I've never listened to one of her shows in its entirety (or for more than twenty minutes, in fact). I do flip around the radio dial from time to time looking for people to argue with, though, and I have occasionally caught snippets of her show here and there.
She can be obnoxious to her callers, she is pushy, and she begins from some assumptions that I don't share--particularly when it comes to gender roles and the necesity of religion. I don't always agree with her advice or her point of view. When she stops addressing the specific concerns of her callers and starts in on politics in general, I typically switch to something else, because her replies then are typically much more kneejerk conservatism.
But she also gives people the hard responses, and tells them that they have to put their committments before their impulses. Am I a reactionary if I admit that from time to time I nod?
So why is it that when her name gets mentioned, responses get rather lopsidedly vitriolic? In my infrequent snatches of this show, have I missed the really bad stuff? Is there dirt on her that doesn't get mentioned in her show?
What's the rest of the story?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I have about the exact same reaction to her that you do, Icky.
I like that she talks straight and tells people that there are consequences to their actions. I like that she supports the lifestyle of stay at home motherhood because our poor profession doesn't get much recognition.
I don't really listen to the show, I'm not a fan of any type of talk radio really. When I'm in the car alone I like to play music and sing, 'cause no one is there to hear how bad I am.
If a woman sings in a car and there is no one to hear her, is she still out of tune? Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My mom is a major Dr. Laura fan, so when the unauthorized biography came out a few years back I thought I'd read it so I could get the real deal. They tried to paint her as a mentally unstable person. She admits she had a divorce, that her doctorate is in physiology, and I'm not sure what her counseling qual is except for being licensed in California. I quit reading the book when they had her first boss in broadcasting "confessing" that they had an affair, of which he had kept pictures. I had a sense there was something a little screwy with the information being presented.
Her mother was Catholic and her father Jewish, and Laura herself has converted to Judaism, I think because her husband was (and after having a child she felt a greater need for a formal connection to God). Interestingly, she had her tubes tied as a younger person and then had them untied, and after years of fertility treatments, gave up only to fall pregnant without treatment. (I was going to say "on her own"...)
So I think a lot of her style comes from having made a lot of the mistakes she is trying to save people from.
Anyway, after stopping reading the unauthorized biography, I tried an internet search on her and you get a wide spectrum of photoshopped porn resulting. I was very curious to know why scumbags find her so offensive, and that was the beginning of listening fairly frequently for a few years. (I'm not calling anyone here who finds her offensive a scumbag, only the porn photoshoppers)
She is most hated for her stance that gays are born that way, and that way must be a defect of some kind. So some liberal groups sandbagged her brief lived TV show. But the show was kind of boring anyway. Toys R Us and Proctor and Gamble were prominent sponsors that boycotted the show. Though she does support adoption by gay couples, but recommends they take in foster children instead of newborns. I don't think that's a very logical position, but I don't have the same conclusion as her about gays.
But she is most ardent about rescuing/preventing abused and neglected children. Also favors adoption over abortion, and doesn't believe in daycare under most circumstances. Like, if a caller is widowed, she would tell her to live with her parents and work at night. It seems she doesn't touch questions of compulsive debting and bankruptcy.
edit: as I mentioned elsewhere, when I was diagnosed with OCD she is one of the things I decided I didn't need on a daily basis. Only to be replaced with Hatrack.
Oh, and her views on Israel and National Security are a lot like OSC's
[ February 24, 2004, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think it's kind of arrogant to think that you can give good suggestions concerning a situation you know very little (to nothing) about.
And kind of dumb that there are people who call in for her generic advice.
That said, I've listened for the entertainment. It's kinda like watching Springer.
Occasionally, she gives good advice, but more often I find myself thinking"she didn't just say that, did she?"
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Um, she is a practicing psychiatrist (psychologist? )... so one could say she's had a lot of experience with things she hasn't necessarily been through.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
She's not a psychologist or a psychiatrist; she's a counselor. (At least I believe so, from looking at her website.)
[ February 24, 2004, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Does this thread remind anyone of Brian Fellows, the SNL animal "enthusiast" who is not a licensed vet or zoologist, but is simply a "lover of animals."? Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
The only thing that relates to me and Dr. Laura is the fact that she totally convinced my Dad that there is no such thing as ADD. So while I was trying to point out a few things about one of my brothers friend (diagnosed) he totally dismissed it for 'bad behavior' and started quoting her. I bought a big book and threw it at him.
