siblings (my poor brother had to play Barbie dolls with me and I in turn, played “farming and construction” with him in the sand box…….we were both, also excellent ball players, practicing our baseball/softball skills in our spare time. Our small c’hurch congregation was made up of primarily farmers…..families, bachelors and bachelorettes, and a host of children. I loved growing and learning about Jesus in my healthy home environment and at our small c’hurch assembly.
“Complementarianism” and “gender roles” were NEVER, EVER preached, taught, or brought up in conversation in our home, or the “c’hurch.” It was non-existant, PRAISE JESUS!
Fast forward to our present day religious system and how it has digressed into a cess-pool of manipulation, indoctrination, using and twisting Scriptures to the control the masses into a belief system that seeks to elevation a certain religious population above and beyond the rest of us. I believe Jesus condemns this in the book of Revelation, using the term “Nicolaitan” to serve his teachings. As far as I am concerned, the visible c’hurch, Lori included here, has done a bang up job in destroying folks who simply want to love Jesus, love their neighbor (as others have mentioned above), and serve their Master/Teacher/Good Shepherd with a pure heart and a clear conscience. I have heard the saying from some very wise “men and women” who have exhibited religious discernment, this quote, “As goes the c’hurch, so goes the culture.” I believe this statement to be true as I have experienced the c’hurch to be more “worldly” than your average Joe and Jane, due to its misinterpretations of the Holy Scriptures and of course, the lack of cultural understanding with regards to Jesus’ time period.
At the end of the day, has Lori Alexander, and others like her, truly encouraged Jesus’ sheep in their faith in Christ alone for salvation…..in applying this to their every day lives? Or, is she a messenger from another spirit which seeks to cripple, kill, and destroy souls who are honestly living, working, and trying to live their lives for Christ? The Greatest Servant (Jesus), served.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You certainly have made some insightful, valid points, and I have learned some valuable life lessons from you sharing your life with us here.
I am married to a confirmed “complementarian,” which was secretly/carefully/knowingly hidden from me until I signed the marriage certificate. I have lived, and know well, the shames and games of a complementarian “m’an.”
The mind games comp men doth play……oy vey.
I think it may, Daisy, that it has something to do with men being able to decide at 50 or 60 that they actually do want kids, which is not an option many women have (although there are consequences to men having children later in life as well, and their fertility can decline). That said, men get the ‘life long bachelor’ stuff.
Hi Katy! We have different relationships with our mothers and fathers because they are different people, though. I think if I had four parents, I would have different relationships with each of them. I see this in families with step parents, and it isn’t all gendered. Gender affects us, but this also breaks down into nature/nurture to a degree which is debatable. My mother is different from my father in ways that have nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her lived experiences.
(As for Kas’s example of breastfeeding, that is a physical difference but men can feed their children in a way that allows for a similar closeness using a bottle of formula or breast milk. And babies only drink milk for a very short period of time for parenting purposes. The rest of your life matters much more)
Ah, but I think the issue is when you are making ‘general’ comments about a group of people who are both different from you (in that you are male, married, etc) that are insulting in some way, and you have people you are talking to who are nothing like your stereotypical insult, you are going to get pushback. Because it’s rude, if for no other reason, but also because it’s wrong. So maybe take the note, rather than being mad that Daisy took it personally. Maybe it is personal sometimes.
If you were talking about yourself, it might be self-deprecating but you weren’t and it wasn’t.
Granted, KAS. But you need to realize that, when you take your gratuitous potshots at groups that you apparently disdain, you run the risk of stepping on the toes of people who share some traits with them. If you keep flinging barbs around, don’t be surprised when other guests here object loudly to getting hit.
Um, then why did you speak so contemptuously of people who are single and have numerous pets? You’re the one who linked these characteristics/circumstances with feminism. If such things are none of your business or concern, why mention them at all?
Seriously, KAS, you’re your own worst enemy on this blog.
I had to scroll past that fast; just looking at her choice of font was making my testicles shrivel up and fall off.
What is it about Christian Women posts and Estrogen Overload? It reminds me of Gould’s essay on Victorian Women who were only allowed to write on Proper Feminine Subjects in Proper Feminine Style and Proper Feminine Language.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank-you for the great belly laugh this morning…..oh, how that one ministered to me soul! Laughter is joyful medicine!
HUG – LOL! Her font choice is hard on the eyes.
HUG – I have no idea what you are talking about. But you just made me laugh thinking about the conversation at our Thanksgiving table that involved that part of the male anatomy. I have no idea how that subject came up – oh yea – I’m outnumbered by boys (5 boys) and conversations tend to get “interesting.” lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
@HUG: What essay is this? Now you’ve got me curious.
It’s a background aside in one of Stephen Jay Gould’s essay collections; I don’t remember which one. (I do have a near-complete collection of them thanks to local used bookstores, but I’d have to dig for the reference.)
Lea – So maybe take the note, rather than being mad that Daisy took it personally.
i) I’m not mad a Daisy. But I’m not going to get into engaging with another 3580 words of response to one sentence.
ii) My comment was perceived to be insulting to feminists. Daisy has gone on record countless times that she is not a feminist. Therefore, the comment (whether good or bad) was not aimed at or relevant to Daisy; so why take it personally?
Serving Kids – time to put feminists and pets to bed. But I don’t do gratuitous pot-shots nor is this intended as contempt.
To the extent it might actually be true, it is a sad reflection on modern society. The loneliness, the desire for comfort in marriage, for companionship that proves unattainable for some who so desperately want it. I really don’t think pets are much of a substitute.
Not long ago I was struck whilst on holiday by the number of couples I saw who would normally have had children with them walking dogs. Again a sad reflection on part of modern society. Opt out of the responsibility and obligations of having children. Not true of everybody by any means, some can’t have children, but currently Europe has outsourced the production of children to those whose values and religion might one day possibly destroy the liberties fought for over so many past generations.
