We're Always Learning New Things with Ken Alexander: Part 2

[salex]

I believe, if you dig a little, the men say they are protecting their wives in the following areas... Physically, from outside danger, emotionally, by helping them when they get out of control (up against the wall or move to the woods), spiritually ,the man is supposed to be a christ figure, intellectually, because you know, women and children need the men to lead them. Morally (ie, tell your wife and daughters how to dress modestly, etc). Given that women are considered by many of these patriarchal assholes types to be as capable of adult action as young children, well, they have to guide them in everything and protect them from themselves!

[Curious]

I freely admit to being hostile towards Ken. He is deliberately trying to shut us up and submit. He's not interested in answering our questions. I have zero tolerance towards patriarchal assholes like that, and I refuse to treat him with kid gloves. He doesn't deserve it.

He can try all he wants, it's not going to happen. As I said, overtly hostile responses to him are not against the rules. I think there is some middle ground between treating him with kid gloves and the posts you make, though. I don't think he's been treated with kid gloves here, at all. He's been called on this wall o' text posts by many of us. No one is giving him a pass on his views or posts that I have seen (well maybe 1 person a bit, but that is often the case with that particular poster, IMO).

I personally think that posts that are nothing but overtly hostile and are essentially nothing more than name calling make people like Ken feel like they are right about "people like us." (ie: worldly, feminists etc). Those types of posts don't add anything to the conversation. That is my opinion. Everyone here is free to agree or disagree and post how they wish to as long as they follow our rules and that has been the case on all the Ken and Lori Alexander threads.

If people don't like your style of posts or Ken's posts (well if they don't like Ken's posts, I don't know why they would be in these threads really), they are free to and encouraged to use the foe option.

[EmiGirl]

Just to be clear here, it's KEN who does not allow her to come here. We allow anyone we follow to come here, as long as they follow our rules.

For example, Nate Lawrenson (I hope I have that last name correct) came here and created several socks, which we easily found. In his case, we didn't ban him, but rather put him in the Prayer Closet, so he could still respond.

Ken likes to keep framing things as though he is getting some kind of special consideration by being allowed to post here, but that isn't the case.

I'm just clearing this up for people coming here reading the thread since Ken seems to believe that the more times you say something it will become reality ;)

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to be ambiguous.

[Curious]

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to be ambiguous.

It wasn't necessarily ambiguous. I just wanted to be clear for people that may not be members, but reading the thread as guests or who find the thread later and haven't read the other associated threads :)

[OkToBeTakei]

Looks like Lori is going to have to rename her blog.

It certainly is more Ken than Lori. I agree with whoever said it's a bit icky that she is meant to be mentoring younger wives yet two blokes are doing all the commentary.

Also this from the comments was thought provoking.

I've been thinking about this quote since you posted it on Facebook the other day. I think it's funny, but it has actually made me think seriously about submission, manipulation, and respect. Sometimes it seems like submission is presented as a way to manipulate your husband. Even the phrase "winning him without a word" implies a battle or power struggle to be won. It's just that instead of unkind manipulation techniques like the silent treatment or pouting, with submission, you act extra sweet and respectful because that's what appeals to his ego. I don't know... to me it just seems more respectful to confront him directly.

Cupboardbloke and and Alexander Ken. Were all over her like a bad rash. No surprise.

Some other little gems that appear to float right over Alexander Ken's head.

There is nothing on this earth that I can do to change a behavior in my husband that I don't find becoming or healthy for our family. Believe me, I've tried in years past! The only option is to follow God's word and focus on doing what He calls ME to do - without placing too much focus on what my husband is or is not doing.

I have to trust God with my husband, and focus on what He has called me to do. I know He hasn't called me to boss my husband around, even when he's wrong. I can try and gently speak with him, but if he recoils, I am finding it is better to go to the Father and pour out my heart in prayer while dealing gently with my husband, sometimes saying nothing more.

Of course Alexander Ken. Ignored this comment. Instead he only pursued those comments he felt he should 'win.' ie. The Scripture debate and the dissenting comment on submission.

I thought the ministry was to help? Well they totally ignored the one commenter calling out for a bit of support, advice or encouragement.

Ego thy name is Alexander Ken.