And that's my story.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I dislike her, but she does make a few valid points when she is not being rude.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Pooka, she did have an affair with the guy, and there are pictures (she's taken people to court over them, and has admitted they are real). I'm not exactly sure if you were saying you didn't believe it, but it definitely happened.
Dr. Laura occasionally says something worthwhile. However, I can't shake the feeling when I listen to her that many, perhaps most, of her suggestions are doing more harm than good.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
She's pretty trashy, from what little I've listened to her. Sometimes she's not offensive, when she's talking about subjects it's really difficult to be offensive about (e.g. telling a mom not to give her kid the answers to his algebra homework), but she's fairly worthless as anything but a female Hannity.
I can see why people are impressed with her directness, but when she has so little to say, being direct about it isn't exactly inspirational. At least not to me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
People are complex critters. Just because I dislike much of what she says, I have no doubt that she sincerely wants to help people and that she can also offer good advice.
What I don't like, besides the "gays are genetic defects" line, is that the times I've listened to her she's crossed the line from tough love to abusive. I listened to her give precisely opposite advice to two different callers with similar situations, one after the other, and be openly scornful of both of them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I personally like Sluggy Freelance's take on the subject, which neatly matches my own.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: The only thing that relates to me and Dr. Laura is the fact that she totally convinced my Dad that there is no such thing as ADD.
That's pretty annoying. ADD gets alot of stereotypes attached to it, like all kids that have it go bouncing off the walls or something. I know a couple of kids that are really GOOD kids, respectful, kind, and hardworking that have ADD, and have a lot of trouble with school because of it. What does Dr. Laura think about them, I wonder?
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Wasn't she the one who told one mother to let her toddler wander around a coffee shop because it's the only way he'll eat?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I used to listen to her when I first started staying home with the kids, because there were so few voices out there that supported my choice. But she frequently talked over peopleand didn't seem to listen to them, which is bad if you're supposed to be a counsellor.
But she did lay it straight for some people without sugar-coating, which was interesting to hear. I used to tell Ron when I heard her say something I really agreed with and he'd say, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."
GOD, how I love that man!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Mrs M...I thought that that was the mom's perspective, and Dr. Laura told her that it was stupid because everyone needs to eat, and the hungry child would eat wherever the mom put him if that was his only opportunity to eat.
Or maybe that was just my thought at the time. I can't remember.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Mrs. M, that's not quite the way I'd put it, but yes. Her qualifier was that the toddler couldn't be obnoxious to other patrons of the cafe. As long as he wasn't bugging anyone, she didn't see anything wrong with letting the toddler walk around and eat his bagel at the same time. A couple of older men, regulars of the cafe, didn't like it, and so asked the mother to corral her kid. The mother didn't know if they were out of line, or if she was, so she called Dr. Laura.
Personally, I disagreed on that particular bit of advice.
While I don't always agree with the way she puts across her advice, or the way she cuts people off, I will say that she frequently gets to the heart of the matter, and manages to dig up stuff from people that is very relevent to the call that otherwise would not have come up. I like that she gives people assignments to try at home, and then wants them to call back to say how well it worked. She wants people to follow up with her. She's very gentle with children on the line, but she does tell them when they're in the wrong. I used to think "wow would she be a bummer to have at a party", but then I realized that people were calling her for advice...they were opening themselves up for whatever she was dishing out that day...which is not exactly the same as having a normal conversation with a person.
I figure that a lot of her appeal is that she says, outright and as blunt as a dull knife, what we often want to say to some people.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*never listened to Dr. Laura*
But I suspect much of the condemnation she gets is because, um, people rarely enjoy someone pointing out their destructive actions.
I mean, Springer is contemptible, but he makes people snort, not foam at the mouth. Apparently, Dr. Laura strikes a nerve.
[ February 24, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Because he doesn't pretend to be a professional.
Dr. Laura expects people to take her seriously, and, unfortunately, some do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Really? It isn't her advice, but that she dares to give it that angers people? I'm skeptical, Frisco.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
kat, her Doctorate is in Animal Physiology.