There’s plenty of sex to be had, but please no commitment like marriage, and under no circumstances be lumbered with the delights and otherwise of having children. Unless it gets you free housing.
There are people here who disagree with me (as is their right!) and in turn people with whom I disagree, but I wouldn’t regard any of them as enemies.
It’s been a while so I wouldn’t know where to begin digging up the exact quote but…perceived to be insulting? Pretty sure that was its intent. That’s what you’re not admitting.
I have not read every post on here since I was last on, just basically saw this one…
Julie Anne stepped in on that old thread to tell KAS to knock off the sexist stereotyped insults.
You can find KAS’ comments about single women here:
From the Thread “Threat to the Gospel,”, post from Sept 2018
Snippets from that post by KAS, where he was replying to SKIJ–
” stereotypical modern feminist – unmarried and replete with pets instead of children.”
Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7) it is better to remain single and childless, rather than to be married, because the Married Person who is a Parent expends their energy, time and effort on trying to make their Nuclear Family happy, while single adults live to please the Lord.
But do go on, KAS, trying to make it sound as though being single and childless is “bad” or it’s “ungodly” or that God views being single and/or childless as being sinful, seflish, or second-best to marriage and parenthood.
(continued in part 2)
Re KAS post(s) speaking in a negative fashion about single people who live with pets..
A study came out a few years ago – secular study – revealing that married people are more selfish than are their single peers, because single adults seek companionship from their communities (from neighbors, church members, etc) where-as married people spend all their days dreamily looking into each other’s eyes… married people do not seek much, if any, friendship, with those outside their marriage (and/or nuclear family).
You can look up that study by googling for this phrase: “Greedy Marriages.”
That is what that study was dubbed, “greedy marriages,” because married couples tend to ignore all socialization – the study found that many married couples prioritize their spouse above everyone else. and to the expense of, and detriment to, other people.
Married people, the study says, get all to most their companionship and/or emotional needs met through their spouse, so they don’t tend to bother calling up or assisting neighbors, their parents, grandparents, or siblings, etc., as single adults tend to do.
The New York Times has one article about it.
See also (this article on Psychology Today site):
_Soulmate Marriages Are “Greedy,” New Research Shows_
_ ~ _ ~ _ ~ _ ~
By the way, KAS, you are sometimes guilty of either writing very long posts yourself, and/or you write many, many short ones on each thread.
So again, do go on about how I write long posts when you do the same thing yourself.
Additional thought, Re: KAS’ put down of singles and linking all feminists and singles to cat or dog hoarders…
I mean, really, it is the Bible that says being single and childless is preferable to being married with children.
It’s not SECULAR FEMINISTS who are saying that about singleness and being childless, it’s the Bible that says that.
(See 1 Cor 7.)
Lea – It’s been a while so I wouldn’t know where to begin digging up the exact quote but…perceived to be insulting? Pretty sure that was its intent
Bit of a dangerous area second-guessing motives. The comment was critical yes, but not intended to be insulting.
Daisy has given the thread where this phrase occurred. I took a look at it. The comment was directed at the author of a tweet featured there who ‘appeared to be a feminist who had pets’. The reason I said appeared is because she may want children but can’t have them, something obviously anyone would want to be sensitive towards. iirc Jory Micah might be another example.
By pure fluke she tweeted four hours ago a picture of her dog and her cat with the heading “Babies”. Followed by a picture of her dog and “Grandparents coming today”. The defence rests.
From the OP: “Wouldn’t…single mothers who work away from the home understand that it would be far superior for them to be home full time caring for their children and homes, if they had a hard working husband who provided for them? ”
I find Lori’s thoughts to be insipid.
I am a single mother and there is a very good reason why I am single. I once had a hard working husband who provided for us. He is abusive. I left. I have no intention to marry again. Ever.
How does Lori imagine I will be able to provide or care for my child if I “obediently” stay home full time to care for my son? She lives in a fantasy world made of over-simplified paradigms and I have no time for her. Even if I lived off government aide and charity care in order “to be home full time caring for” my child and home – that could hardly be considered “far superior.” Trust me. I’ve been there and pulled myself out, upward and onward.
I strongly doubt that any full-time employed single mother will tell you that her life is “superior.” We do what we have to do to survive. To scrape by. To overcome. To thrive. To mother with intention, dignity and respect. To raise children with morals and values superior to that which we left behind. We are exhausted. We celebrate the small wins and grieve the many losses along the way…like any other mother – at home or not.
I do not glorify what I do and how I manage to do it. I glorify Christ – who gives me strength!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve overcome some great obstacles. Obviously, your work ethic, love for your child, and belief in yourself as a valuable and proud individual has carried you forward. I think an invisible, unproveable entity deserves none of the credit. Just YOU. You are the one putting one foot in front of the other and carrying on – what an example to your son. Give yourself a pat on the back. You certainly have my respect and admiration – YOU have earned it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My mom had to work even witb a yr of financial help by the church after my dad suffered a traumatic brain injury at work. I can only imagine how disheartening such an article would have been. She had worked very hard as a loving wife making a home raising 5 children on a ranch. Life gets messy…
KAS: Why do you visit this site? You condescendingly antagonize women who love the Lord. May I suggest Patricia Evan’s book “The Verbally Abusive Relationship?” Your attitude and tactics are described well in there.KAS, most people who are described in that book refuse to read it or will not acknowledge their behavior described in there. For others the book may help you in other relationships whether in marriage, at work, or other places you may not recognize behavior as verbally abusive. It can help all of us to see if any perspectives or phrases have poisoned our responses to people.
Daisy, I am the truly odd divorced after 3 decades mom and grammy who fits no biblical stereotype well-except wanting to love the Lord and others well.
