Read the introduction to this series here.
12) You have confirmed what loyal listeners should already have figured out: that you have a high IQ. Given that your IQ is higher than many of your callers, and you have many decades of experience dealing with the family dynamics of thousands of people, isn’t it ever possible that one of your callers or the spouse thereof hasn’t thought through everything as extensively as you? Here’s an example: A woman calls with a problem with her 19 year-old son, who lives with her and her husband, who is the boy’s father, who is not opposed to the son continuing to live with them for now. The caller isn't trying to figure out how to move her son out, but you focus on that anyway. You insist this means that the caller’s husband does not want to be alone with her. Isn’t it possible, however, that he simply hasn’t thought about it that way? Maybe, right or wrong, he doesn’t want his son to have to worry about roommates and fleabag apartments while he’s trying to get through college and start a career? Maybe he likes the help around the house?
13) You have insisted that every caller who has a problem with their spouse MUST have seen the problem or the warning signs before they married, because people can’t act for that long without revealing their true selves. OK, let’s say they dated for two years before they married. Since they are not shacking up, because that would be wrong, they’re going to restaurants, going to movies, sharing holidays, hopefully going through intense premarital counseling with a MFT for what, one hour per week?
You say it isn’t possible for people to put on an act that long. However, don’t people do that all of the time with other things in life? For example, undercover law enforcement officers, con artists and frauds do this for a living. Some employes do this five days a week for 8+ hours per day, for years. You tell unhappy or discontented spouses to act, sometimes for years, for the sake of a peaceful home.
I know it is preferable to find something in the caller’s actions that were problematic because then the caller has the power to change thing, and usually, I’m sure, there were warning signs the caller should have seen, but there are incentives for people to hide their true selves when seeking marriage, It could be for immigration fraud, for financial gain, or due to religious, familial, professional, or social pressure. So is it really impossible to there to have ever been a caller who couldn't possibly have seen the warnings ahead of time?
14) You often note second marriages with children have a 75% divorce rate, and ask callers if they'd get on airplane with the same chance of crashing. However, a graphic posted on your show's Facebook page notes that first marriages have a 41% divorce rate - and that's just divorce, not how many are miserable but don't divorce, or cases in which one spouse dies young or slips into a coma, goes to prison, or kills the other. Would you fly on an airplane with THAT failure rate? I agree people should be warned about second marriages, but shouldn’t they be warned at least half as strongly about first marriages? You may argue that second marriages are not necessary, but neither are first marriages. Would you consider giving a commentary on how to reduce the risks of a second marriage failing? I’m aware that you are concerned about children, and while first marriages without children, by definition, don’t bring children into the mix from the start, most first marriages will end up involving children. So shouldn't people be strongly warned when it comes to getting married at all? "Choose wisely" is a start, but is that really strong enough?
12) You have confirmed what loyal listeners should already have figured out: that you have a high IQ. Given that your IQ is higher than many of your callers, and you have many decades of experience dealing with the family dynamics of thousands of people, isn’t it ever possible that one of your callers or the spouse thereof hasn’t thought through everything as extensively as you? Here’s an example: A woman calls with a problem with her 19 year-old son, who lives with her and her husband, who is the boy’s father, who is not opposed to the son continuing to live with them for now. The caller isn't trying to figure out how to move her son out, but you focus on that anyway. You insist this means that the caller’s husband does not want to be alone with her. Isn’t it possible, however, that he simply hasn’t thought about it that way? Maybe, right or wrong, he doesn’t want his son to have to worry about roommates and fleabag apartments while he’s trying to get through college and start a career? Maybe he likes the help around the house?
13) You have insisted that every caller who has a problem with their spouse MUST have seen the problem or the warning signs before they married, because people can’t act for that long without revealing their true selves. OK, let’s say they dated for two years before they married. Since they are not shacking up, because that would be wrong, they’re going to restaurants, going to movies, sharing holidays, hopefully going through intense premarital counseling with a MFT for what, one hour per week?
You say it isn’t possible for people to put on an act that long. However, don’t people do that all of the time with other things in life? For example, undercover law enforcement officers, con artists and frauds do this for a living. Some employes do this five days a week for 8+ hours per day, for years. You tell unhappy or discontented spouses to act, sometimes for years, for the sake of a peaceful home.
I know it is preferable to find something in the caller’s actions that were problematic because then the caller has the power to change thing, and usually, I’m sure, there were warning signs the caller should have seen, but there are incentives for people to hide their true selves when seeking marriage, It could be for immigration fraud, for financial gain, or due to religious, familial, professional, or social pressure. So is it really impossible to there to have ever been a caller who couldn't possibly have seen the warnings ahead of time?
14) You often note second marriages with children have a 75% divorce rate, and ask callers if they'd get on airplane with the same chance of crashing. However, a graphic posted on your show's Facebook page notes that first marriages have a 41% divorce rate - and that's just divorce, not how many are miserable but don't divorce, or cases in which one spouse dies young or slips into a coma, goes to prison, or kills the other. Would you fly on an airplane with THAT failure rate? I agree people should be warned about second marriages, but shouldn’t they be warned at least half as strongly about first marriages? You may argue that second marriages are not necessary, but neither are first marriages. Would you consider giving a commentary on how to reduce the risks of a second marriage failing? I’m aware that you are concerned about children, and while first marriages without children, by definition, don’t bring children into the mix from the start, most first marriages will end up involving children. So shouldn't people be strongly warned when it comes to getting married at all? "Choose wisely" is a start, but is that really strong enough?
I listen to her almost daily, and to me, she isn't all that intelligent because if she was, she wouldn't be afraid of getting all the details so she could analyze the situation. In fact, she would prefer more details because it would be more challenging to her mind to be able to solve a complex problem. Instead, she wants a simple problem caused by one of her pet peeves so she can easily offer a fairly standard response.
ReplyDeleteBTW - She herself was a shack up honey/unpaid whore to an adulterous man who already had 3 kids.
Anonymous, assuming what you say about her past is true (I've read stuff like that too) it means she learned from experience in that case. She readily admits she used to be an "idiot feminist" (perhaps a paraphrase). If she did those things, it doesn't mean she is incorrect to now advise women not to make those same mistakes.
ReplyDeleteNo, but it does mean she should be able to offer suggestions on trying to make it work for those people already in those situations, being that she has first hand knowledge. Clearly, she was able to somehow make her marriage work even though he already had kids. Instead, she just tells them they screwed up. I really hope that, at her age, she isn't really as black and white in her thinking as she presents on her show. True maturity understands that not everything in life is black and white, and if she still really thinks this way, I think she needs to grow up. I do agree with the general idea of her advice...but its one thing to preach an ideal to a general audience and another to actually help someone compassionately with those ideals in mind, yet understanding not every situation allows for those ideals. For example, someone's husband dies. It isn't always best for the mom to move in with family. Sometimes, daycare for 3 months for a 5 year old until school starts would be better than uprooting everyone and living with dysfunctional family. She doesn't allow for this scenario.
ReplyDeleteThank you all for listening so intently and analyzing each call. I appreciate the interest and feedback. Have a great New Year and keep listening! warmly, dr laura schlessinger
ReplyDeleteI really am a HUGE fan. That's the only way I could formulate these questions. I literally listen to every new minute of the show (I don't listen to "best of" airings of ANY talk show). There is no other talk show/podcast I'll listen to as much. If their topic for the hour is something I don't think will improve me or my understanding of what is going on in the world, I skip it. But as a husband, father, son, brother, taxpayer, voter, employee, etc. I have a vested interest in your wisdom.
ReplyDelete