I'd like to take a poll of her listeners to find out how many of them actually think she's medically qualified to be giving the advice she does.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...I think that people would be just as mad at her for words if she had an MD/PhD in counseling from Harvard.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
If she had one, perhaps she'd be giving better advice. And living up to her title.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* So it is her advice.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Giving the advice is fine, whether or not I agree, but I don't know (personally) a single listener of hers who doesn't think she's a qualified psychologist/psychiatrist.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know anyone who listens to her except those who have mentioned it on Hatrack.
And they know she's not...
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think we're more aware than your average radio listeners.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm still having a hard time believing that the vitrol, boycotts, and invectives against her are all inspired by her daring to give advice without academia's official approval.
The condemnation for it stems from an attempt to discredit her, but the desire to discredit comes from another place.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
You may be right. I'm only speaking for myself. I really don't know much about the vitrols or boycotts.
More aware, indeed.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
If that's you, Lalo, that's hilarious. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, I forgot to mention that her mother was murdered last year and no one noticed for several weeks. She did advise people afterward that even if they are written off by a family member, they should check on them every couple of weeks.
I didn't say the affair couldn't have happened, I was icked out by the guy implying he finally consented to admitting the affair, and then volunteered pictures. As if it pained him to sully her.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I intensely dislike her because she enjoys playing petty little power games with her callers. She cuts them off. She makes them play guessing games. She calls them names. She makes them beg for her advice. All the standard bs that power trippers use.
This isn't to say that her advice, when she finally gets around to revealing it, isn't ever sound. It very often is.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:She did advise people afterward that even if they are written off by a family member, they should check on them every couple of weeks.
I find that hard to believe. You can't get through an hour of the show without hearing something like, "[cuts off some whiny bitch] -- Now Jane, I want you to listen to me closely. When someone is being destructive to you and your family, you need to tell them 'sorry [in-law], you cannot be part of my life anymore,' and then you maintain zero contact until they learn how to act in the adult world."
As the pseudoquote illustrates, she is harsh. Unfortunately, the world of estranged relationships, family grudges, and childrearing is harsh. Most of her advice is exactly what people need to hear but are too chicken to admit.
All that speaking as a "liberal." (what talk radio would call me anyway) Politically she's a nutjob -- nowhere as annoying as Hannity, of course -- but we're discussing the meat of her counseling here, not the random soapboxing in between the callers' hourly break.
[ March 03, 2004, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I really liked the fact that she supported my 'lifestyle choice' (that of staying at home with my children-- which is way harder than I ever would have thought when I was working) but I liked her less and less after hearing her bully people, and giving advice based on her assumptions rather than letting people explain their situations. I think what killed it for me was when a mother of teenagers had an opportunity to do something (Dr.Laura never let her say what it was) but it would require the mom to be absent from the home for a period of time in the afternoon that would leave the teens on their own for a few hours after school, though she would still be there in the morning, and had family members willing to fill in for her.
Dr. Laura called her selfish and shouted her down without hearing about the details of the situation. She was just beating the "children come first" drum without considering that Maybe, just maybe, this mom could do something for herself without hurting her chldren.
I mean, is SHE home with milk and cookies for her kid, every day? Did she get her degrees without ever resorting to a baby sitter now and then? Geez. THAT made me angry.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dr. Laura isn't even a real doctor... Why listen to her advice?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I understand that the reason the show is on during the afternoon hours is so she can be home when her kid is home.
But I get what you mean. I listen to her in the car when I go to pick up the kids, usually because right at that time there are tons of commercials at my favorite radio station.
There are too many times when I'm groaning and asking her to just listen to the person. She needs to speak with more compassion, encouragement. Kicks in the butt never motivated me.
edit to Synth: The older I've gotten, the more I've realized that a stupid little paper from a beaurocratic committee in a education institution means only that the person can work hard and kiss butt. It has relatively little to say on how seriously we should take the person. This is gets truer the higher the degree.
I would make an exception for medical degrees and things where really knowing your stuff is critical to your job.
[ March 03, 2004, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
She's on in the afternoon? Oh, afternoon out west? She's on like at six here. It's a long show, though, isn't it? So even if it started at three in CA, it would still keep her away from her family for a while. Unless the one out here is on tape delay. Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
I believe she's on from 11-2 California time. She had to change it a few years back so that she could be home when her son was home.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:a stupid little paper from a beaurocratic committee in a education institution means only that the person can work hard and kiss butt.