KAS, you can thank my abusive ex and the pastor and elders who shunned and shamed me for leaving for my “atypical” status. Life often doesn’t fit the mold we wish it did-married or unmarried. The question is how we respond when it doesn’t.
Whether you intended for such comments to be insulting or not, it was insulting.
Surely you must realize that tossing out stereotypes – especially sexist gender stereotypes on a blog where many women like me are very sensitive to sexist tropes will not be taken lightly.
Who, Jory Micah? Micah is married, not single.
And so what if childless or childfree individuals think of their pets like some people might think of their human children?
Sometimes people who are single, never married, elderly and widowed, might get a pet dog or cat to keep them company so they don’t feel lonely. Why would you make fun of people for that?
My parents were married to each other and had three children AND they had a pet dog, pet cat, and a pet bird. Yes, KAS, a lot of married people with human children ALSO have pet dogs and cats.
I have a married friend with a human son who also owns two horses.
Having pets is common, for married and single people, but you’re using the stereotype about single women and/or feminists being weird “cat ladies” or “dog ladies” who own 50 or more animals.
I think you did mean to be insulting, why else trade on that stereotype when once more taking pot shots at feminists or single adults?
Your own Bible reveres singleness and being childless (see 1 Cor 7), it’s not feminists who uphold being single and childless, it’s the Bible that does so. Why are you against the Bible, KAS?
And Post Script to KAS.
Re: KAS said
-Was that in reference to me?
I never really cared too much if I had human children or not, so you have that wrong if that is about me.
I do like animals, but I currently do not have any pet animals.
(But there would be nothing wrong with me if I did.)
I have a married aunt – she lives with my uncle – who has a lot of pet cats.
The uncle in question has two sons from a previous marriage. He married this current lady, but they did not have kids, why they don’t have kids together I do not know,
perhaps because they decided they didn’t want kids, or because they married later in life and she likely already went through menopause by the time they married or shortly after – it beats me,
….but then, I don’t pry into their lives and make judgments and assume the reason she doesn’t have kids is because she is an anti-child, pro-feminist, man-hating shrew, like you do.
This aunt of mine takes in many stray cats and lets them live in a shed in her backyard, and she feeds them all twice a day, every day.
So far as I am aware, this aunt of mine does not identify as a feminist. But she is married to my uncle and is step mother to his sons from a previous marriage.
People do not fit your little boxes and stereotypes neatly, KAS.
Thank you, yes!
On one or two threads in the past, I asked KAS repeatedly why he posts here, because apparently, he only posts to act inflammatory. He is not here to offer empathy to others who have been hurt by churches, pastors, or doctrines or by life generally – which is one big reason why this blog exists.
He prefers to scold, judge, offer cold, hard logical advice and to shame people for not processing their pain in a manner he believes to be “godly” or “biblical” or “proper.”
It’s so insensitive and condescending.
I read that book, by the way, “The Verbally Abusive Relationship” by Evans – it’s a good book.
I think KAS enjoys gas-lighting most of all, but I can’t recall if the Evans book discusses gas-lighting or not.
That’s where the person will use the techniques Evans describes in her book but if and when you confront them on it, the person will try to convince you that you have it all wrong, or that YOU’RE the one abusing them (the abuser), or that what you’re experiencing from them is not abuse or rudeness (but it really is).
What KAS does on this blog is worse in some ways than what he sometimes scolds others on this blog for: he scolds people on this blog for being very transparent and open in expressing their anger.
Meanwhile, KAS subtly abuses people on this blog who have already been verbally or spiritually abused by a church, pastor, family member, etc. He just uses genteel language to pick on people.
I hope you’re in a happier place now.
Guys like KAS really do think everyone fits their stereotypes, but we do not. It messes up their preferred theology.
I do wonder why KAS continues posting here. I don’t think he’s ever been abused by a church, doctrine, or another Christian – or has claimed to be, that I remember.
But he sure likes lecturing other abuse victims, or the wounded, on how he thinks they “should” be acting.
People with actual grandkids still refer to their kids dogs as ‘granddogs’. It’s just a thing people do, because pets are awesome, not a sign that they all hate kids or whatever KAS thinks it means. So ridiculous!
It’s such a common and old trope, you might as well be accusing them of witchcraft (hello familiars)…
“Many of them also assume if one is a woman, over 40, not married, and childless, that we must hate all men, hate marriage, hate children, and we must all be liberal feminists.
Oh, and there’s also usually an assumption single women over 30 deliberately stayed single – the idea that women are “single by circumstance” never crosses their cavemen-like thinking.”
This is the sad truth that many men (and women as well, especially those who have been married multiple times and usually find partners easily) do not seem to get their heads to understand.
Most single women I know of, are not single because of their own choice or preference. But is is assumed that those women are picky, immature, unable to settle down, or lack social skills.
If she is outwardly succesful at what she’s currently doing, she must be an arrogant feminist who has no place for a man in her life… But if she is in fact not doing well outwardly, but suffering because of forced singlehood and the emotional toll it has talen on her, she is seemed as a total loser, who should learn to be ‘content’.
If the woman dares to express any desire to find a husband, or heaven forbid approach any man she finds attractive, she is often vilified and ridiculed as being ‘the desperate spisnter huntin a man’. (But if she is a divorced woman with kids, people are more comapssionate and understand that she longs for a man..)
So either way she cannot ‘win’.
I have come to realize that the only way for a single Christian woman in her forties to find a husband (a real godly one, not just any user / abuser), is by God’s divine interventions. Happily, I know a few such stories, where the Lord brought people together in a clear, visible way.
(But even then – He does not force anyone – the man is still free to refuse, which I have seen way too many times.. even up to the day before the wedding ..)
