Just Call Me Dr. Neil

Dr. Laura is a kvetch (Kvetch comes from the Yiddish kvetshn, "to squeeze, to complain.") or professional scold. Ironically, Laura Schlessinger's doctorate was awarded for her work in physiology (NOT psychology) at Columbia University (College of Physicians and Surgeons) in New York. Her tenuous claim as a therapist is provided by post-doctoral certification in Marriage, Family and Child Counseling at the Human Relations Center of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. Schlessinger parlayed this certification (akin to a diploma mill?) to gain a license as a Marriage, Family and Child Counselor (MFCC) in California and conducted a private practice for 12 years before she hit the airwaves. All of this is eerily similar to Lucy Van Pelt—the Peanuts character—who offers advice to other Peanuts characters for 5¢. Lucy sits behind a cardboard box-cum-desk and dispenses advice that Dr. Laura spouts on the radio. However, Dr. Laura has been eclipsed by Dr. Phil McGraw who has a B.S, M.A. and Ph.D. in clinical psychology from North Texas State University with a dual area of emphasis in clinical and behavioral medicine. He has been a board-certified and licensed clinical psychologist since 1978. The University of North Texas (formerly North Texas State University aka North Teachers) is a former normal school that is attempting to elbow its way into the academic big leagues. A Ph.D. awarded by the University of North Texas unfortunately is not on a par with a Ph.D. awarded by the University of Michigan or the University of California-Berkeley or any Ivy League university. McGraw owes his meteoric rise as the TV shrink to Oprah Winfrey. The diva of chick-TV hired Dr. Phil when she was sued by a group of Amarillo-area cattleman for a circus trial that rivaled the Cullen Davis fiasco. McGraw was employed as a jury consultant by Winfrey's legal team. Dr. Phil was to identify prospective jurors during voir dire who would be sympathetic to Oprah. From that contact, Oprah brought Dr. Phil on her show (several times). McGraw is now a fixture on afternoon TV offering his advice. He has morphed into a nutrition expert with diet books and all of the rest. This is unsurprising in the face of Oprah's battle of the bulge. Winfrey ought to be the national spokesperson for Duncan Yo-Yos with her weight fluctuations. Lucy Van Pelt would tell Oprah that she is fat. Lucy Van Pelt would tell Dr. Phil that he is a bald windbag. Finally, Lucy Van Pelt would tell Dr. Laura that she's a fraud. If this is (fair & balanced) verisimilitude, so be it.

[x The New Republic Online]
PULPS: This Woman's Work
by Sacha Zimmerman

The intersection of pop psychology and talk radio is a study in inadequacy. For far too many of those lost and dejected souls who call radio programs hoping for some last desperate measure of solace, the sound bite offered by the counselor will come nowhere close to the amount of therapy, healing, and understanding they most likely require. On the forefront of radio therapy is Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who for the past 25 years has been coughing up her own peculiar brand of family-values philosophy and guidance. In her sixth and latest best-selling advice book, The Proper Care & Feeding of Husbands, Dr. Laura again puts radio to paper to create a venal, reductionistic, and unethical medley of tidbits designed to showcase the inherent selfishness of women.

What makes this book so treacherous is that much of Dr. Laura's advice seems, on the surface, reasonable: Couples must make time for each other; one ought to show appreciation for one's partner; it's a nice gesture to make a special dinner or pitch in around the house; the occasional sacrifice for one's mate is reasonable; nagging is unhelpful; work can take too much time away from family. But while adhering to these simple--and intuitive--principles certainly can create a happier marriage, Dr. Laura couches them in mean-spirited rants aimed solely at wives--working wives in particular.

