Read the introduction to this series here.
15)
How should the division of labor be delineated between husband and wife
when the husband works full time (and perhaps plus) as the sole income
earner and the wife is a full-time ”stay-at-home” mom?
Just
shy of 18 minutes into the first hour of the January 22 show/podcast,
Dr. Laura took a call from a woman who is married with five children.
The wife was calling to say that her husband, the sole income earner,
doesn’t do enough of the domestic chores. Dr. Laura indicated that this
husband was a terrible guy for not doing some of the domestic chores.
Okay, I understand Dr. Laura’s opinion on that. I do some of the domestic chores at home despite being the sole income earner.
Except…
I’ve heard (recently, mind you) Dr. Laura respond to another SAHM
complaining that her income-earner hubby wasn’t doing domestic chores by
asking if the caller was ready to go into the office and do some of her
husband’s work for him. Dr. Laura made it clear that the domestic
chores were the responsibility of the SAHM.
Why the difference in answers?
Is
there a magic number of children that make domestic chores part of the
husband’s role? I think whenever Dr. Laura hears “five children” it
triggers thoughts of Andrea Yates. She’s even brought Yates up with other calls. Dr.
Laura readily admits one child was enough work for her. So, if it is a
matter of the number of children, does it matter who pushed to have that
many children? And what if a SAHM caller sounds overwhelmed with one or
two children? Surely it is possible for a woman to pull an Andrea Yates
even if she only has one or two children. Many have.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Thursday, January 09, 2014
Questions For Dr. Laura Schlessinger – 4
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)