@Daisy. Thanks for your well wishes. My divorce will have been final for 2 yrs Dec. 12th. I am so relieved and grateful to be released from the man I committed to for life. I am so much happier and at peace single than I ever was married. I know that is not Plan A or how marriage is intended to be but it is true for me. That is a statement about life with my church elder/civic leader husband. It cost me my reputation (since I am deemed a crazy liar), rifts with my adult children who could not believe that their dad and pastor would actually lie to them, shunning by my home church, ruined relationships from the smear campaign such that I needed to move away from my small hometown, extreme emotional stress, etc. The divorce was STILL worth it at that cost.
The ex is still the mayor and thrilled with wife 2.0. He was never even questioned about raping me, abusing the kids and me physically, etc but I got the letter of censure from the elders with their input coming from the ex and the pastor. Ex is recorded admitting to above and more. Pastor recorded slandering and defaming me. It literally doesn’t change people’s responses. I am still the problem. It DID matter to my adult children who recently asked for all the documentation and reviewed the whole marriage and church debacle. Their tenderness and support for me is precious. But it has been 3 yrs in the making as the ex and elder sought to alienate them from me.
KAS, all that to say that I am well schooled in men like you who appear to be kind, “godly” men who cause emotional havoc while not hating what is evil and clinging to what is good. If you did, you would leave alone those seeking to recover and learn from toxic systems. Seriously, if you are a genuine brother show it by leaving permanently. Your words are whipping cream covered fish hooks often. What is the point?
To provoke a response and then blame the responder for having it is such an old trick…
Deborah – KAS: Why do you visit this site? You condescendingly antagonize women who love the Lord.
Are you getting this view of me from what I have actually said, or from what Daisy has claimed?
Reasons for posting include personal experience of the consequences of what abuse in a church can do in my own family. (I’m not going into details here, if you want to know more ask Serving Kids in Japan.)
Another reason is to see if, in the light of the above, sites pushing back against abuse are being effective in what they do, that they have credibility. Now I am not American, and live on the other side of the Pond, so you might think I have no business commenting on an American site. Trouble is American ‘Christianity’ or churchianty spreads so much of its doctrinal garbage around the world, where it can enable abuse and exploitation in other countries. So it matters that it is countered at source, and effectively so.
Regarding Daisy, and I will try and keep this brief, most of what she claims is the product of her imagination. She sees what isn’t there. (I would be less than honest if I said I haven’t got tired of this.) On her own confession she doesn’t read what I write.
For example, if those exposing abuse in churches wish to be credible, I have often argued they need to keep their language in keeping with apostolic instructions, and avoid mouthing off or swearing. To be righteous in speech when exposing the unrighteousness of abusive ministers. This is where Daisy gets her ‘scolding’ from (He prefers to scold, judge, offer cold, hard logical advice and to shame people for not processing their pain in a manner he believes to be “godly” or “biblical” or “proper.”. The usual phrase is I want to ‘tone police’.
You must judge this for yourself as to whom you think is right on this. I’m sure I have been tactless or put my foot in it at times, but never intentionally. I’m not into personal insults.
If you want to know what I think of being single, I see nothing wrong with it, singles are not second class in the kingdom of God. Marriage is the norm, but not everybody does or can get married, and I have a lot of sympathy for those who cannot find a spouse who want to. In my church experience marriage and family has never been made an idol. Something different in the States?
There is nothing wrong with having pets either. What I did comment on above was substituting pets for having children, which seems to me to be a common trait these days. You are free to disagree! This was not ‘aimed at Daisy’, but occasioned by tweet by a woman elsewhere who really does think of her pets as children. My judgment on that turned out to be right.
For what it’s worth, I do actually know what it is like to be on the receiving end of the misuse of church authority and have watched with dismay the effect it has on others. Where right or wrong they have the say and you don’t, there is nowhere to appeal to get a fair hearing. Looking back, God used it to work good over the long haul, and also brought an end to the alienation these church hassles bring, which is something I am very grateful for. Doesn’t mean it didn’t hurt at the time, but it was a long time ago now, and now sorted. And it was nothing compared to what many Christians are going through in the world today.
I hope, over the long haul, God will also bring you back out again from what you have been put through in your own church. You’ve had it worse than I did.
She can tell from reading your posts. I don’t have to say anything. Your poor attitude and treatment of others gives you away.
Please do go into detail. If you were truly hurt by a church, you should be more empathetic towards others on this blog, then to continue engaging in your shaming and judging of how they express their anger or pain.
Nope. And you are lying.
I never said I don’t read any of what you wrote.
Anyone can go through the archived /older posts on this blog and see where I have even quoted you back in my posts to you (as I have done in this post).
So obviously, I’ve read a lot of your posts, KAS. But on some days, I choose to either lightly skim some of them, or I scroll past all of them, once I saw that you are dishonest and you post here only to stir up trouble and to judge other people.
Your posts are not productive.
That I skim some of your posts does not mean I’ve never read any of them, because obviously I have.
Nope, I don’t imagine what I’m seeing in your posts. I’m going by what you have typed. I’m not a lunatic who just makes things up out of thin air.
Nope. You were making the “pets” comment as a dig at feminist and/or single women. It’s a well worn sexist stereotype of feminists and/or single women that they all live with 50 cats or dogs.
“My judgment on that turned out to be right”
Right about what? That one woman somewhere who is a feminist and/or a single owns a bunch of pets and may think of those pets as her children?
If so, if you feel there is nothing wrong with a woman having a bunch of pets and thinking of them as her children, why bring it up at all? Unless of course the intent was to belittle feminists and/or single women.
It’s not your place to dictate to Christian or Non-Christian people who are reeling from abuse when/how/if they may use cuss language and so on. You have appointed yourself God and Tone Police of this blog.
When you pull that Tone Policing garbage, you are only pushing away people who are already angry or hurting.
You do engage in scolding, judging, etc. You’re sanctimonious and arrogant.
