Differences of Opinion
May. 12th, 2003 04:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deoridheI got a chance to hear Dr. Laura today.
For those who might not know, Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio talk-show host with a somewhat controversial, conservative point of view. Her doctorate is in English, which is clearly demonstrated in her manner. She has an excellent grasp of the English language, which is invaluable when one is trying to communicate. I was impressed by her ability to stick to the words, and by and large she was fairly logical. I unfortunately only got to hear three calls, and one of them was frequently interrupted by our actual task of the day - picking up lunch from Baja Fresh - but I found what I heard fascinating. That woman is intelligent, well-spoken and obvious about what agendas she is pushing. All in all, I like it.
I agreed with a lot of what she said, but I disagreed on how far she has taken it. I'll give you the scenario. A woman called in because her boyfriend/fiance was deeply in debt and she wanted to know if she should marry him or not. Dr. Schlessinger's response was, "No." The issue of marrying a man for his money came up, and Dr. Schlessinger's responded that being concerned about the financial habits and abilities of your fiance is not the same as being a gold digger, and that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a man to be financially independent and out of debt when you marry him, and to refuse to marry someone with a lot to debt and not have it be a moral 'marrying him not his money' issue. I'm with her that far. Where we diverge is when the issue of equality came up. Dr. Schlessinger seems to believe that although a man needs to be financially secure, a woman does not. Her statement, paraphrased, was "You're bringing a lot more to your relationship than just money. Are you saying that if a woman isn't making money she isn't worth anything? Would you tell your mother she wasn't worth anything because she didn't make any money?" She makes several leaps here that don't hold water, in my opinion (I know this is being phrased male/female, but since Dr. Schlessinger doesn't believe in homosexuality, she wouldn't have an opinion on how their relationships would work - except that they're wrong - so I haven't an opinion to debate against).
"You're bringing a lot more to your relationship than just money." This is true - and more importantly it's true on both sides. Dr. Schlessinger seemed to feel that a man's financial security is imperative, but a woman's financial security shouldn't even be a footnote - and there we disagree. I think that financial security and responsibility and moral compatibility and so on and so on should be taken into account on both sides, not just one. To do otherwise is unfair to the man in the relationship.
"Are you saying that if a woman isn't making money she isn't worth anything?" The equating of income to worth is a common one in this culture and it really shouldn't be. There are a lot of ways to contribute to a partnership that don't include money, and monetary worth says very little about a person's worth as an individual. However, this is again not a gender-defined statement. Substitute "man" for "woman" in that sentence. If you can agree with it both ways, you're with me. Dr. Schlessinger seemed to believe this was a one-sided issue; a woman is worth something even if she isn't earning money and a man is worth something if he is making enough money. One also needs to take into account the monetary demands of a couple; two people cost more money than one person, and if one of those people is not able to make enough to support both, then both need to bring in money. That's economics.
"Would you tell your mother she wasn't worth anything because she didn't make any money?" This assumes that the mother of the woman in question didn't have an income. For most of my childhood and all of my adulthood, my mother worked. She never made as much as my father, in fact he made about half again more than she did, but she made enough to support us with the handy addition of child support. I know now that for a significant chunk of my childhood, my mother barely made enough to feed and clothe us (My brother - a fairly impartial source - did the math once and told me that his numbers always came out in the negative when he tried to figure out how she did it) even with the child support. Should I value her less because she made less? Absolutely not. I value her as a mother, not as a source of money. However, if she had refused to work and we had subsisted on child support and alimony, I think I would have respected her less simply because our situation would have been horrendous. She did what she needed to do to raise her children; that is the true mark of a mother.
So, in other words, Dr. Schlessinger and I agree on almost every point, except I include men in her exceptions where she does not. Funny how that works!
The interesting thing, was once she identified that the woman on the phone believed she should go dutch on every date (something I disagree with - I think whoever invited the other out should pay, but some sort of vague equality of time/effort should be maintained) and thought she should be financially independent when entering a relationship (something I heartily agree with), Dr. Schlessinger began to ask where this woman had gotten these beliefs. Dr. Schlessinger seemed to believe that the woman on the phone had gotten them from Woman's Studies classes and Feminist friends in college! You either believe that is silly (as I do) or reasonable (as Dr. Schlessinger seems too), your choice.
As a final, semi-funny note - the woman on the phone was in law school, but didn't want to be a lawyer and was disliking what she did. She chose law so she could have a high income. Talk about misplaced values. Unfortunately, this woman didn't specify what she would prefer to put her time and energy toward. I would have been curious to know.
For those who might not know, Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio talk-show host with a somewhat controversial, conservative point of view. Her doctorate is in English, which is clearly demonstrated in her manner. She has an excellent grasp of the English language, which is invaluable when one is trying to communicate. I was impressed by her ability to stick to the words, and by and large she was fairly logical. I unfortunately only got to hear three calls, and one of them was frequently interrupted by our actual task of the day - picking up lunch from Baja Fresh - but I found what I heard fascinating. That woman is intelligent, well-spoken and obvious about what agendas she is pushing. All in all, I like it.
