The One Year Anniversary of Dr. Laura Schlessinger Using the "N" Word On the Air has come and gone, with not a little fanfare. And, of course, that prompted another round of sniping, including ever so much ignorance about who Schlessinger is and what she says on her show and in her writings. So many of her critics don't have a clue - not the slightest clue - and they take the vomit puked out by others. put it into their own mouths, and in turn spit it out all over again.
I respect honest, principled disagreements.
I don't respect libelous character assassination, especially when it is mindless parroting of something some other ignorant person said.
So with that, I bring you something I originally published on January 19 of this year...
Where's the civility For Dr. Laura?
So much for toning down the rhetoric and refraining from spewing vitriol. Dr. Laura Schlessinger has a new book out, which means she's promoting that book. And that means shrill, shrieking, and demonstrably false attacks on Dr. Laura by the logically-impaired couch potatoes, neglectful "mothers", and feminized guys out there who are upset that she's appearing on their usually Lefty-feminist televisions.
Dr. Laura does fifteen hours of radio a week. She's written many books. She blogs. She's written many columns. What she actually has said isn't hard to find or document. And yet so many people get it so wrong. Some are misrepresenting Dr. Laura's teachings and statements deliberately, usually for their own fundraising or ideological purposes. Others are relying on these dubious sources.
It is quite sad, really, as some of the people who would benefit most from her advice won't even consider it. These people, who refuse to check out what Dr. Laura actually says, when asked why, will almost invariably say it is because she is "intolerant, judgmental, hateful, or prejudiced". The irony of their declarations of hating someone they won't even listen to, supposedly for her being judgmental, fails to dawn on them.
So much of what Dr. Laura says is exactly right. My life is better because of her. Overall, I'd say she's done much, much, more good for the world than just about any of her critics.
One of the most common attacks is calling Dr. Laura a hypocrite. This is supposed to be the "get out of jail free card" for the morally guilty, right up there with claiming to be offended when other people notice their misdeeds.
There's a lot of confusion over the word "hypocrisy". What it really is: saying one thing while believing another. While we can't really know what someone else believes in their heart for sure, we can guess based on what they do.
Let's look at an example of hypocrisy. Let's say someone says "I believe it is wrong to make adult movies", but they are, at that very time, involved in ongoing production of adult movies. That person would be a hypocrite. They would NOT be a hypocrite if they were making "regular" movies. They would not be a hypocrite if they had previously made adult movies and had since repented. They wouldn't be a hypocrite if they had previously made adult movies, repented, and now criticize, say, smoking. Furthermore, if someone added to the original statement to say "I believe it is wrong to make adult movies for public distribution", all the while making private videos alone with her spouse for viewing by herself and her spouse only – that would not be hypocrisy. (Dr. Laura does not have a sex tape circulating out there. I'm just making a point.)
We look for evidence of a hypocritical statement in someone's actions. But even so, PAST action does not indicate CURRENT belief. Even more so, the problem is the past or current wrong action, not speaking out against what is wrong.
The immoral will use charges of hypocrisy - implying that hypocrisy is wrong - to try to get other people to stop saying that something they like to do is wrong. Whether or not someone is a hypocrite does not make wrong actions good or okay or honorable.
For the fun of it, though, I'm waiting for a legitimate example of how Dr. Laura is a hypocrite. She gets viciously attacked over and over again by angry, bitter people. A textbook could be written about misrepresentation and logical fallacies involved in this. But for all of their spewing of the word, they have failed to show her to be a hypocrite.
The "hypocrite" attacks have mostly amounted to claiming that things she did while a "liberal brainwashed feminista" (her words) that she has since repented of somehow disqualify her from giving an opinion to people who seek it on the radio and print. Some attacks have also tried to blame her for the supposed actions of her mother and her adult son; have centered on the fact that she's not a physician (which is strange because she readily states she's not – she has a Doctorate); that she worked while her son was a minor even though she tells women not to work if they have minor children (a strawman, because Dr. Laura's position is that parents should raise their own kids instead of dumping them on relatives or daycare, and she made sure that either her son was with her while she was on the radio, or that she worked while he was asleep, etc.); that she told military wives to shut up (she told them not to burden their deployed husbands with complaints about which the husbands could do nothing while deployed); and that she blames wives for their husbands cheating (she blames cheaters for cheating, but does point out that a well-picked husband is not going to cheat if his wife is giving him the simple things he needs). There are also complaints about how she handles callers, but her objective (aside from getting people to listen of course) is to make the caller (and listener) do better, not necessarily feel better immediately. There's a short amount of time to accomplish this on a call-in radio talk show, so she often has to be blunt and curt and cut through the word games and denial.
