The New York Times on Albert Ellis

The New York Times had an article the other day on Albert Ellis entitled "Sex, Love and the Scolding Psychotherapist" (Hat Tip: Soccer Dad). The article had some poignant excepts from Ellis's previous books that caught my eye. From The Art and Science of Love:

Where one mate has strong prejudices in favor or against certain sex practices, the other partner should try to be unusually understanding and uncritical, even if the practices that are favored or disfavored seem to be outlandish. If the presumably more reasonable mate will at least give the �outlandish� procedures an honest try, he or she may find that they are really not as bad as they seem to be.

From How to Make Yourself Happy and Remarkably Less Disturbable:

If you are still very upset about being abused as a child, you are now, probably, irrationally thinking, �My early abuse absolutely should not have occurred!� �Such unfairness is awful and I can�t stand even thinking about it now!� �The people who abused me are completely rotten! I�m going to spend the rest of my life hating them and getting even with them, if it�s the last thing I do!�... These Irrational Beliefs will keep your original upsetness vividly alive � instead of letting it die a natural death, as disturbance gradually does if you don�t dwell on it and reinforce it by continual crooked thinking.

You can read more except's on Ellis's work here.

Ask Dr. Helen

My column is up at PJM:

Is everyone motivated by some sort of self-interest when they engage in an altruistic act? Does that mean no charity or volunteerism is truly noble? PJM advice columnist Dr. Helen Smith offers her opinion. (Hmmm, why is she offering it?)

Also, find out why some women are into serial sperm donors and more.

When Being a Boy Hurts

Several readers sent me this story of two thirteen year old boys who were charged with a felony for slapping girls' rear ends at a middle school:

Two 13-year-olds facing sex abuse charges for slapping the bottoms of girls in a school hallway probably won't do jail time or be required to register as sex offenders, according to Yamhill County, Ore., District Attorney Bradley Berry.


"From our perspective and the perspective of the victims, this was not just horseplay,'' Berry said. "People may disagree, and I understand that.''

But based on his experience in similar cases, he says it's unlikely the boys, if convicted, would be sentenced for the maximum jail time.

Each count carries a maximum one-year sentence. Lawyers for the boys say they also would face mandatory registration as sex offenders.

I saw one of the boys talking on Fox News last night about his experience and how he understood that what he did was wrong. There was also mention in this news story that girls were also participating in hitting the other student's rears, but apparently girls can only be represented as victims and never as perpetrator's of harassment.

Not that I am saying they should be. Middle schoolers hitting people's rears and engaging in other juvenile antics is as common as well, middle schoolers, and to criminalize juvenile behavior to the extent that a 13 year old boy is sitting in juvenile detention for five days for common (albeit stupid and offensive) behavior is in itself, criminal.

Update: Mark Steyn has more on this case (Hat Tip: Fred Ray).

Update II: Not related to the above post, but you can check out my column at PJM on why women hook up with serial sperm donors and altruism here.

"I didn't think anybody was stupid enough to try to kill anybody over an internet fight"

Do you ever wonder if internet feuds ever turn into reality? The answer is rarely--most people may shoot off their mouth over the internet but rarely does it turn deadly. But in the case of a Navy guy who couldn't stand being called a nerd, revenge seemed to be the only answer:

ELM MOTT, Texas - A Navy man who got mad when someone mocked him as a "nerd" over the Internet climbed into his car and drove 1,300 miles from Virginia to Texas to teach the other guy a lesson.

As he made his way toward Texas, Fire Controlman 2nd Class Petty Officer Russell Tavares posted photos online showing the welcome signs at several states' borders, as if to prove to his Internet friends that he meant business.

When he finally arrived, Tavares burned the guy's trailer down.

Tavares was given seven years in prison for his anger management problem. So what's the lesson here? No internet squabble is worth getting so upset over that you would give up seven years of your life to seek a few moments of revenge. Keep your cool on the internet--it may be a matter of life or death.

Tips for Finding a Therapist

Many readers email me to get suggestions on how to find a therapist. Counseling Seattle.com has some good suggestions on how to find a therapist. You can read their tips here or see my post on "How to Tell if Your Therapist Sucks like a Bilge Pump."

Shocker: Lefty Book Reviewer gives Right-leaning Book a Bad Review

David Harsanyi, the author of Nanny State, is miffed that the left-leaning Publisher's Weekly gave his book a rather negative review:

Nanny State recently received a short review from the trade publication Publishers Weekly. It was unfriendly. I came away with the feeling that the reviewer hadn�t actually read the book. (I won�t bore you with the specifics.) But then again, who knows, perhaps the review was deserved.