I agreed with a lot of what she said, but I disagreed on how far she has taken it. I'll give you the scenario. A woman called in because her boyfriend/fiance was deeply in debt and she wanted to know if she should marry him or not. Dr. Schlessinger's response was, "No." The issue of marrying a man for his money came up, and Dr. Schlessinger's responded that being concerned about the financial habits and abilities of your fiance is not the same as being a gold digger, and that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a man to be financially independent and out of debt when you marry him, and to refuse to marry someone with a lot to debt and not have it be a moral 'marrying him not his money' issue. I'm with her that far. Where we diverge is when the issue of equality came up. Dr. Schlessinger seems to believe that although a man needs to be financially secure, a woman does not. Her statement, paraphrased, was "You're bringing a lot more to your relationship than just money. Are you saying that if a woman isn't making money she isn't worth anything? Would you tell your mother she wasn't worth anything because she didn't make any money?" She makes several leaps here that don't hold water, in my opinion (I know this is being phrased male/female, but since Dr. Schlessinger doesn't believe in homosexuality, she wouldn't have an opinion on how their relationships would work - except that they're wrong - so I haven't an opinion to debate against).
"You're bringing a lot more to your relationship than just money." This is true - and more importantly it's true on both sides. Dr. Schlessinger seemed to feel that a man's financial security is imperative, but a woman's financial security shouldn't even be a footnote - and there we disagree. I think that financial security and responsibility and moral compatibility and so on and so on should be taken into account on both sides, not just one. To do otherwise is unfair to the man in the relationship.
"Are you saying that if a woman isn't making money she isn't worth anything?" The equating of income to worth is a common one in this culture and it really shouldn't be. There are a lot of ways to contribute to a partnership that don't include money, and monetary worth says very little about a person's worth as an individual. However, this is again not a gender-defined statement. Substitute "man" for "woman" in that sentence. If you can agree with it both ways, you're with me. Dr. Schlessinger seemed to believe this was a one-sided issue; a woman is worth something even if she isn't earning money and a man is worth something if he is making enough money. One also needs to take into account the monetary demands of a couple; two people cost more money than one person, and if one of those people is not able to make enough to support both, then both need to bring in money. That's economics.
"Would you tell your mother she wasn't worth anything because she didn't make any money?" This assumes that the mother of the woman in question didn't have an income. For most of my childhood and all of my adulthood, my mother worked. She never made as much as my father, in fact he made about half again more than she did, but she made enough to support us with the handy addition of child support. I know now that for a significant chunk of my childhood, my mother barely made enough to feed and clothe us (My brother - a fairly impartial source - did the math once and told me that his numbers always came out in the negative when he tried to figure out how she did it) even with the child support. Should I value her less because she made less? Absolutely not. I value her as a mother, not as a source of money. However, if she had refused to work and we had subsisted on child support and alimony, I think I would have respected her less simply because our situation would have been horrendous. She did what she needed to do to raise her children; that is the true mark of a mother.
So, in other words, Dr. Schlessinger and I agree on almost every point, except I include men in her exceptions where she does not. Funny how that works!
The interesting thing, was once she identified that the woman on the phone believed she should go dutch on every date (something I disagree with - I think whoever invited the other out should pay, but some sort of vague equality of time/effort should be maintained) and thought she should be financially independent when entering a relationship (something I heartily agree with), Dr. Schlessinger began to ask where this woman had gotten these beliefs. Dr. Schlessinger seemed to believe that the woman on the phone had gotten them from Woman's Studies classes and Feminist friends in college! You either believe that is silly (as I do) or reasonable (as Dr. Schlessinger seems too), your choice.
As a final, semi-funny note - the woman on the phone was in law school, but didn't want to be a lawyer and was disliking what she did. She chose law so she could have a high income. Talk about misplaced values. Unfortunately, this woman didn't specify what she would prefer to put her time and energy toward. I would have been curious to know.
How d'you like THESE apples.
Date: 2003-05-12 04:33 pm (UTC)What bothers me most about her is that, as an independant woman and, I believe, mother, she is completely against any mother doing anything other than raise her child until its of legal age. This includes disagreeing with a simgle mother working or even dating. All attention on the child. Well, that great for the child as it won't feel unloved due to inattention, but what about actually being able to by food and clothing... affording a place to live? Yes! A healthy child is one that's grown up his (or her) entire life with a loving mother, in the streets of some city, wearing leftover rags and begging for money. At least they're together!!
Ok, end of rant.
Besides, Dr. Laura does have some good points, but it isn't the size of her swelled head.
-Ja
Re: How d'you like THESE apples.
Date: 2003-05-13 05:30 am (UTC)The biggest differences between working mothers now and working mothers a hundred years ago (because only the upper class could afford to have more than half the family not working) is that the grandparents and extended family are no longer in the picture, so child care becomes an inssue. Before, an unable-to-work member of the family would watch the kids, but nuclear families have isolated to such an extent that this frequently isn't possible.