I remember a conversation here regarding the “complementarian fact” that “women are more emotional then men” theological drivel. During the conversation, I firmly disagreed, for my life experiences in “agricultural land” speak volumes to the angry farmer men that surround me. I shared one fact in which I have had several “men(?),” grace my doorstep and literally yell at me with such fierce anger regarding water issues. There was no rhyme or reason for their sinfully angry outpouring upon me, the farm wife (who incidentally, is working her butt off in the fields as well, for decades)…….then, I am commanded by these angry men (who are incidentally, voted into “leadership positions” in our local c’hurches……just WOW!”)…..to go and tell my husband what they have said, so something gets done about the water sitting on their land. Fact…..the water is also sitting on our land, due to the fact that our tiling systems can only drain so much water a day, due to the lay of the land……..God’s design of our earth….. not mankind’s. There is no such thing as “righteous anger” displayed by these lord it over males in my neck of the woods, only abusive anger towards this farm wife, and thankfully, she has the Holy Spirit living inside of her, so as to discern the difference between “righteous anger and sinful anger from the pit of hell.” I am still married to my abusive comp husband, so I know the sinful ways of the complementarian viewpoint of a jesus that is not grounded in our Holy Scriptures.
I vividly remember a response posted by personality here, regarding the religious “righteous anger” theme as a response to my belief that “men (esp. comp men)” are more emotional than women, as I can only assume, to “put me in my place.” I was already “corrected” by this alpha comp male a few other times with regards to spiritual abuse from my former Baptist c’hurch, so I knew from the condescending words, the self righteous mentality, and the complementarian mind games played, that this man does not regard women as equals in the Kingdom of God.
The circular mind games played by this self professing alpha male here in Spiritual Sounding Board, indicates that of a reviler, which can be found in more personalities that we realize, especially in visible c’hristianity-land. To throw self righteous memes and Scriptures out to folks who experience abuse, whether physical, emotional/mental, or verbal abuse, is actually another form of abuse by proxy (meaning c’hurch folks/religious folks have the right to abuse targets/victims all over again because of their self entitled, superior mentality…..oh vey!)……does absolutely nothing to aid in the healing, well being, and spiritual growth to those of us who experience abuse on a daily basis.
In defense of all of those whom you have injured here on Spiritual Sounding Board, KAS, my prayer for you is that Jesus gives you a new heart, His Heart, for those who are suffering, struggling, and enduring abuse, by the Grace of our Lord. Most of the words posted here by complementarian folks, have actually aided and embedded in the destruction of souls who clearly love our Lord, here, in desiring to serve Him and others as commanded through Scriptures.
And for me personally, I have wisely chosen not to engage in your circular complementarian arguments, for I experience those games on a daily basis within my home/marriage, and it is a “no win” situation; because at the end of the day, the abusive man desires to “win” at all costs, even to the destruction of another believer’s soul. Living in the land “that’s not good enough,” regardless of what part of the world you live in KAS, is not God’s Kingdom to come, but that of the enemy.
You have hurt many here KAS, including meself. May God show you His Way.
Katy, this is a great way to phrase it. I agree with you, sometimes the best way to win these games is not to play. The only reason I really make comments is for other people listening, so they know not everyone agrees/they are not alone. We see it too.
Throughout the years, I have had the privilege of listening to life experiences of wives who are married to comp men (many of whom are in c’hurch leadership no less, the wolves in sheep’s clothing), who pour out their hearts through gut wretching tears. There have also been women who have called my home with abusive mother in laws, who attend their c’hurches regularly (and again, are voted into c’hurch leadership), at their wits end in trying to please, live up to the expectations, and kiss the butts of their mother in laws in trying to “earn” their love, friendship, and respect, but to no avail.
In ministering to such women, we are called to be the salt and light of Jesus Christ, living within us. We are called to love the “least of these” and meet these abused women where they are…..living in the pit of hell at those particular times in their lives. All of the Scriptures, vain philosophies of man (and these are legion), and self proclaimed righteousness does nothing to heal these women through their pain/tears/suffering during those abusive moments.
But, listening, accepting their accounts as the truth, and being there to minister unconditional love in their time of need, does wonders for their souls. Simply saying, “I believe you and I am here for you anytime you need me” give hope to those who no one else who will believe their life experiences.
This is being “Jesus” to those who are suffering…..I know, because I am Blessed to have unc]hurced believers in Jesus Christ, who have done that same to me. Yes, there are actually believers in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, who are the living Body of Christ, that do not attend buildings made of brick and mortar, do not do the “lord it over, religious hierarchy Nicolaitan thing,” that minister more to the souls and physical needs of suffering folks in this world, which is difficult to those who worship membership in c’hurches.
I once had a deaconess in my former Baptist church (she incidentally called me a “baby Christian” because I do not believe getting drunk in a holy spirit is of our Lord), throw Scriptures at me when I was being physically and verbally/emotionally abused by my husband, considering divorce at that time. Her response to me was, “well, you know, God hates divorce!” No love, no compassion/empathy, and no hearing me out……just cold hearted scripture words designed to destroy/kill me further. A few years later, she called me in tears after her farmer husband brutally verbally abused her over a “minor farming infraction”……..she forgot she wasn’t supposed to dig up the hills with her tractor/field cultivator as a conservation measure. Her husband (church board president at that time), yelled and yelled, and yelled some more at her, then headed to the field to “re-till” those hills, driving circles around them to prevent erosion.
This deaconess, who “spoke down to me and corrected me” when I was suffering/the least of these as Jesus calls us, picked up the phone and called me because I have shared a few of the abusive measures of my comp husband with her on occasions and how I rely on the truths of Jesus Christ in me life to get through this life here on earth. It would have been so easy to through Scriptures back in her face with a callous, “let’s get even” heart, but if we have the Holy Spirit actually living in our hearts; why in the world would I want to be like devil to her, instead of exhibiting the fruits of His Spirit?