Good grief. Touchy subject?
It can also mean that you finished something.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:edit to Synth: The older I've gotten, the more I've realized that a stupid little paper from a beaurocratic committee in a education institution means only that the person can work hard and kiss butt. It has relatively little to say on how seriously we should take the person. This is gets truer the higher the degree.
If I wanted to stoop to your level, I could say that the lack of an advanced degree means that one is either talentless or a sell-out. Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
It isn't a particularly touchy subject. I was just irritated that Synth would dismiss anything Dr. Laura said because she doesn't have the right degree. It isn't really so much that I'm defending Dr. Laura. She is often too rude. But like others have said, her advice usually pretty sound.
My point is this: the little signed paper means relatively little if a person has put a lot of time and effort into their education, unless it is recognition by other academics one is looking for. (Except in special circumstances like medical or law practice)
I think this is particularly true in therapy. Does having a doctorate in psychology necessarily make one a better therapist? No. I think it has no bearing on that. A bad therapist will not suddenly become good because they have a degree in hand. A good therapist was probably a good listener even before they set foot on a college campus.
A degree does not mean your education is complete. Anyone good in their field continues to read material and keep up to date. A college degree doesn't show that.
My husband is a fantastic programmer. He gets paid very well for his job. He often reads new manuals to expand his knowledge. He went to college in Russia, but he didn't study programming. And yet he is among the best in his field. He makes enough for us to own a nice home, two cars, and for me to stay at home. I never studied programming in college, but chances are that with a couple of weeks brush up, I could get a $30,000/yr job. I'm worth about $30/hr right now. And I have no degree at all. I've been volunteering a LOT at the school, and while I respect those teachers a LOT and love what they do for my children, I think I could do what they do with about three months training. Mostly in organization and age appropriate curriculum.
Don't get me wrong, I would like to go back to college, but it won't be to pursue a degree. It will only be to learn new things in a structured environment. I don't need a degree to be successful or to have a valid advice.
[ March 03, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Amka, the comment about the therapists only being good listeners shows your own lack of knowledge of the field.
I'm sure you're a good teacher as a mom, but your dismissal of their training shows more of your ignorance than theirs.
The only I do agree on is the computer programming bit.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't mean to be offensive, but ESPECIALLY in terms of licensed therapists, that's like saying "I don't need the piece of paper. I just need the knowledge and effective listening skills, which are best aquired under experienced direction."... which are what the piece of paper represents.
[ March 03, 2004, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:I never studied programming in college, but chances are that with a couple of weeks brush up, I could get a $30,000/yr job. I'm worth about $30/hr right now.
FWIW, $30 an hour is roughly $60,000 a year.
quote:I've been volunteering a LOT at the school, and while I respect those teachers a LOT and love what they do for my children, I think I could do what they do with about three months training. Mostly in organization and age appropriate curriculum.
That doesn't exactly sound like a lot of respect.
In any case, I have a beef with teachers who are only grounded in age appropriate curriculum. I once had a math department head who had never taken a course in calculus, and I hear the new seventh grade math teacher at my old middle school never took anything above Algebra 2. I think this is a problem, becuse knowing the material you teach is not enough. It's important to have a thorough knowledge of the discipline, so that you can see what the kids are learning in context, and know what to emphasize, and to not teach it in a manner that will help them answer this year's questions correctly, but leave them with bad habits that will haunt them in later courses. It's one of the areas I agree with NCLB on. I think it's not too much to ask that core subject teachers be highly qualified in their field.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Agreed, Icarus.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I respect the teachers for how they are with the children, for how good they are at teaching, not for their teaching degree.
The degree means little in teaching. I could have finished out in biology and taken a course in elementary education and a few child development classes. The course isn't that long. All they want is the college degree. And knowing how to balance a chemical equation isn't going to be very useful while teaching kindergarten. But experience and dedication means a lot, and most of the teachers my kids have had are very experienced. I would by no means expect to be as good a teacher as my daughter's fantastic kindergarten teacher in my first year. But I can see myself getting to that level, without a college degree.
