January 28, 2004
NUANCE? (via Jeff Guinn):
Do as I Say: Dr. Laura's counsel is caustic and oftentimes hypocritical, but it is also persuasive: a review of The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands by Dr. Laura Schlessinger (Caitlin Flanagan, January/February 2004, The Atlantic Monthly)
In a nutshell, Dr. Laura believes that many of the aspects of adult life that I had always considered complicated and messy and finely nuanced are in fact simple and clear-cut; that life ought to be neatly fitted around duty and responsibility rather than around the pursuit of that elusive old dog, happiness. This is what makes her the most compelling advocate for children I have thus far encountered, because the well-being of children often depends upon the commitment and obligation of the adults who created them. If you want to know whether the divorce culture has been a disaster for children, tune in to the Dr. Laura show one day. The mainstream media have a cheery name for families rent asunder and then patched together by divorce and remarriage: they are "blended families." But the day-to-day reality of what such blending wreaks upon children is often harsh. The number of children who are being shuttled back and forth between households, and the heartrending problems that this engenders in their lives, is a sin. Every June, Dr. Laura fields multiple calls having to do with transporting reluctant children across vast distances so that court-ordered visitation agreements can be honored. Whereas an article in Parents magazine or the relentlessly upbeat family-life columns in Time might list some mild and generally useless tips for dealing with such a situation (have the child bring along a "transitional object," plan regular phone calls home, and so forth), Laura throws out the whole premise. What in the world are the parents doing living so far away from each other? One of them needs to pick up stakes and move. "I can't do that," the caller always says. "Yes, you can," Laura always replies, and when you think about it, she's right.The first time I heard her tell a divorced father that he should give up on his first chance at real love—he had met his soul mate during a trip out of state and wanted to move and marry her—so that he could stay close by his children, I almost couldn't believe what I was hearing. She actually wanted the man to drop by his ex-wife's house every afternoon to help with homework and the yard work and play some ball with his sons, which struck me as a radical notion—as indeed it is. A conventional psychotherapist would proceed from the assumption that the man's happiness is the primary consideration in this scenario. Dr. Laura doesn't give a whit about his happiness; she cares only that he fulfill his obligation to his children. Happiness, she might argue, may be a by-product of doing the right thing; but even if it's not, all that matters is that you behave yourself. Her insistence (often shrill, sometimes hopelessly hypocritical) that certain of life's obligations must be honored at almost any cost is refreshing. For the first few years that I listened to her show, I never failed to be impressed by the notion that old-fashioned morality—inflexible and unforgiving—is sufficient unto any FUBAR situation human beings can dream up. I didn't always agree with her: she opposes legal abortion, which I support; she's against premarital sex, of which I dimly recall being distinctly and unapologetically fond. She once harangued a mother who was clearly at sheer wits' end that she shouldn't hire an afternoon babysitter—advice I could hardly bear to listen to, I felt so keenly the mother's desperation and exhaustion. But more than once I wondered if she might have been right about one or another of the points on which we differed. [...]
To a person, just about, my friends are liberals, and when I try to talk to them about Dr. Laura, they think I've gone completely cuckoo. I took her first book on a family vacation a few years back, and my father read it one night and then sat me down for a very serious and disappointed discussion about my declining literary and political tastes. But none of my loved ones, if they could tease Laura's central argument about children and marriage from the tissue of arrogance and crackpot harangue in which it is embedded, would disagree with it in the least. Part of Laura's problem is that she has been a victim of her own poor advance. If she had admitted up front that as a young woman she lived a life of sexual liberty and experimentation (rather than waiting for the press to discover and reveal this past, one humiliating episode at a time), and if she had explained that motherhood had produced profound changes in her, she would have earned herself a lot less derision and ire. There are many of us who understand that once you have children, certain doors ought to be closed to you forever. That to do right by a child means more than buying him the latest bicycle helmet and getting him on the best soccer team. It means investing oneself completely in the marriage that wrought him, for there isn't a person in the world who won't date his moments of greatest happiness to the time his family was the most intact, whole, unshakable. I wish there was someone a bit more hip and glamorous than Laura standing up for this simple truth, but in our time and place there isn't.