As this is my first book, though, I decided to investigate other Publisher Weekly reviews on Amazon.com. Did a negative review effect sales? Did the reviewer typically betray a ideological position as this one had? This curiosity led to non-scientific stroll around Amazon.com and a discovery. One that Tammy Bruce had already noted. I work in mainstream media. Though I�m not someone who buys into the widespread liberal media meme, the one-sidedness of the PW reviews was inescapable. After all, a provocative or combative political book can be well written and worth reading even if you disagree with the central thesis. I�ve reviewed books for almost a decade. I know this can happen.

I wrote about the bias of Publisher's Weekly in a post here, after finding the same negative reviews of conservative books and positive ones of liberal books. Tammy Bruce states that "conservative authors agree, you know you've done a good job when you've made Publisher's Weekly collective head explode. ... if PW is foaming at the mouth about a book, and uses the words "screed," "strident," or "unfortunately," (in an effort to appear thoughtful), I consider it a must-read and put it immediately on my list of books to get." So Mr. Harsanyi, congratulations, maybe that unfriendly review was just a hint that your book will be a real success.

RIP Dr. Ellis

I was at work all day and just saw the news at Instapundit and Ann Althouse's blog that Albert Ellis has died. I have followed Ellis's work since I was in grad school in New York and he gave free Friday night seminars to students and others on his rational emotive behavior therapy techniques:

As a practicing psychoanalyst from 1947 to 1953, Dr. Ellis grew increasingly doubtful about the efficacy of that form of psychotherapy, concerned that no amount of talk would help his clients if they failed to take action against their habitual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. By late 1953, he had stopped calling himself a psychoanalyst and begun developing Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), an action-oriented therapy aimed at making emotional and behavioral change through challenging self-defeating thoughts.

REBT is today widely acclaimed as a pioneering approach to psychotherapy and the foundation of all modern cognitive behavior therapies. In 2003, the American Psychological Association named Dr. Ellis the second most influential psychologist of the 20th century, second only to Carl Rogers. In 2005, Dr. Ellis�s 78th book, The Myth of Self-esteem, was published.

My favorite Ellis book is How to Stubbornly Refuse to Make Yourself Miserable about Anything: Yes Anything! The main theme of the book is that "No matter how badly you act, no matter how unfairly others treat you, no matter how crummy are the conditions you live under--you virtually alway (yes, A-L-W-A-Y-S) have the ability and the power to change your intense feelings of anxiety, despair, and hostility. Not only can you decrease them, you can practically annihilate and remove them." His book goes on to explain his methods for doing so.

Does it always work? No, but I have used his methods in my work at times and have found it moderately successful with certain individuals. What I admired most about Ellis is not the fact that he wrote 78 books, but that he was rejected many times in his life and did not let it cripple him in any way:

�I was hated by practically all psychologists and psychiatrists,� he recalled. They thought his approach was �superficial and stupid,� he said, and �they resented that I said therapy doesn�t have to take years.�

In 2005, Dr. Ellis sued the institute after it removed him from its board and canceled his Friday seminars. He and his supporters claimed that the institute had fallen into the hands of psychologists who were moving it away from his revolutionary therapy techniques.

In a recent short interview in Psychology Today, Ellis talks about self confidence, having a happy existence and learning to accept rejection no matter what and he encourages people to "keep moving, moving, moving and to try scary things and not to give a s**t when they are rejected." He practiced what he preached and was an authentic individual.

He will be sorely missed.

Interview: Michael Yon on the Surge

Michael Yon joins us by satellite phone with the latest developments from Baqubah,Iraq. He discusses how the surge is going so far, what progress, if any, is being made, and if he will join up with Middle Eastern blogger, Michael Totten, who just got to Baghdad. You can read more about his current work at MichaelYon-online.com.

You can listen directly -- no downloading needed -- by going here and clicking on the gray Flash player. You can download the whole file and listen at you leisure by clicking right here. And you can get a lo-fi version, suitable for dialup, by going here and selecting the lo-fi version. And, of course you can always get a free subscription via iTunes. You can visit our archives at the GlennandHelenShow here.

This podcast is sponsored by Volvo at Volvocars.us.

