I am my article’s author

I‘ve been listening to Dr. Laura Schlessinger radio talk show on and off for some time now. When I mention her name to friends, family and colleagues the response I get from people is mixed. From my very informal survey of a no way representational focus group, people either love or hate Laura Schlessinger. But then, people feel the same about many other radio personalities: Rush Limbaugh anyone? 

 Advice columns also come and go... I am not sure what the appeal of these call-in shows is. Some folks might be interested to see if others have the same problems -- or are comforted to know that there are others like them as well. Other folks turn their radio into a vocal drive by accident: they strain their ears to hear all about human misery just as they might strain their necks on the highway to see the accident.  Basically, it comes down to curiosity... sheer curiosity. But, there is a seemingly genuine exchange that goes on between Schlessinger and her audience. The proviso for the listener -- and especially for the caller -- is that you must be in agreement with Dr. Laura. 

 Our local radio station hails her as “a voice of reason.” Their promotion of her show makes the good counsellor sound more like a prophet than someone able and paid to dispense advice in two to five minute calls. In that time, Schlessinger draws upon several years experience as well as centuries of Jewish tradition and morality.  Presumably somewhere in there, there’s also her post-doctoral work in counselling (the doctorate’s in physiology, by the way). Now, please don’t get Mr. Articulate wrong. There’s nothing wrong with Judaic morality -- much of our western legal system is built and predicated upon it. Same thing for life experience -- a valuable tool. As for formal education, again, good stuff. The question here for me is do these things, as they combine to inform Dr. Laura Schlessinger and those who agree with her, need to be accepted wholly and unconditionally, and are not these things culturally specific and determined by one’s social economic status?

 Perhaps an example is merited. A caller calls in, let’s call her Jane. She wants to move in with Wayne before they get married. Jane has a son, Shane, from a previous marriage. Schlessinger’s advice to Jane: “Don’t shack up”. The values that you exhibit to your kid are what’s important. Now, who can argue with that? Right? In a perfect world, absolutely and positively yes! But alas, the world’s not perfect... Jane and Wayne and Shane can form the perfect familial bond without the title and trappings of the word “wedding” or “marriage”. Many hundreds of thousands of couples in Canada do that. For them, the commitment is one what allows for stability as that stability is best to be had. Wayne, in our example, is wonderful for Shane and Wayne’s income, combined with that of Jane’s provides the economic stability Shane needs, and for all three life rolls on quite well.

 Now, here cometh problem number two in the Schlessinger worldview.... Jane works? What does Shane do when Jane’s out there in the work world? Jane takes the young lad to day care -- a big no no in the 1-800-Dr. L-A-U-R-A scheme of things. Mr Articulate has indeed heard the good voice tell people not to have kids unless they can ensure a stay at home parent -- mom or dad for Junior. Now with StatsCan telling us that an average Canadian family needs to work 77 weeks a year to survive how is one expected to accomplish that? Simply, says Dr. Laura... one works the other parents, and vice versa. Which would place Jane at home during the day for instance, and out in the work world in the evening once Wayne had arrived. And the couple time is when??? The family unit time occurs from 2:00 to 2:33pm on Saturdays? What I mean is that there are enough challenges to the family that to place such a one as this is absurd. Many families have both parents working and what they bring to the home and the family is not only income, but stability, esteem and their own individual fulfillment. 

 In this sense, Schlessinger’s stuff works for those in an upper middle class socio-economic status... those who can afford a stay at home parent, and those who are able to survive on one salary and still drive the Volvo. The rest need two incomes and then some to survive. 

 Schlessinger also seems to be critical of anything but the mom and dad family unit. Single parent units are strictly verboten (except in situations where the other parent lied, cheated, abused, etc...). Take that Murphy Brown. 

 But let’s digress into the world of values and ideologies for a moment, shall we? Dr. L-A-U-R-A tells a caller whom we will call “Betty”, 23, that it is NOT okay and acceptable for her to ask her boyfriend to marry her. Girls, simply put, do not do that? And why -- tradition, and tradition is in place for a reason. Here, Schlessinger asks Betty what type of a commitment she might expect from the Lucky Fellow if she, Betty, asked for his hand in marriage. “Not much, I guess” is Betty’s reply. 

