Don’t Call Dr. Laura If You’re Doubting Truth Claims of Your Religious Organization

I don’t think Dr. Laura has explicitly stated what her current theological beliefs are other than a few limited statements. She has every right to keep her theology private. Although she'll sometimes work with a caller's tradition, the program isn’t a religious one. But because it isn’t a religious program, she should probably defer some calls. [Bumping this up because it is still relevant.]

From what she has said, she’s either a Deist, Agnostic, or Atheist. It matters, and we can discern this to be so, because she doesn’t believe in miracles and will get snippy with a caller who mentions or implies being saved from a terrible or worse fate by supernatural intervention. Also, because she encourages people to stay with their current religious organization, as if it really doesn’t matter which one they are with. 

I originally felt compelled to write this entry because of a call she took on Tuesday, December 10, 2019, 27 minutes into first podcast hour. But she has subsequently taken other calls reinforcing my point.

“Sarah” or “Sara” was the caller. The caller said hello and started to get emotional, saying she didn't want to get emotional. She was crying.

"I was raised in a very orthodox religion..."

Dr. Laura asked which one. "You were raised in what church?"

"The Mormon church."

Sarah went on to say "Recently, within the last couple of years, I found out a lot of inconsistencies about the church, a lot of things that I was taught that aren't true about the church…”

She started getting emotional again.

Dr. Laura told her she needed to stop crying. "This is not life and death."

Well, actually, for believers, it is. It certainly was for the martyrs.

Author of Men on Strike Interviewed at NRO

[This entry is an interesting time capsule from September 2013. I'm bumping it up because it is interesting to me to go back and see what my observations and thinking were, and what was in media, at the time.]

* * * * * * *

I've heard two interviews with Helen Smith about her book Men on Strike, one by Tom Leykis and one by Michael Medved, who have very different goals and perspectives than each other. Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online interviewed Smith and the interview is up.

Most men who are consciously on a marriage strike are also going to avoid having (more) children and they will try to influence other men boys to do the same.

Obviously, if this idea catches on and sticks, it means fewer thinking, responsible, productive men getting married and raising children. That's a problem for governments, churches, and all of the people who depend on such men, especially dependent or lazy women, or women desperate to have children who do not want to raise them without a man. So some people have a bit of a panic about this.

Of course, the marriage strike can be ended if there is a successful effort to mitigate the concerns of the strikers. But how likely is that to happen?

Yes, I'm a Christian and I believe the Bible. The most persuasive Biblical argument I've heard that men are required to marry, if possible, and have children, is that we are told to go forth and multiply to spread God's image (that's people) all over the world. However, hasn't that been done? Mission accomplished in that regard. Taking the Bible as a whole, there simply is no requirement that men today marry and have children. What many Christian leaders will say is that men can't control themselves and since fornication is so awful, they should marry. A lot of these same people would tell me I got married with the wrong attitude because I married because I wanted to have sex (and because I wanted to be a father who gave his children the best circumstances I could.)

Some marriage strikers are Christian. Some are atheists, or have some other worldview. Some swear off women entirely, others indulge in fornication. Some have never had a desire to marry. Some have a desire to marry and have children, but that desire is trumped by their concerns about the legal system and culture. Some want to avoid marriage so they can goof off, others want to avoid marriage because it slows down their work as very important scientists. It's a diverse group.

Anyway, here are some excerpts of the interview:

LOPEZ: Who are “White Knights” and “Uncle Tims” and why are they a problem?

SMITH: White Knights are typically conservative men who are chivalrous and always trying to protect women and have no problem with biased laws that punish men while protecting women. Uncle Tims are generally liberal guys looking to get sex or political favors by being male sellouts to their own gender. They are the Bill Clinton types who crack down on their own gender, using biased laws such as sexual harassment while sleeping with women and using them.

Terms like "mangina" and "beta" get thrown around in some circles.

LOPEZ: How has the Obama administration curbed due-process rights of men on campus?

SMITH: The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter in 2011 telling colleges that take federal funds that they should use a lower preponderance-of-evidence standard in sexual-assault cases. Basically it is “50 percent plus one,” meaning that a campus tribunal can decide a young man is guilty with less certainty than is needed in a criminal trial. Read the case of Judith Grossman’s son in the Wall Street Journal to find out more about how young men are believed to be guilty without a fair trial or real evidence.

Outrageous.

Ladies, do you care about your brothers? Your sons?

* * * * * * *

[Now I am more stridently in support of the marriage strike.]