Alert the Media: Girlfriend Shocked by Feelings of Jealousy when Wife Won't Leave Boyfriend's House

Fausta at Fausta's blog sent me this article from the NYT's entitled "The House of No Personal Pronouns." The writer of the article, Ada Brunstein, provides us with a glimpse into her rather pathological life in which she is living with her "boyfriend," his wife, and her lover as well as a cat. The article reads like some kind of twisted satire from the Onion when the author contemplates why she is jealous of the wife's presence around the apartment they all share, complete with side by side toothbrushes. As if this isn't enough, the author complains that the wife leaves all of her things around the apartment and she finds herself feeling hostile towards the woman's clothes that are thrown all over the house. As if she has an epiphany, this disgruntled girlfriend states:

WOMEN don�t wage war the way men wage war, not at first, not unless there�s no other way. Men wage war in the open plains and deserts, donning full body armor, lugging lethal weapons. Women wage battles so imperceptibly that it�s not always clear there�s a battle at all, like tremors in the earth that you can�t quite feel, but you may notice the wind is suddenly odd or the animals are acting funny.

Lady, the war's out in the open, you just don't have a clue. This woman is so unaware of her ridiculous situation that she has to wait for the house cat to act funny and start taking a whiz on her and her boyfriend's bed and then on the wife and her boyfriend's bed before she gets the idea that something is amiss. What a psychic.

Ms. Brunstein justifies her decision to move in with the boyfriend and his wife with this pathetic challenge to herself:

At first I liked the edginess of it all. I considered it a personal challenge. In the past, my jealousies had gotten the better of me. I once argued with a boyfriend over whether I would be O.K. with him sleeping with Uma Thurman (should he ever have the chance). Two months later she showed up in a bar we frequented in the West Village and the argument started all over again.

That was the old me. This was going to be the new me. A stronger, cooler, nothing-fazes-me sort of girlfriend who would prove I�ve outgrown the formerly jealous me. I would be unconventional, brave, hip and oh-so-bohemian in my nonchalance.

Girlfriend, you are so utterly conventional (who isn't trying to be edgy in Manhattan?), cowardly, out-of-control and gullible in this situation that if you can't see that, I have some swampland in Florida to tell you about. You haven't outgrown anything, you are as immature and naive as an adolescent who wonders if she can get pregnant by kissing. A mature adult realizes what he or she can and can't live with, they do not ignore their feelings in order to be considered cool and "edgy." The "new you" is not new and improved, it is regressive and immature and cares more about appearances than about substance, but then, isn't that what forcing yourself to be "edgy" when you may not be is all about? Real edginess and bravery in the relationship realm is about knowing what kind of relationship you feel comfortable with, and following suit, even if you look like a dork.

What's the Big Deal about Harry Potter?

Dr. Sanity says that Harry Potter is more important than blogging. Not to me. Okay, for you Harry Potter fans out there, don't kill me but I really don't care that the new book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows comes out today. I know people have been standing in line all night and I know there are bloggers out there who love the series, but don't include me in their number. As Ann Althouse said on her vlog yesterday, "these are children's books and I am an adult." Okay, there are some kids' books I do enjoy but Harry Potter is not one of them. I struggled through the first book and found it tedious and dull except for the part about Harry living in a closet in his aunt and uncle's house and his subsequent descriptions of his atrocious cousin. The rest is sort of murky and uninteresting to me. Perhaps I am missing something. Enlighten me if you have read the series and think I have missed the boat in some way.

Blogfests and Blogathons in East Tennessee

East Tennessee bloggers are getting ready for two Blogfests and a Blogathon--you can read about these events at Rich Hailey's Shots Across the Bow Blog.

"This woman is just another elitist from some Socialist Indoctrinated University"

In my entire career, I don't think I have ever been described this way, it's kind of amusing.

Update: Eric at Classical Values wonders if I am an Orgytarian.

Sucker Punched

I got suckered into reading this Newsweek My Turn article with the provocative caption "Hands Off My Belly" on MSN today--mainly I read these articles because they pop up when I log out of my hotmail account and I am curious as to what they are about. Anyway, this article is about a woman named Carrie Friedman who is annoyed at fanatical mothers for touching her stomach and asking when she is going to have children. She states that these mothers make it questionable as to whether or not to have children because they are very poor role models for parenthood. She gives a few examples of these annoying mothers such as those who do not pursue their own passions, those who tell her she must not know happiness since she is childless, and mothers who make kids an extension of their own narcissism. However, the most alarming description she gives of annoying mothers is that they do not teach their children manners:

Now let's talk a bit about manners, as in please teach your children some. The world has rules, and kids should learn them. And being well mannered does not infringe on their individuality and freedom.

I crouched to meet the eye line of an acquaintance's 4-year-old to greet her, and in response, she punched me in the face so hard my mouth bled. What was more baffling was the mother's reaction: nothing to the child, but to me she said very sternly: "You really shouldn't talk down to kids."

I also shouldn't be punched in the face by kids whose parents don't know how to set basic boundaries. Experiences like this don't exactly encourage me to hurry up and get pregnant.