I listened to her account and I believed her. And still to this day, prayers are said for her as the Spirit leads me to do so. Her abusive comp husband is one of my husband’s best friends, and he has used his wicked mouth on a couple of occasions to try and destroy me as well within his Baptist church system. This is proof how I know for certain, that if Jesus were walking this earth today, He would most definitely not “be a Baptist!” In fact, I actually believe that He wouldn’t join any denomination here on this planet.
I’ve put off responding to you for a while now, partly because work and life have made it difficult, also because I wasn’t sure whether you were still checking in on this thread. Others here have done very ably without me, but I feel I still have something to say, now that I know you’re listening.
Likely because your initial comment was insulting not only to feminists, but also to singles and to people with many pets. I can say this because I’m single, and I found it heartless and completely unnecessary.
KAS, you not only do pot-shots, you did in the very same comment to me from which I cited the above. And this time, you took aim not only at singles with pets, but also at childless couples and at immigrants of other religions.
You’ve criticized Daisy for not reading every word you’ve written; sometimes I wonder whether you bother to read what you’ve written.
A) How do you know that all these couples had no children and only pets? B) Even if they did, why is that so “sad”? If it’s none of your business whether Daisy is single, or has kids or pets, why do you sit in judgement on the life choices of random passers-by? Why is their childless status your business?
Good grief, what’ll you be saying next? I imagine something like this: “Outbreed the heathen, you lazy Christians!! It’s your civic duty!!!!!”
Seriously, this sounds like nothing but fearmongering to me. Should the Japanese people be afraid of the prospect of white Christians like me having kids here, seeing as my values are different from theirs?
Oh, so that’s what you meant when you said, “the defence rests” earlier. I really had no idea at the time what point you thought you’d proven.
Incidentally, you haven’t demonstrated that this tweeter (whoever she is) actually is using her pets as a “substitute” for children. You’re making an educated guess at best, and about something which isn’t even your concern in any way. Furthermore, in your initial comment which started this whole mess, you insinuated that the fact this woman has dogs instead of kids makes her opinions on John MacArthur etc. unimportant or foolish. If you didn’t mean to insinuate that, why mention her life choices at all in that context?
I can see why you face such pushback on these threads, KAS. You keep tossing barbs at people who’ve made decisions in life with which you disagree, and speaking as though those choices somehow put them in opposition to “the will of God”.
In short, I see a fair bit of Lori Alexander’s attitude in you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
SKIJ, this is the eternal question.
There is a lady who came by my “Daisy” blog a few days ago.
She says she’s having anxiety, is hurting, and confused, and that has to do with abandoning the gender complementarian teachings.
(She experiences anxiety now, for one reason of a few, if she walks into a church and that church is supporting comp.)
Because I’m just one person, and because I don’t always visit my own blog every day, I thought I’d direct her to post to more heavily-visited spiritual abuse blogs where she could be sure to have people read her posts and reply in a timely fashion.
I wanted to direct her to THIS blog, SSB, but I did not do so.
I gave her a link to T-W-W blog, and I told her most people at that site are empathetic, they don’t like gender comp, and they get way more visitors who are sure to respond to her.
One reason I did not advise her to come to this blog, is that while 99% of the people here are supportive, I know that KAS posts here on a regular, to semi-regular, basis.
I did not want to expose her to KAS.
I knew she’d either see his corrosive, judgmental, heartless posts to others about gender roles (and other topics), or, he might actually reply to her posts (if she were to leave one) with his usual cold, indifferent, shaming, lecturing commentary, which would only hurt her more.
So, nice job KAS, on driving people away from a potentially good resource when they’re going through a tough time in life.
I did not feel that this blog would be a safe place for that lady to post to, or for most hurting people / abuse survivors, to post to.
So long as KAS and guys like him regularly post on here, I think maybe only those of us who are stronger can deal with that, but not someone right in the thick of the pain, or freshly coming out of it, like that lady on my blog.
Jesus of Nazareth never married and never had any children, KAS.
I guess that means Jesus was a feminist, hated children, and must have owned 50 cats.
Re: SKIJ post to KAS time stamp of
DECEMBER 4, 2018 @ 10:11 PM
KAS definitely holds some negative attitudes towards singles and towards feminists.
He also seems to automatically conflate singleness with feminism, which is a mistake.
That is a mistake a lot of conservative Christian culture warriors make:
they wrongly assume that all to most women, if they are single and childless (especially past the age of 35), deliberately chose to be single and childless, and at that, due to feminism.
I for one am single, childless, and a woman, but I am not single due to feminism or due to choice, but because circumstance.
I just never happened to meet the right guy, so I never married.
I think I asked KAS above or some other recent thread to which he was posting why he assumes secular feminism encourages women to remain single and childless when in fact it is the Bible that tells Christians that it is better to remain single (and therefore celibate and childless.)
This comes from the Bible, not from feminist “Ms.” magazine:
Is 1 Cor. 7, as pasted in above, from the Bible, KAS, or did liberal feminists write that passage?
Did feminist Gloria Steinem write 1 Corinthians 7, where is says it’s better to remain single and childless?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You nailed it Daisy! God bless you.
I still have not received a valid definition of what a “feminist” is exactly due to the fact that the mockers love this word so, but it is what it is.
Katy, here’s what Meghan Murphy says: “Feminism means something. It is not whatever anyone says it is. It is a political movement aimed at liberating women from male supremacy.”
I agree with her. KAS uses it as a insult, which is what insecure males (and some confused women) do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Serving Kids – thanks for you post above which I have read carefully. Time is short at the moment, but I would like to reply though it might have to be in bite-sized pieces and not in any particular order.
You’ve criticized Daisy for not reading every word you’ve written;
No, I have criticised Daisy for not reading my posts and then proceeding to comment on them. She then starts putting words in my mouth or ignoring or doesn’t see qualifications or explanations. Would that she didn’t read anything!