No, Men, Your Standards Are Not Too High

Are you an unmarried man who's been told that your standards for a wife are too high? [This an entry from October 2015 I'm bumping up. It still holds up.]

They're not.

At least, they're not if you're self-sufficient.

Don't get theological on me. I know we're all dependent on God – I'm talking about self-sufficient in being able to pay your bills, finance your future, and otherwise meet your obligations and maintain your domicile.

If you're self-sufficient, and not sickly or disabled, your standards for a wife are not too high, no matter what they are.

Marriage is entirely voluntary. Marriage isn't necessary to live a productive and full life. As a man, getting married means taking on certain obligations and serious risks legally, financially, and socially. Every benefit a marriage might bring a man is provided at the voluntary generosity of a an irrational creature who can rescind her generosity without any penalty for doing so, and those things can all be obtained without marriage. (The exceptions are: 1. If a man believes unmarried sex is fornication and wants sex without fornicating – but getting married is no guarantee of satisfying sex, or sex at all, and 2. If a man wants to raise children within a marriage.)

Your standards are not too high.

You don't need to, and you should not, spend a couple of years paying for a woman's meals and entertainment and buying her gifts on those "special occasions" scattered throughout the year.

You don't need to, and you should not, buy her overpriced jewelry to wear on her finger.

You don't need to, and you should not, pay for a series of expensive parties that are mostly about her.

You don't need to, and you should not, take on children a woman has had by other men.

You don't need to, and you should not, take on debts a woman incurred before she even met you.

You don’t need to, and you should not, sign a legal document that ensures at least half of everything you'll ever earn will be hers and that you will support her should the relationship end and that you'll be the legal/financial father if she conceives children by another man.

If you're going to make someone your default beneficiary and give them power to make medical decisions for you, or if you're going to be sharing a home and a bed with this person, then your standards are NOT too high.

If a married person tells you your standards are too high, ask them if that means they had low standards when they married.

I'm still waiting for just one good reason for a man to marry and if you're thinking about getting married, you should also try this exercise.

When Guys Who Avoid Marriage Tell Others to Marry

Dr Laura read this during Hour 2 of her program on Tuesday, February 8, 2022. It's titled "What Are the Social Benefits of Marriage?"

Please note that all of the supposed social benefits for marriage for men can be obtained without legally marrying.

Also note that the website is owned by "United States Conference of Catholic Bishops." If marriage is so great, why don't any of them get married??? This is like men who all vow to eat steak on a regular basis telling everyone else how great being a vegan is. Roman Catholic bishops rely on Catholics having more children so that those children will fill their churches and schools.

Should You Have a Woman as a Friend?

Inspired by a comment, I want to explore the concept of you, a heterosexual man, having a female friend or multiple female friends.

I'm talking about actual friends, not mere acquaintances.

If you're married, shacking up, or in an exclusive relationship, and hopefully you're not - but if you are, you really "shouldn't" have female friends with whom your girlfriend/wife isn't friends, and certainly not ones your girlfriend/wife doesn't know about. 

"But Ken! I was friends with her before I started this relationship!" Yeah, well, this one of those countless reasons not to get into exclusive relationships in the first place. If your girlfriend/wife isn't friends with her, and you're not hiding her, she's almost certainly been the subject of arguments between you and "your" woman. Right? OK, for some of you unmarried guys, your girlfriend is waiting until you sign on the dotted line (which you shouldn't do!) before she starts trying to end your friendship.

But what about you free men? Is it OK, is it smart, to have female friends? And if you have such friends, should you become scarce around the holidays?

Having a Family Doesn't Guarantee Happiness

Matt Walsh, who I agree with some on some really big things, is back [this entry is being bumped up] to beating the drum to marry and pop out kids. He starts off his column at The Daily Wire citing comments by former First Lady Michelle Obama. [This entry bumped up from January 2021.]

The former First Lady was interviewed by "Blackish" star Tracee Ellis Ross and the women together lamented the fact that girls "still dream of weddings" and "Prince Charming." The two agreed that some women (Tracee Ellis Ross included) can sacrifice family for the sake of a career and be "happy as a clam." In fact, it would seem that Mrs. Obama — who is married with two kids — thinks this path is preferable, given that she considers it a problem when girls aspire to marriage. Ross provided compelling evidence to prove that her decision to forgo family life was the right call: "Look where I'm sitting," she declared. Yes, the summit of all happiness is to sit on a stage with a former First Lady. Truly, this is the eternal bliss for which we were designed.

Maybe Ross is happy? I'm not aware of Walsh having psychic abilities.