( When Ken was trying to really emphasize his wallotexts he would change Jesus Christ to Christ Jesus. What a prat :lol: )

[usmcmom]

Lori's blog post today is on the virtues of spanking. It is written in third person so we get to learn how "She" spanked a five year old for refusing to say hello to somebody. The poor child simply stared at the carpet when spoken to, so he was spanked. So basically we are encouraged to spank our children for being shy!

I wanted to leave a comment on the blog but mine always get deleted, despite using the lowly title "Just a Wife."

[Pam]

LOL@"Cupboardbloke"

[polecat]

Lori's blog post today is on the virtues of spanking. It is written in third person so we get to learn how "She" spanked a five year old for refusing to say hello to somebody. The poor child simply stared at the carpet when spoken to, so he was spanked. So basically we are encouraged to spank our children for being shy!

I wanted to leave a comment on the blog but mine always get deleted, despite using the lowly title "Just a Wife."

omg, wteverlivingf?!?

Brutal and cruel doesn't even begin to describe those two.

Didn't K claim that children were only spanked extremely rarely and for major offenses? THIS is what they call a major offense?!?

[Stynjen]

Also, this post talks about only using your bare hand to spank, when Lori clearly delights in detailing her favorite non-hand implements of abuse.

[formergothardite]

To be truly "always learning" you must be open to the idea that what you already believe might be wrong. Ken and Lori refuse to do this. They only want to learn about things that already fit their preconceived view of the world. If it doesn't fit what they already believe they toss it out or find a way to claim that it doesn't apply to them.

I am pretty sure this post was Ken's attempt to make Lori look less extreme about spanking, but it wasn't successful because you could easily tell that she doesn't believing what she wrote about how spanking isn't godly. She makes it pretty clear that she doesn't think it is really possible to raise well behaved children without spanking them. She calls not spanking an "experiment in parenting" but she does not call spanking that.

[usmcmom]

My daughter was a very shy child and I understood that because I was a very shy child. I cannot imagine disciplining her (let alone spanking her) for being shy. Why would we punish a child for a personality trait? We had many ways that we encouraged her in social settings so that we could minimize her discomfort; but on the days she wanted to cling to my leg, well I let her cling to my leg. Now, at age 20, she is one of the most outgoing young women I've ever met. People don't believe me when I tell them how shy she was.

How would that even work anyway...spanking for shyness? "You are going to be SOCIAL and enjoy people!" *whack! whack!*

These people are nuts.

[Hisey]

When my kids were little, we had a rhyme of my own invention. It went like this (modestly clears throat), "Say hello, say goodbye, look at people in the eye."

I'd sing it a few times as we were pulling up to someone's house, to remind them. Usually it worked. However, now that they are older, they say hello just fine (no singing needed, let alone hitting!). Why is hitting always the default response?

[usmcmom]

When my kids were little, we had a rhyme of my own invention. It went like this (modestly clears throat), "Say hello, say goodbye, look at people in the eye."

I'd sing it a few times as we were pulling up to someone's house, to remind them. Usually it worked. However, now that they are older, they say hello just fine (no singing needed, let alone hitting!). Why is hitting always the default response?

Oh, I love that rhyme. We really encouraged eye contact too. We encouraged our kids to order for themselves at restaurants when they were fairly young, even before they could read. I'd tell them "When you give your order, you could look at her eyes and say.." Or we'd let them take the change at the grocery counter - just small ways to interact politely with people. But if they were not feeling it on any one occasion; no big deal.

Another thing: what if this child was a girl and she was spanked for being shy or "submissive?" What kind of conflict is she going to feel when she grows up to be told she has to be meek and submissive? She's going to think "Wait a minute. You spanked me for being meek! Now I HAVE to submit?!?"

[salex]

My daughter was a very shy child and I understood that because I was a very shy child. I cannot imagine disciplining her (let alone spanking her) for being shy. Why would we punish a child for a personality trait? We had many ways that we encouraged her in social settings so that we could minimize her discomfort; but on the days she wanted to cling to my leg, well I let her cling to my leg. Now, at age 20, she is one of the most outgoing young women I've ever met. People don't believe me when I tell them how shy she was.

How would that even work anyway...spanking for shyness? "You are going to be SOCIAL and enjoy people!" *whack! whack!*

These people are nuts.

Isn't that one of the themes of blanket training and / or the Pearls.... to beat their personalities out of them and "break" their wills?

[Koala]

I assume she is implying that the parents of "good" children spank and just don't want to admit it. Let me assure you Lori, (you evil woman) that that couldn't be any further from the truth.