I was a bit baffled by this writer's response to being punched in the face. Her take, "I'm in no hurry to get pregnant." My take: "WTF? You let a four year old child hit you in the face and then you are dissed by the mother and all you have to say is, 'Maybe I shouldn't have kids?' No, the correct response is, 'You are a very poor role model for this child who has assaulted me with your blessing. One day you will realize what a terrible mistake you have made. Please keep your child away from me or next time I will not be so generous to you.'"

I have seen too many children who are naturally unruly fail to see the consequences of their actions when they are young and their parents only realize their mistake when the child gets older and their behavior is downright dangerous. At best a child does not learn how to control their emotions and interact with others in an adaptive manner and is hard to get along with, at worse, the child's aggression spirals out of control. Neither of these outcomes is desirable. Not only should parents set boundaries and give children consequences should they treat others in a reckless or dangerous manner but those who are the recepients of such poor behavior should set the parents straight by being firm that they expect better behavior.

"Doc, Don't be Such a Poker Face"

Wow, I really am not using this psychologist thing to the fullest of my abilities: (Hat Tip: Don Surber).

LAS VEGAS � Jerry Yang, a 39-year-old psychologist who uses his professional training in his card-playing arsenal, won the top prize Wednesday of $8.25 million at the World Series of Poker.

Yang vaulted quickly from eighth to the chip lead soon after play began Tuesday afternoon.

He knocked out seven of the eight other players at the final table, reminiscent of last year when Jamie Gold ran over his opponents. The main difference, Yang did it from the back of the pack.

"The only way I would win this tournament is to be aggressive from the very beginning and that's exactly what I did," he said.

An ethnic Hmong person who grew up poor in Laos, Yang said before the final table began that he would donate 10 percent of his winnings to charity, including the Make-A-Wish Foundation, Feed the Children, the Ronald McDonald House and his alma mater, Loma Linda University.

Since he uses his psychological skills at poker, I wonder if he uses his poker skills in his psychology work? I can just hear him with his clients now. "The chips are down, but you'll be okay." "Hey, what's with the poker face?" "If you aren't getting what you want from the relationship, just up the ante." Anyone know anymore slang expressions from poker?

Is Too Much Girl Talk too Much of a Good Thing?

Did you ever wonder why your teen-aged daughter seemed even more morose and upset after a long chat with her girlfriends? Well, this study may provide the answer, she could be co-ruminating:

Dan Collins at Protein Wisdom emailed me this very interesting study that found that girls who complain about their problems were at greater risk of developing anxiety and depression:

A researcher at the University of Missouri-Columbia has found that girls who talk very extensively about their problems with friends are likely to become more anxious and depressed.

The research was conducted by Amanda Rose, associate professor of psychological sciences in the College of Arts and Science. The six-month study, which included boys and girls, examined the effects of co-rumination � excessively talking with friends about problems and concerns. Rose discovered that girls co-ruminate more than boys, especially in adolescence, and that girls who co-ruminated the most in the fall of the school year were most likely to be more depressed and anxious by the spring....

�For years, we have encouraged kids to find friends who they can talk to about their problems, and with whom they can give and receive social support,� Rose said. �In general, talking about problems and getting social support is linked with being healthy. What�s intriguing about these findings is that co-rumination likely represents too much of a good thing. Some kids, especially girls, are taking talking about problems to an extreme. When that happens, the balance tips, and talking about problems with friends can become emotionally unhealthy.�

Rose said adolescents should be encouraged to talk about their problems, but only in moderation and without co-ruminating.

I wonder if this over-talking and resulting anxiety and depression extends to adult women?

Update: John Ford at the California Medicine Man weighs in on the study.

Ask Dr. Helen

My column is up at PJM:

What does Dr. Helen think of same-sex marriage? Does her Insta-husband agree? If the answer were �yes� and they disagreed strongly on that and other key political issues, does she think it would do damage to their relationship? Fasten your seatbelts: this week, PJM�s advice columnist wades into some controversial waters.

I would love to hear what my readers think about gay marriage and whether or not you could be married or in a relationship with a person who is significantly different from you in their political beliefs. You can comment here, at PJM, or ask a question at askdrhelen at hotmail.com.

The Norm blog run by Norm Geras has a profile up of me here.

Stereotypes in the News

It seems that the media is focusing this week on dominant women in the news. First, I read that women are now the queens of their castles and men are just agreeing to whatever their spouse wants:

Men might throw their weight around at the office, but at home, women are the bosses.

A study, which was just released, finds that wives have more power than their husbands in making decisions and dominating discussions....

Wives were more demanding � asking for changes in the relationship or in their partner � and were more likely to get their way than the husbands. This held regardless of who had chosen the issue.