One of the comforting lies we modern men tell ourselves is that morality is terribly complex and that it's hard to know what is the right thing to do. In fact, as Ms Flanagan notes, and as Dr. Laura constantly reminds people, we know full well what we should do, but it requires putting the interests of others above our own, so we don't much care to do it. We've built (?) a culture where plenty of people are willing to tell you that you shouldn't have to do any such thing, that you need to take care of you first. Dr. Laura is a whack-job, but a very useful one, just because she won't tolerate such nonsense. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 28, 2004 7:22 PM
Hey, I was gonna send this story in!
At Amazon.com, the reviewer comments are very revealing; there is no middle ground on the book. That wives have responsibilities toward husbands is a meme whose time has come.
While Dr. Laura can often come across as shrill and overly didactic, most of her advice I do agree with. My problem with her radio show has more to do with the myriad of callers who don't really seem to be seeking advice when they talk to her as much as affirmation for the stance they've already taken with their problem. That usually leads to an annoying merry-go-round of denial/explanation/denial with the callers, who usually end up sheepishly mumbling they'll do what she wants them to do (though how many follow through with her "tough love" solutions is open to question).
A good deal of the growth of Sean Hannity's radio audience has been at the expense of Dr. Laura, which used to be the main talk show following Rush Limbaugh every day. It still is on a lot of Clear Channel-owned stations, but while the advice may be sound, the formula seems to be wearing thin compared with maintaining the straight policital talk genre with Hannity.
Posted by: John at January 28, 2004 8:57 PMDr. Laura's advice is black and white. Life is not black and white, but she is probably right most of the time. And since she's a shrink she doesn't have to be your friend, but more an advice giver. But she is difficult to listen to because she is just unlikable. I'm amazed she's as popular as she is, but she's such a zealot that her schtick has got to wear think, sooner or later.
Posted by: neil at January 28, 2004 9:50 PMDr. Laura a wacko?
Now, now. Actually, she's totally psychotic.
On the other hand, the better to dispense advice (from the inside, as it were) to people, as has been noted above, probably don't listen anyway....
Besides, thhhhat's entertainment, folks.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at January 29, 2004 2:41 AMDr. Laura's harangues at the feckless resonate with those who take their duties seriously, but in cases such as this one the content of her advice can be out to lunch. In commanding a life of total self-denial (and daily yardwork for the ex!), she actually ends up undercutting and minimalizing marriage by treating divorce as casually as modern progressive family court judges who expect spouses to "get over" betrayal, abuse or desertion in order to meet weekly over flavoured coffee to discuss the kids.
You can't have it both ways. If marriage is or should be seen and felt as as sacred or solemn as she claims, then its breakup will be searingly painful and shameful for at least one of the parties (usually the "victim" in old-fashioned terms). In many, many cases, the mere presence of the other party is enough to cause emotional distress that can linger for a very long time. To demand that the parties continue to play spouse-at-a-distance for the kids is simply cruel and beyond human capacity in many cases. If they can do that, why the heck are they divorced at all?
This is where no-fault has brought us. As we are no longer willing or able to pronounce on who is to blame and follow through on the consequences of that judgment, we tell ourselves both are equally responsible or neither are. Once that is settled, we then tell the wretched folks they count for nothing and must live in loneliness, permanently on twenty-four hour call to their kids wishes and needs. It can't be done in many cases, and why should it?
Marriage brings to both parties the benefits of consortium, defined as " all the tangible and intangible benefits that one spouse derives from the other, including material support, companionship, affection, guidance and sexual relations." This is the context in which most of us put our kids "first" and it is what gives us the strength to do it. In other words, it is a conditional first or a contextual first if you prefer. If you take it away, you cripple and cause untold pain. Unpleasant and often very embarassing, but very real nonetheless. "Get over it for the kids" is fantasyland advice.
Divorced parents must make solemn financial and time commitments to their children. These do indeed come first. Those who keep them should be admired, not made to feel that nothing is ever enough and they may not reserve one minute for their own happiness. As to remarriage, different faiths treat that differently (and with different kinds of support), but in the civil world, once the dirty deed is done, it is by no means obvious it is a bad idea in and of itself, especially for the hapless, hurting "victim" or even the kids and, anyway, folks will seek it out whatever. Dr. Laura is setting up a stark all-or-nothing choice here between kids and self that should not be encouraged among fallible humans. Would she also forbid widows and widowers to remarry "for the kids"?
The focus of this issue should be strengthening marriage, not haranguing the hapless divorced. As Jamie Lee Curtis, who knew a bit about this once said, "Divorce sucks." It is failure. You can mitigate the effects on the kids and you should try, but certain painful consequences will inexorably flow whatever you do.