Let's take a look at some of your comments (<---- I am a firm believer that Lori is glued to FJ while Ken is at work, and I think he knows. His bit about her not being "allowed" to read here was just a way to excuse the fact that she doesn't have the intellect to come here and debate her ideas for herself).

From the post:

To spank or not to spank is not the issue. I know many of you do not spank and that is your decision, your choice as parents. There is nothing godly about spanking your child, but there is something required of you by God to raise disciplined children.

Lori Alexander:

according to these verses, if you truly love your child, you will use a rod on them...

A few swats on a bare bottom to have obedient children is not harsh but very biblical.

I told her she must take a wooden spoon or some other object and spank him on his bottom hard enough so it will hurt.

Women stop reading my blog when I write about spanking and submission. They have unteachable hearts.

From the post:

they would use their bare hand and spank them on the bottom. They didn't like using any type of instrument, because they couldn't gauge how hard they were spanking

But that's not what Lori advocates is it?

Lori Alexander:

We used a small leather strap

From the post:

They always used their hand so they could be careful to administer enough pain but not cause any injury.

Ken Alexander:

I ca only remember creating a bruise on one child

From the post:

They only spanked their children if they disobeyed them and never in anger.

Lori Alexander:

I spanked my children when I was angry because rebellion is so ugly and I didn't want them to act ugly.

I spanked in anger sometimes, because I was usually pretty upset with my children when they needed a spanking

My children definitely feared us growing up.

[usmcmom]

I just love your posts, Koala! You give them no wiggle room.

And might I add: I am thrilled to have been promoted to "Bathroom Baby."

[Koala]

I just love your posts, Koala! You give them no wiggle room.

And might I add: I am thrilled to have been promoted to "Bathroom Baby."

Thanks and welcome to the board :)

[Koala]

**Side note** Since Lori is now in the business of changing post pictures at the whims of her readers, let me be the first to say that the one that goes with this particular post is fucking creepy when you compare it to the subject matter. Seriously, it's vile and should be changed. :angry-cussingblack:

[Loveday]

I find it interesting that this post has been up for several hours now and there's not one comment. Either her usual sycophants are finally starting to see her for what she is, or she's getting a lot of negative comments she's had to delete almost instantly. Or a little of both.

[usmcmom]

I find it interesting that this post has been up for several hours now and there's not one comment. Either her usual sycophants are finally starting to see her for what she is, or she's getting a lot of negative comments she's had to delete almost instantly. Or a little of both.

I thought the same thing. I keep checking to see if she's deleted anything.

[formergothardite]

Koala, driving Ken and Lori crazy by quoting them. :lol:

[Loveday]

I thought the same thing. I keep checking to see if she's deleted anything.

I think Cupboardbloke ( :lol: ) is reading here. He just posted a comment. It's total agreement with Lori, of course, so I won't bother quoting it here. :roll:

[AllisonWndrland]

I think Cupboardbloke ( :lol: ) is reading here. He just posted a comment. It's total agreement with Lori, of course, so I won't bother quoting it here. :roll:

I thought Cupboardbloke's newest comment sounded like something Ken wrote here at FJ. I don't have time to dig through all the threads, but it was so incredibly close I felt like I was having deja vu.

[Want More Babies]

Professionals agree that pedophiles, sexual abusers of children, often seek out professions or activities which bring them into contact with children. Largely unexplored is the role Christianity may play in possibly molding criminal abusers. Researchers know that a typical child molester is a "good Christian" and often a church-goer active in church activities. Why should this be so? Havelock Ellis wrote, "In all countries religion, or superstition, is closely related with crime." It should not be surprising that crime is connected to the religious mentality and its ideology: such beliefs as original sin, the sacredness of gruesome bible teachings and inflexibility of moral codes, the absolution of sin through confession, a lack of personal responsibility for one's actions, and terrifying spectres of a jealous god and evil devils.

from http://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18500 ... the-church

People like Lori are the reasons pedophiles enjoy church. Children are taught, from a VERY young age, to listen to authority. Lori and her ilk play right into this trap. There are reasons, and sometimes very good reasons, why a child does not want to talk to, or spend time with, an adult.

I never make my children talk to anyone that they don't want to. Especially at a young age.

[latraviata]

Apparantly to Lori and Ken Alexander, child rearing equals discipline, nothing else.

That is not only disturbing it is very, very sad.