 On the hand what is suggested makes sense. Yeah, let him do the asking. But, this suggestion is sexist. The underlying argument is either (a) women are more mature then men, and so, when men have matured, they should be the ones to do the asking. Or, (b) men, for some reason, are not able to commit like women can. In either case, the image that is presented of men is not wholesome. Mr. Articulate would humbly suggest that the reason why men ask women is because society is patriarchal, and the men asking women is an offshoot of the days when the man would actually by-pass the spouse to be and ask the in-laws to be. My, how we’ve come a long way. To this article’s author, what is important is not who does the asking, but rather that the person who answers is ready, and that hopefully by the time the question is popped, the whole thing is consensus anyway. That of course is just the humble opinion of moi!

 Now, Mr. Articulate could go on and present all sorts of counter arguments to the stuff that is passed on as advice or nagging on the airwaves of the Dr. LAURA show. He won’t. One of the things this article’s author has done is check out what a lot of people have to say about the good doctor. Like the informal survey mentioned amongst my friends, most of the stuff out there is either LOVE or HATE. A lot of the print media I surveyed pick on the past that this woman had and speculate on how she could even consider herself to be a voice of morality or whatever given what she has done in the past. Yeah, she had a previous marriage. Yeah, she is supposedly estranged from her sister and her mother. Yeah, yeah, yeah... there’s stuff there that appears to be contradictory. Mr. Articulate’s reply to all that is “Who Cares?”  There is a lot of value in mistakes... perhaps they are one of our best teachers. However, with that in mind, Mr. Articulate would suggest to the good Doctor that she pepper her very biting and direct comments with a tone of compassion and kindness to impart the fact that people might get hurt and that they might wish to spend some time listening to what the hurt feelings are saying to them by way of lesson. Again, just Mr. Articulate’s opinion.

 Now, I have to be really really honest to my readers. When I first thought about this piece and the implications of what I had to say in this article (especially given that PIZ has allowed me to grace the Main Page!!!!) I was certain I wanted to write a nasty piece because the voice in the radio drives me crazy. I do not agree with her, except for very very very very rare occasions. 

 I recognize that there is a merit to talk radio, and that what Dr. Laura is not is an actual advice line. Hers is not a psychotherapy clinic. No! I ask all my article’s readers to hear his as succinctly as possible: Dr. LAURA is an actor. One of the things we have lost sight of in our modern day world is that talk radio is still a medium within the information AND entertainment industries. As such, those who play the part and provide the voice are actors. Laura Schlessinger would still be working in a university or somewhere else, had she not informally auditioned by calling in to a talk show hosted by a guy named Bill Ballance. Ballance, so the story goes, was so impressed with Schlessinger that he ended up hiring her. And the rest -- as they say -- is history.

 Now, Mr. Articulate will be the first to admit that he is a detractor of sorts. He is not interested in rehashing the mud that might have been in the good doctor’s past. Gentle readers can look to the September 1998 issue of Vanity Fair for that. Rather, what this article’s author would suggest is that 1-800-Dr.-L-A-U-R-A has a place in our fast growing, ever hectic, multi-focussed society. She is entertainment... Sometimes, whatever we use as entertainment offers an escape. Schlessinger does not fit that category. Sometimes, entertainment has a moral to the story. That, agree with the moral of the story or not, is what Dr. Laura is about. She is no more and no less valuable than other talk radio hosts (all of whom have their own particular shtick). She is no more and no less valuable than the stuff that community access radio offers. And, she is no more and no less valuable than the radio plays that CBC now plays. It’s all part of that big picture.

Now, having written all the for and against stuff, Mr Articulate would like to offer one little “grumble” about Dr. Laura. I’ve listened to her for some time and on different occasions before writing this piece. I waited, I digested, I formed an opinion. I did not rush into things. This needs to be said.

 Over those years of listening, I note that the Dr. L-A-U-R-A show has become more and more commercialized. This, for this article’s author, is one rant that should not go unnoticed. Yes, you can still buy a “War of the Worlds” lunchkit and other paraphernalia... keep with the line of thought sir, so you say, and remember this is acting and entertainment. Why not capitalize on it?

 Here, I gripe: it is one thing to act, to aim at offering advice and nagging, and all the while entertain. It is another to do all that, and throw in a real commercialization to it to the point where it becomes exploitative. That might work for a while, but here Mr. Articulate draws on his friend Karl Marx, and reminds the good doctor that the “masses” that follow her are lured by quick, temporary things, with a chief characteristic being that their whims are fleeting. I do not to cast a cloud over the good doctor’s followers. I just point out that fads come and go. A lot more good can be done, if the exploitation (mugs, t-shirts, and all) ends. Just my humble opinion.

 But then, as my daddy would suggest -- all that exploitation might be the American way. That’s the topic for another Main Page. 

All material in this site is copyright (c)1991-2008 by John Stopa