Really, though, most of these "charges" against her are things people wouldn't bother with, except that people hate it when someone points out that a behavior they are engaged in is immoral, destructive, or somehow depriving someone else of something due them.
She's being attacked because she says that people should save sex and cohabitation for marriage; that women should not sexually reject their husbands; that a woman or girl who isn't in a healthy marriage should give her baby up for adoption rather than keeping the baby or having the baby "sucked into a sink"; that if someone does choose to raise a child alone or ends up divorced or widowed that they should not get a new honey until the youngest child is grown; and that children should be raised by a married mom and dad, and not by "day orphanages", shack-up couples, unmarried individuals, or same-sex couples.
It is that last one that really sets people off – the idea that children need a mom and a dad. So people refer back to a quote from her show in which she said that a homosexual orientation is a biological error. I'll grant that the quote is accurate for the sake of this discussion. Repeatedly, the spin put on that quote is that she called people (gays and lesbians) biological errors – and that is not what the quote says. But notice she did say that homosexuality is inborn. Regardless, homofascists have treated her like Lou Sheldon or even Fred Phelps, despite her stating that homosexuality is not a choice. Despite the fact that she repeatedly takes calls from gays and lesbians and treats them with dignity and respect, she repeatedly tells others to be loving, friendly, and accepting towards gays and lesbians, and she repeatedly tells concerned callers that the gays and lesbians they know are not going to stop being gay and lesbian and their partners should be treated with respect and kindness. She has even said same-sex couples should avail themselves of the ability to get marriage licenses in the states that will issue them to brideless or groomless couples. But because she notes that children need a mom and a dad and that, because of that (and to avoid creating "extra" embryos destined to be killed), same-sex couples should not make babies through third party reproduction or adopt infants - she gets severely disparaged continually.
There are the extensive whiny webpages. And hardly a day goes by that someone doesn't blog a "letter to Dr. Laura" that was also adapted by lazy West Wing scribes in which she and the Bible are mocked over the issue of homosexual behavior. The letter emerged when Dr. Laura was practicing as an Orthodox Jew (she no longer identifies as Orthodox). There's an excellent response to that letter here, by the way. No matter – people will still keep putting it on their blogs and pretend like they really know what the Bible teaches, and what Dr, Laura said all those years ago.
You can read things I previously wrote about these matters here and here.
Read Dr. Laura's full recent statement yourself.
Meanwhile, the poof is in the pudding. You can read letters to Dr. Laura, listen to her callers, and read blogs from everyday people that reveal that her advice has led to happier and better behaved children, happier and better behaved spouses, and happier and more self-respecting people in general – including people who are gay or lesbian. There are gays and lesbians who benefit from her advice, and I can only hope that as a result, they see how some of the venomous haters and advocacy groups do not represent their best interests.
The same could be said about race and Dr. Laura's use of "the n word". Dr. Laura didn't use that word against someone or to describe someone. She used it to make a point to a caller, and she realized she didn't handle the call in the best way, and apologized for it. But the haters used it to distract from real issues. They attacked as "racist" a woman who has vehemently supported interracial married couples on her program. Dr. Laura was fed up with how the activist groups attack terrestrial radio broadcasters, and so now her show's home is satellite radio. Hey, things are even better now, so what those haters meant for ill has been used for good, including Dr. Laura clearing up some of the lies about her. On her last terrestrial radio broadcast, she took calls and explained some of what really happened when it came to her walking away from association with Orthodox Judaism. On her new show, in response to an erroneous statement by a caller, she explained that her mother abandoned her and refused contact with her. Really, what was Dr. Laura supposed to do about that? In her new book and through the book promotion, she has talked about the situation with the late Bill Balance.
The haters, I expect, will continue to trade and circulate lies.
I have my own minor disagreements with some of her opinions. But I base those on things she actually says, not a misunderstanding of what she says. Isn't it time people stop slandering and libeling her, especially in this supposed new age of civility?