Daisy KAS definitely holds some negative attitudes towards singles and towards feminists.
KAS had already said: If you want to know what I think of being single, I see nothing wrong with it, singles are not second class in the kingdom of God.
Surely this statement negates the first. I have done this But KAS said numerous times here, sometimes just to see if it would ever ‘take’ and people would stop imputing views to me I don’t hold. Never seems to work!
You know that wouldn’t matter, and doesn’t matter (I don’t personally care as it were) except on a site attempting to counter wrong-doing and abuse in churches the discernment level is negated in the eyes of members of said churches if commenters cannot accurately reproduce the views of someone they disagree with.
I was going to dig out a couple more quotations, but don’t think it worth the time, so in summary despite saying I don’t look down on singles, and despite saying I’m not bothered about anyone having pets, and despite saying this to Daisy in particular she continues to criticise me for this very thing. What can you do?
I think by any stretch of the imagination Daisy has made it clear she thinks a) I want to tone police and b) I have no right to do so and shouldn’t. However, she then proceeds to criticize me in several posts because she doesn’t like the tone of my posts !!!!!!! Don’t you find that ironic? And she might actually have a point sometimes, I’m aware of that, but this is not confined to me, is it?!
I really don’t want to discuss Daisy any more. I’m not going to let her control my time. I said to her I’m sorry if you found it insulting (‘it’ meaning the feminists and pets thing) which in my world ought to sort it, at least as far as intention goes.
You raise some other valid points that I think worth discussing, but they will have to wait. Sorry.
WOW! Thank-you for quoting Meghan Murphy’s definition. Now this is a clear, concise definition that women can identify with, particularly in my own situation which is clearly logical. And how offending this definition is to the authority/hierarchal structures that has been indoctrinated/ingrained into the minds of cultures throughout that ages, especially with regards to the visible Christian industrial complex.
It is no wonder that males around me become increasingly bitter, angry, insulting, reviling, some using brute physical force to control (unrighteousness)……as well as other abusive behaviors, to control the “woman,” all the while holding positions of “authority” in their churches and in their communities. Comp theology has been and still is a deadly plague within the c’hurch. Apostasy is alive and well!
I have learned long ago, here in the sticks, working in the agricultural field (literally and figuratively), that males can dish out a healthy dose of abuse in various forms to women, never the less, when women take a stand and hold their ground (Ephesians 6:10-18), they are negated/abused even further (which is norm here) because “the woman” chooses not to bow down to the golden calf of male supremacy. And a golden idol this is.
“Blessed is the man (or woman) who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked.” Psalm 1:1. Oh, how I love and respect this verse.
Thank-you again Carmen. Once again, you have added a “voice of reason” to the conversation. You are most certainly “good people folk!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, and in my “me” moment, I forgot to say………..
“You are the best! Thank-YOU for ministering to me this day.”
I have this gut feeling, you are a blessing to many as you teach. My hope is that you are loved back.
Merry Christmas to you, precious Carmen.
Katy, I think my husband (of 41 years), our children (4) and their spouses and grandchildren (8) would say I am loved back. . .well . . . most of the time! There are students of mine who might say that but then again, High School students can be fickle. 🙂
Best of the season to you and all readers of Julie Anne’s blog! It’s a brilliant day here and just above freezing.
High School Teacher…….you are a courageous, brave individual! Amazing woman, you are…….so wonderful to teach “teenagers”! God Bless you, Carmen.
And THANK-YOU for the season’s greetings……I feel loved by you too. Canada is a most beautiful place filled with so many good folks…..been to your country only 3 times……..would love to hike the trails of your national parks and live the beauty there as I have taking the back-roads through your farming communities. Your “lands” are gorgeous up there!
Forty-one years……love that, it’s truly a warming inspiration to me soul.
You are so cool, Carmen!
Eh, when someone says ‘i’m not racist’ and then says 18 racist things, I tend to make up my own mind. Same deal here. Saying ‘i don’t think ill of singles’ doesn’t negate all the other stuff you said.
Aww, best to you all too! I’m finally getting into the ‘spirit’ having put up my tree and watched a couple christmas movies 😉
KAS, “The usual phrase is I want to ‘tone police’.”
This blog serves multiple purposes. I think, though, that it is not primarily a place where we would expect churchgoers to find information about whether their pastor is abusive or not. It is more a place where victims, who have been ignored, silenced, and opposed by leaders within various cultural and theological systems can come to heal, grow, and even complain.
So, I believe that, quite simply, this blog does not serve the purpose you think it should, and thus you are always going to be unhappy about something or other that is going on here. You can either accept that and move on, in whatever sense that means, or you can persist in your attempt to tell fellow victims how they should act.
What I find discouraging is that in the cases I know, it’s always the victim that is expected to be more, controlled, shall we say, than the perpetrator. But, this is so out of step with the reality of what it means to be a victim that I think it’s shameful to even go there.
Picture this, someone walks into a room, and a man is whipping a boy. There is blood all over the floor. The boy is screaming obscenities and crying uncontrollably. You might think that someone would stop the child abuse, but instead, that someone calmly tells the boy that, if he really wanted to be effective in making the abuse stop, he should really consider his choice of words, and the tone of voice he’s using. In one sense, that’s the church. Whenever there is a victim, the church seems to lay on all sorts of requirements for the victim, before they will even consider bringing justice. Things like:
Victim’s can’t be angry.
There need to be multiple witnesses.
They must be “without sin” – meaning intense scrutiny of them, the situation, whatever… (e.g. “what were you wearing?”)
There can’t be any sort of plausible deniability – well… he’s your HUSBAND, after all.
And, it seems that the church (at least the ones I’m experienced with) wants to be done with the issue ASAP. So, the abuser “repents”, the church says it’s over with, and then the victim is still left with scars and bruises, but the church refuses to help, since they’ve already done their part.