By age appropriate curriculum, I'm not talking about being grounded only in that. I'm talking about have a grasp pretty much on what to teach the kids when.
And as to therapists, I will agree that you do not only need listening skills. My point is that those, and common sense, are more important than the degree, and the degree will only make you more knowledgable. Knowledge is good. Regulation is needed. But the degree tells me very little about how good that therapist is. The degree was a joke when my mom's therapist told her that her scores (on some test about how she saw herself) were so low that he was suprised she hadn't commited suicide years ago.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ami, to support your thesis that the piece of paper is worthless, you must assume a crappy program where the professors read from the textbooks.
The good ones aren't like that.
quote:I would by no means expect to be as good a teacher as my daughter's fantastic kindergarten teacher in my first year. But I can see myself getting to that level, without a college degree.
Right, you'd just have to educate yourself, model good teachers, and get some experience.
What do you think they do in college? That's what proto-teachers do!
[ March 03, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's not the lack of degree that makes me dismiss her. It's the fact that she's giving out psycological advice to desparate people in delicate situations that involves some sort of... expertise.... And also that she's mean and rude. I know that pieces of paper are not always important but if someone is calling and in need of help... Well... They would need a person who is more than a good listener, they'd need someone with at least a basic knowledge of human psychology.... Grah... >.<
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have no sympathy for those who call her, though. She's in entertainment! Your problem is being used to make money for people! And, it's free. Anything good you get is gravy.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
She HAS expertise. She IS a liscensed therapist, and that requires passing certain requirements.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Oh, and on that, I agree Katharina. What do these people expect? Sometimes they are trying to get a few months of therapy in a 5 minute call. But she will tell people that, actually. She'll tell them that they need a therapist. Or a lawyer.
But a lot of it is common sense. Frankly, I wouldn't take her on as a therapist, but not because I don't agree with her.
Well, Katharina, I've just come from 2 hours of volunteering where I did grunt work for the teacher while I observed her teaching. If I did that more often with the intent to teach, and she gave me more and more responsibility I would be able to do it. No piece of paper required.
I will back off and say it isn't completely worthless. I will say that it says that the person went to so many classes and passed them. Depending on the degree, it might also mean they did a really big project that passed inspection by the teachers. But for most fields, experience and ability is far more beneficial than the piece of paper.
College is good for the education, but is a lot less necessary than people think.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dr. Laura?
It's like being surprised when someone you meet on a reality dating show didn't actually mean the expressions of true love. Well, the entire situation existed to make someone money. Of course isn't the real thing!
--
So I'll agree that it's possible to be good at and become proficient in some things without a formal education, and you'll agree that a college education isn't worthless butt-kissing, and everyone's happy?
quote:She IS a liscensed therapist, and that requires passing certain requirements.
Isn't a license just a piece of paper?
[ March 03, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I have no sympathy for those who call her, though. She's in entertainment! Your problem is being used to make money for people! And, it's free. Anything good you get is gravy.
Word.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
My sister is also a liscenced therapist, though her degrees are alsoin Psychology.
Hmmm. Dunno if that makes Dr. Laura look good or bad. My sister is certainly much more compassionate.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Part of what makes people able to function is that we do not know our own true motives. What I hear her doing most the time (well, from 2000-2003 anyway) was asking people questions to get them past the story they are telling themselves which is no longer working.
Of course, Dr. Phil is a Ph.D. in something else also. Is he a counselor?
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
Dr. Phil has a Ph D. in psychology. Dr. Laura has a Ph D. in physiology, which is not psychology. She has a certificate in marriage and family counseling.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
OTOH, I can stomach him a lot better than Dr. Laura.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I can't stomach EITHER of them.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
pooka only asked said he didn't have his Ph D. in psychology. I'm not particularly fond of him either, but at least he has a Ph D. in the field.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
His accent is extremely annoying.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Just because he has a PhD doesn't mean he's a GOOD psychologist. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In fact, if you follow the link, it mentions the fact -- which he admitted, years back -- that he got out of psychotherapy because he was no good at it.
Ummm . . .
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Mmm... I'll pass on either of them... I don't like having the TV or radio telling me what to do. If anyone's going to have an opinion and advice about me I need to follow, they better know my last name, at the very least.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If a woman sings in a car and there is no one to hear her, is she still out of tune? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)