This is a good example of how those who advocate traditional morality can become small-minded punitive know-it-alls who see other peoples' lives as simple to order. Orrin is quite right that we moderns tend to wallow in the "complexity" of moral issues in order to justify doing whatever we want, but that doesn't mean there are rote, obvious solutions all the time.
Posted by: Peter B at January 29, 2004 5:35 AMAfter decades of hearing that children are resilient and the happiness of adults matters most, it is refreshing to hear someone actually mention that there is a duty and obligation to children. They didn't ask to be born, but by partaking in the method of their creation, we did ask for them. The least we can do is fulfill or obligation to them.
I don't care for Dr. Laura, Judge Judy, Dr. Phil or any of these other advice vultures, but I think her point in the matter of the man who would move far away was not that he shouldn't ever have some measure of happiness, but rather that by moving so far away he will be sacrificing his children for that happiness. I'd bet she'd say he could find a woman closer to his children or convince that great love of his life to move to his state.
Posted by: Buttercup at January 29, 2004 7:50 AMPeter:
That's precisely the point: your "emotional distress" doesn't matter a damn compared to that of your kids, who studies show are better off even in households where the parents are miserable than in broken homes. You aren't entitled to destroy your kids' lives just because you aren't as happy as you thought you'd be.
Posted by: oj at January 29, 2004 8:24 AMOrrin:
If you are talking about modern notions of fulfillment, happiness and self-esteem, you are preaching to the converted, but in the case of what used to be called matrimonial offences, everyone, even the Catholic Church, agrees they may make continued cohabitation impossible. So, what then? To say, as I take Buttercup to say, that continued contact with and commitment to the children is the number one priority and must be read into any subsequent marriages should go without saying. My problem is with the growing notion that that commitment should extend to giving the ex all the assistance and support he or she had during marriage, pretending that everybody is great friends and being morally obligated to hide the wounds and scars of the split. Actions have consequences.
Posted by: Peter B at January 29, 2004 8:55 AMThe divorces should be nearly impossible to get until the children are all out of the house and the conditions attached to divorce decrees should be precisely that onerous. Marriage is a social institution not a personal convenience.
Posted by: oj at January 29, 2004 9:00 AMOrrin:
Doesn't work for adultery, abuse or desertion. Never did, which is why the vows. These things can cause real physical and mental illness in even the most hardy. No one should be expected to suffer them.
Posted by: Peter B at January 29, 2004 9:08 AMYes, but those aren't the problem any more than rape, incest and life of the mother justify abortion.
Posted by: oj at January 29, 2004 9:27 AMPeter B: I think you are creating a straw man here. Going back to the example in the column, there isn't mention of abuse, adultery or desertion. I read it more as a man asking a third party for permission to desert his kids. Sure, he'll provide financial support and the obligatory two week summer vacation, and if that were all kids needed he'd have my blessing to pursue his lady love. But the hard truth is that is not all kids need. Kids need the mundane, repetitive day in and day out contact with both parents.
As far as a widow or widower, in a way I'd think that a death of a parent may be a little easier to take since the child would know that the parent did not voluntarily desert them.
No fault divorce and the subsequent normalizing of divorce was one of the greatest crimes comitted against children.
Posted by: Buttercup at January 29, 2004 9:37 AMButtercup:
You're right that there was no mention of the circumstances, and that is the problem. You read it one perfectly reasonable way, but it would be just as reasonable to imagine him being a mild, dutiful, slightly boring sort booted out so his wife could "find" herself with the neighbour's husband. The advice, and maybe even the law, would presumably be different, which is why your last sentence is bang on.
Posted by: Peter B at January 29, 2004 10:23 AMWhy should I put the interests of, say, Islamists ahead of my own?
You do not follow your own advice, Orrin.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at January 29, 2004 5:33 PMYour wife is an Islamist?
Posted by: oj at January 29, 2004 6:32 PMPeter: Doesn't work for adultery, abuse or desertion. Never did, which is why the vows. These things can cause real physical and mental illness in even the most hardy. No one should be expected to suffer them.
Orrin: Yes, but those aren't the problem any more than rape, incest and life of the mother justify abortion.
Terminating a marriage is not the same as terminating a life. Abuse and desertion are not just inconveniences for the spouse, but serious threats to the well-being of the children. There are times when the well-being of children is served by a divorce or separation.
Robert:
Yes, they're exceptions. We've made divorce the rule.
Posted by: oj at January 30, 2004 1:49 PM