So, I’ve said this before, but your tone policing just comes across as the same sort of re-victimization. You don’t want to get that kid out of the room and clean up the wounds, you just want to yell at him for being angry and “sinful”. Let me ask you this… did God save you in your sin, or did God save you by waiting until you cleaned up your act and then saving you? If the former, then why are you acting un-God-like by first forcing your code of conduct on people before you can sympathize with them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lea, so true, and often with KAS, the very word “racist” would be defined in such a way that only a man convicted of a hate crime against a minority in a court of law could ever be considered racist.
The whole idea that men should be the sole / main breadwinners may be common in many cultures, but it has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity.
If the husband does contribute financially, it is wonderful and he should be doing that for his family, whenever possible – but it is not the only need his family has.
Both partners should be giving what and how they can, emotional love and nourishment especially.
It seems that such a branch of churchianity where man is only good if he provides for his family financially is the majority in America. So what if he is not able.. does that shale his identity and cause him to doubt his salvation and value in the eyes of God?
It is so backward… only through God’s grace is anyone able to provide and be a blessing in any shape or form – as and how He shows it in each and every individual’s life.
I remember a neat testimony I read of a family in the U.K. The Dad had been without a job for a while, and he and his wife were desperately praying… and nothing opened up. While they were stuck in that situation, he was a stay at home Dad and she was the main provider, financially.
Later, he received an offer to a dream job, and they were elated and grateful, but also concerned how their children would be affected: they realized how good it had been that one parent stayed at home, looking after them when they got back from school etc… and he had been a wonderful, stable, loving SAHD.
His contribution as a parent and as an emotional supporter to his children was way more valuable than any money could have been.
Of course, had he been upset and angry, and abusive to his family because of the frustration.. that would have been a sorry scenario. But unemployment in itself was not the issue, it proved to be an opportunity. ..
According to many Americans, she of course was in sin for having a steady job…
NG, I keep bringing this up, but from what I’ve read, the concept of the stay-at-home-mom was invented during the industrial revolution as a way of justifying men leaving their homes to work in factories. Nancy Pearcey did a good amount of research on that for her book “Total Truth”. Prior to that, it was much more common for families to provide for themselves as a family unit – each person contributed as they were able – and that, of course, was baptized in prooftexts to justify it as God’s plan for the family. So much so, that it took the same sort of theological wrangling to convince the church that it was okay for the husband to walk away from the family because it was strong men needed to run the machines.
There have always been these sorts of stupid, shall I say, theological crises. For example, there has been theological back-and-forth among Sabbatarians who debated whether it was okay to provide public transportation of any sort on Sunday, despite the fact that there may be many passengers would could otherwise not attend church services. I think there was a similar debate over whether it was truly a “necessity” for the electric power generators to be run on Sunday.
Sir, do you realize that your opinions about singleness and singles is irrelevant to survivors? Many single survivors are single out of necessity, not out of a desire to be alone. It helps us stay alive and well.
For you to callously render your verdict on some of the most painful facts of our lives is not helpful. Your attitude is demeaning and rigid. Many of us have had our fill for a lifetime of such attitudes.
I ask again, what is the purpose of your comments on this site? Are you here to encourage and empathize especially from the perspective of a caring brother? If so, you are missing the mark. It feels a bit like me as a grammy being on a discussion board for young moms letting them know my opinions from the superior position of raising my children to adulthood. I am not the intended demographic. You probably realize that abusers are notorious for debates and exhausting symantics. Your very style can be triggering for some who spent years trying to communicate in an “acceptable” way with a “christian” abuser. That approach is not needed or helpful.
Your inability to accept feedback well or to stop antagonizing does not speak well of your maturity level. As a man aren’t there things only you in your maleness can accomplish and you can leave us women in peace?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps a more appropriate title for Lori Alexander’s blog should be “The DEAD Wife” as opposed to her version of apostate/abusive religion.
And another “perhaps” here since women are often “blamed” for the breakdown of the family; an easy scapegoat target used by c’hurch organizations.
“Perhaps the so called break-down of the family unit is due to the fact that pride/complementarianism/headship/over lordship is the bread and butter of the visible c’hurch, instead of mutual love and respect taught by our Master/Teacher…..
Wow, Katy! Very well said. Thank you.
Lea – Eh, when someone says ‘i’m not racist’ and then says 18 racist things, I tend to make up my own mind. Same deal here. Saying ‘i don’t think ill of singles’ doesn’t negate all the other stuff you said.
Since I don’t and never have had any negative views on singles, I don’t know what other stuff I have said could be interpreted as being negative. You are imagining this?
Mark – So, I’ve said this before, but your tone policing just comes across as the same sort of re-victimization
Let me let you into a secret, I have never tried to tone police. Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t.
Lea, so true, and often with KAS, the very word “racist” would be defined in such a way that only a man convicted of a hate crime against a minority in a court of law could ever be considered racist.
That comment betrays you have never remotely understood what I am getting at on due process.
Deborah – I ask again, what is the purpose of your comments on this site?
I have already given an honest answer to this.
Your very style can be triggering ….
I can understand that up to a point, but if you have experienced abuse and someone like me happens to use some of the same terminology, this does not mean I treat people the same way as an abuser would, that I have the same views or doctrinal interpretation. Take the horrible word ‘comp’. As a non-American, I have never seen a ‘comp’ marriage with any signs of abuse going on within it. Your experience may well be different, but you can’t impute that to me, you need to see what I mean by the term.
Your inability to accept feedback well or to stop antagonizing
I read very carefully what Serving Kids said, I am willing to listen. He has earned the right to comment in a way no-one else has. Katy as well.
I don’t intentionally antagonise either, but there have been some comments here that have been crassly insensitive to me; I hope I have succeeded in not answering in kind. Believe me I have been tempted. But I am only human and make mistakes!