Much of Dr. Laura's book is focused on men's needs and how women can fulfill them. "Most of the women who complain that they are not getting what they want from their husbands should stop and look at how disrespectful and disdainful they are of them." "A man needs to feel strong and needed as a protector for women--basically to conquer the beast and rescue the fair maiden." "A man should be the breadwinner in the family. Every man needs a battle or war to win to prove to himself that he is strong and capable." When a woman complains about her husband spending too much time at work, Dr. Laura berates her for not being grateful to have found a good man who can provide well enough for her to stay home with the kids. Dr. Laura advises this woman to thank her lucky stars she has such a man, make dinner for him every night, and tell him how much she appreciates his sacrifices for the family. Yet when a woman is working tough hours and the husband complains, Dr. Laura is appalled by the wife's behavior: "You're married. ... Start acting like a married person." For a woman, marriage means being at home as much as possible, quitting her job if necessary, and being thrilled that her husband wants to spend more time with her. After all, what kind of wife and mother would put work ahead of family?

Dr. Laura offers no insight into this contradiction. She merely asserts that women and men have innately different roles, without offering a scrap of science or social theory to back it up. And not once does she address the simple fact that most women in this country have to work, preferring to blame feminism for what she views as "the frighteningly pervasive diabolical message that married women at home with children somehow aren't total women, maximizing their potential":

I believe [women's self-centeredness] is a result of the women's movement, with its condemnation of just about everything male as evil, stupid, and oppressive, and the denigration of female and male roles in families, as well as the loss of family functioning as a result of divorce, day care, dual careers, and the glorification of shacking up and unwed motherhood by choice. These are the core destructive influences that result in women not appreciating that they are perfected when they are bonded in wedlock and have obligations to family.

It hardly needs to be pointed out that this view of feminism is stuck in the 1970s. Dr. Laura apparently has not noticed that the movement has become much more inclusive, embracing Republicans, marriage, and domesticity (hell, even Gloria Steinem is now married!). She prefers to live in a self-created time-warp where feminists hate men, don't value children, and think their careers are important above all else. Yet many so-called feminists feel blessed that they can afford to make the choice to stay home. Others feel blessed that they have a partner who supports their career goals and contributions to society. The women's movement is about being able to make that choice and not be automatically shoehorned into the role of June Cleaver. But to Dr. Laura, feminism is about deceiving women into believing that they can "have it all"--work and family. That a man can--and should--have it all goes unquestioned; but a woman who complains about housework on top of a long day at the office is the most selfish, self-centered person on earth. How Dr. Laura reconciles these views with the fact that she herself is the working mother of a son is not explored in this book--nor is the fact that she is most certainly her family's main breadwinner.

Some marital problems may indeed be fixable with appreciation instead of exasperation, with tenderness instead of scowling. And, insofar as that is true, Dr. Laura's advice is salient--to both sexes. But to focus exclusively on wives is to reduce real disconnection between partners to the basest of misogynist stereotypes. A woman's "obligations" to her husband should be those reached by mutual understanding, respect, and love--and vice versa--not by Dr. Laura's arbitrary notion that women are obliged to have sex whenever their man feels like it or have a duty to stay trim and fit and not get frumpy. The idea that all marital problems can be solved with a little lipstick and some home-cooked meals is as grossly simplistic as her vision of the working mother.

And that's the problem with pop psychology in the media today. Whether it's Dr. Laura or Dr. Phil (when did we start calling doctors by their first names?), a ten-minute conversation will likely never get to the root of any serious problem. In fact, such microscopic advice could be hugely damaging. A good therapist asks lots of questions to find out about your childhood, your background, your needs. Therapy is not easy and it is not fast. And for someone who is in deep pain because of a difficult marriage, belittling that anguish with ten-minute synapses and gender-based assumptions could cause the person who puts their misplaced trust in the talk-show host to suffer even more. Unfortunately, an easy answer is always more appealing than hard work. Whether it's the latest miracle diet or the latest self-help fad, Americans want to erase their problems with a clever book or glamorous makeover when what they really need is the stamina and gumption to take on life in all its nuances and intricacies. After all, if an unexamined life is not worth living, then the examination ought to at least be thorough and meaningful.

Sacha Zimmerman , former assistant managing editor at TNR, is an associate editor at Reader's Digest.

Copyright © 2004, The New Republic