Previously:
I Believe Glen Starkey Libeled Dr. Laura
Hit-and-Run Dr. Laura Critics
See also "Libel is Fun" over at Everything Must Go!
I respect honest, principled disagreements.
I don't respect libelous character assassination, especially when it is mindless parroting of something some other ignorant person said.
So with that, I bring you something I originally published on January 19 of this year...
Where's the civility For Dr. Laura?
So much for toning down the rhetoric and refraining from spewing vitriol. Dr. Laura Schlessinger has a new book out, which means she's promoting that book. And that means shrill, shrieking, and demonstrably false attacks on Dr. Laura by the logically-impaired couch potatoes, neglectful "mothers", and feminized guys out there who are upset that she's appearing on their usually Lefty-feminist televisions.
Dr. Laura does fifteen hours of radio a week. She's written many books. She blogs. She's written many columns. What she actually has said isn't hard to find or document. And yet so many people get it so wrong. Some are misrepresenting Dr. Laura's teachings and statements deliberately, usually for their own fundraising or ideological purposes. Others are relying on these dubious sources.
It is quite sad, really, as some of the people who would benefit most from her advice won't even consider it. These people, who refuse to check out what Dr. Laura actually says, when asked why, will almost invariably say it is because she is "intolerant, judgmental, hateful, or prejudiced". The irony of their declarations of hating someone they won't even listen to, supposedly for her being judgmental, fails to dawn on them.
So much of what Dr. Laura says is exactly right. My life is better because of her. Overall, I'd say she's done much, much, more good for the world than just about any of her critics.
One of the most common attacks is calling Dr. Laura a hypocrite. This is supposed to be the "get out of jail free card" for the morally guilty, right up there with claiming to be offended when other people notice their misdeeds.
There's a lot of confusion over the word "hypocrisy". What it really is: saying one thing while believing another. While we can't really know what someone else believes in their heart for sure, we can guess based on what they do.
Let's look at an example of hypocrisy. Let's say someone says "I believe it is wrong to make adult movies", but they are, at that very time, involved in ongoing production of adult movies. That person would be a hypocrite. They would NOT be a hypocrite if they were making "regular" movies. They would not be a hypocrite if they had previously made adult movies and had since repented. They wouldn't be a hypocrite if they had previously made adult movies, repented, and now criticize, say, smoking. Furthermore, if someone added to the original statement to say "I believe it is wrong to make adult movies for public distribution", all the while making private videos alone with her spouse for viewing by herself and her spouse only – that would not be hypocrisy. (Dr. Laura does not have a sex tape circulating out there. I'm just making a point.)
We look for evidence of a hypocritical statement in someone's actions. But even so, PAST action does not indicate CURRENT belief. Even more so, the problem is the past or current wrong action, not speaking out against what is wrong.
The immoral will use charges of hypocrisy - implying that hypocrisy is wrong - to try to get other people to stop saying that something they like to do is wrong. Whether or not someone is a hypocrite does not make wrong actions good or okay or honorable.
For the fun of it, though, I'm waiting for a legitimate example of how Dr. Laura is a hypocrite. She gets viciously attacked over and over again by angry, bitter people. A textbook could be written about misrepresentation and logical fallacies involved in this. But for all of their spewing of the word, they have failed to show her to be a hypocrite.
The "hypocrite" attacks have mostly amounted to claiming that things she did while a "liberal brainwashed feminista" (her words) that she has since repented of somehow disqualify her from giving an opinion to people who seek it on the radio and print. Some attacks have also tried to blame her for the supposed actions of her mother and her adult son; have centered on the fact that she's not a physician (which is strange because she readily states she's not – she has a Doctorate); that she worked while her son was a minor even though she tells women not to work if they have minor children (a strawman, because Dr. Laura's position is that parents should raise their own kids instead of dumping them on relatives or daycare, and she made sure that either her son was with her while she was on the radio, or that she worked while he was asleep, etc.); that she told military wives to shut up (she told them not to burden their deployed husbands with complaints about which the husbands could do nothing while deployed); and that she blames wives for their husbands cheating (she blames cheaters for cheating, but does point out that a well-picked husband is not going to cheat if his wife is giving him the simple things he needs). There are also complaints about how she handles callers, but her objective (aside from getting people to listen of course) is to make the caller (and listener) do better, not necessarily feel better immediately. There's a short amount of time to accomplish this on a call-in radio talk show, so she often has to be blunt and curt and cut through the word games and denial.
Really, though, most of these "charges" against her are things people wouldn't bother with, except that people hate it when someone points out that a behavior they are engaged in is immoral, destructive, or somehow depriving someone else of something due them.
She's being attacked because she says that people should save sex and cohabitation for marriage; that women should not sexually reject their husbands; that a woman or girl who isn't in a healthy marriage should give her baby up for adoption rather than keeping the baby or having the baby "sucked into a sink"; that if someone does choose to raise a child alone or ends up divorced or widowed that they should not get a new honey until the youngest child is grown; and that children should be raised by a married mom and dad, and not by "day orphanages", shack-up couples, unmarried individuals, or same-sex couples.
It is that last one that really sets people off – the idea that children need a mom and a dad. So people refer back to a quote from her show in which she said that a homosexual orientation is a biological error. I'll grant that the quote is accurate for the sake of this discussion. Repeatedly, the spin put on that quote is that she called people (gays and lesbians) biological errors – and that is not what the quote says. But notice she did say that homosexuality is inborn. Regardless, homofascists have treated her like Lou Sheldon or even Fred Phelps, despite her stating that homosexuality is not a choice. Despite the fact that she repeatedly takes calls from gays and lesbians and treats them with dignity and respect, she repeatedly tells others to be loving, friendly, and accepting towards gays and lesbians, and she repeatedly tells concerned callers that the gays and lesbians they know are not going to stop being gay and lesbian and their partners should be treated with respect and kindness. She has even said same-sex couples should avail themselves of the ability to get marriage licenses in the states that will issue them to brideless or groomless couples. But because she notes that children need a mom and a dad and that, because of that (and to avoid creating "extra" embryos destined to be killed), same-sex couples should not make babies through third party reproduction or adopt infants - she gets severely disparaged continually.
There are the extensive whiny webpages. And hardly a day goes by that someone doesn't blog a "letter to Dr. Laura" that was also adapted by lazy West Wing scribes in which she and the Bible are mocked over the issue of homosexual behavior. The letter emerged when Dr. Laura was practicing as an Orthodox Jew (she no longer identifies as Orthodox). There's an excellent response to that letter here, by the way. No matter – people will still keep putting it on their blogs and pretend like they really know what the Bible teaches, and what Dr, Laura said all those years ago.
You can read things I previously wrote about these matters here and here.
Read Dr. Laura's full recent statement yourself.
Meanwhile, the poof is in the pudding. You can read letters to Dr. Laura, listen to her callers, and read blogs from everyday people that reveal that her advice has led to happier and better behaved children, happier and better behaved spouses, and happier and more self-respecting people in general – including people who are gay or lesbian. There are gays and lesbians who benefit from her advice, and I can only hope that as a result, they see how some of the venomous haters and advocacy groups do not represent their best interests.
The same could be said about race and Dr. Laura's use of "the n word". Dr. Laura didn't use that word against someone or to describe someone. She used it to make a point to a caller, and she realized she didn't handle the call in the best way, and apologized for it. But the haters used it to distract from real issues. They attacked as "racist" a woman who has vehemently supported interracial married couples on her program. Dr. Laura was fed up with how the activist groups attack terrestrial radio broadcasters, and so now her show's home is satellite radio. Hey, things are even better now, so what those haters meant for ill has been used for good, including Dr. Laura clearing up some of the lies about her. On her last terrestrial radio broadcast, she took calls and explained some of what really happened when it came to her walking away from association with Orthodox Judaism. On her new show, in response to an erroneous statement by a caller, she explained that her mother abandoned her and refused contact with her. Really, what was Dr. Laura supposed to do about that? In her new book and through the book promotion, she has talked about the situation with the late Bill Balance.
The haters, I expect, will continue to trade and circulate lies.
I have my own minor disagreements with some of her opinions. But I base those on things she actually says, not a misunderstanding of what she says. Isn't it time people stop slandering and libeling her, especially in this supposed new age of civility?
Previously:
I Believe Glen Starkey Libeled Dr. Laura
Hit-and-Run Dr. Laura Critics
See also "Libel is Fun" over at Everything Must Go!
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.