The women were not just talking more than their husbands.

"It wasn't just that the women were bringing up issues that weren't being responded to, but that the men were actually going along with what they said,� Vogel explained. �[Women] were communicating more powerful messages, and men were responding to those messages by agreeing or giving in.�

Then, a reader emailed me this article from today's Sydney Morning Herald on the desperate need for female leaders:

If ever there was a time in history that cried out for women's leadership, that time is now. Terrorism, random acts of violence, famine, poverty and corporate greed are all signs that our world is slowly decaying. The historian Arnold Toynbee once suggested that societies that see an early decline are those where the people who have the power no longer know how to use it effectively, yet they won't share it with those who might help.

And who is in power around the globe? With few exceptions, men. They are at the helm of the majority of businesses, financial institutions, governments and institutions of higher learning.

Is this to say women make better leaders than men? No, they make different leaders. From corporations to governing bodies, there are simply not enough women's voices at the table to help solve the world's most pressing problems.

Ironically, through a combination of nature and nurture, women have honed the quintessential skills necessary for leadership in this day and age. The traditional masculine style of "command and control" leadership is dead. When a boss says "jump" the response is no longer "how high?" The response is "why?"....

If you doubt women have what it takes, consider this. Any woman who ever had to get three different children to three different events on a Saturday, do the grocery shopping, pick up the laundry, visit an elderly parent, go back and pick up the children and prepare dinner for guests - all on the same day - knows how to be strategic and tactical. Women know how to influence without authority because they've spent their lives having to do so.

So, basically, what I hear the first article saying is that the stereotype that women nag and demand that spouses change is alive and well and husbands give in to keep the peace. This is interpreted in the article as "power."

In the second article, women are all fuzzy and nurturing and the only way they have "honed their experience" as leaders is to have had experience with children, shopping and cooking dinner. Women do not command any authority, so they have to influence without it--rather than learn how to command authority, the writer of this article seems to think that women don't need it--they can lead "from a core that focuses on values, not power. They build interdependent teams, praise rather than punish, and gain loyalty by focusing on the human being, not the human doing. This is what generation X and the Millennials want and this is precisely what women leaders give them."

If these articles were trying to make a case against female leadership, they could not have done a better job--the stereotypes of women as demanding nags who are described as "queens" at home without any authority in the public sphere are hardly a ringing endorsement for female leadership. Can you really lead simply by praising people and focusing on "values" rather than merit? It sounds like a recipe for disaster, kind of like some of our worse public schools systems. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on women gaining authority, working to change the public perception of women in authority, and learning to use power in appropriate ways if it is necessary. Women are effective leaders, but it will be harder for a woman to get elected if the media portrays women in such a stereotypical light. It feeds people's worst fears of what a female leader would be like--the queen bee they know at home or the boss at work who leads like she is running a character education class rather than the boardroom or the country.

A Different Dr. Helen

I was skimming through my new copy of Monitor on Psychology, a publication of the American Psychological Association and noticed that their division 48, The Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence was soliciting new members. I decided to take look at their website peacepsych.org to see what kind of ideas they had and wasn't surprised to see that leftist idealism was not only being peddled to members but professors in universities around the country were also turning in samples of syllabi as examples of how to teach students of psychology and other disciplines.

Most notable was one syllabus by Dr. Helen Fox from the University of Michigan who is teaching a course on "Nonviolence in Action," a course that is described as "Fulfils the Advanced Writing in the Disciplines (AWD) Requirement." It is not clear that this is a required course, I assume there are others to choose from, however, after reading over the syllabus, it seems to me that students are being indoctrinated into a left-leaning mode of thought as well as being asked to support the professor's pet anti-war organizations. Here are the course goals:

Course Goals
� to understand some of the philosophies that motivate nonviolent action,
including tenets of five major religions
� to learn how nonviolent social movements have worked in countries around
the world
� to learn and practice some of the methods and strategies of nonviolent action
� to learn to respond to arguments that justify war and aggression
� to practice nonviolent action in the community, teach peace, and/or contribute
to a nonviolent social movement

Apparently, students are also being asked to become some type of "activist" in the professor's pet political organizations:

Community Action
In small groups, you will decide on nonviolent action projects you want to pursue in the community. This might involve a specific project with the UM student organization Anti-War Action, internships with the Ann Arbor Area Committee for Peace or other peace groups, peace education of children or teens in schools or religious institutions, training and practice in nonviolent dialogue or conflict resolution, or other appropriate ways of learning and practicing nonviolent action.

Here is the grading system:

Your grade or RC evaluation will be based on the quality and depth of your writing, your attendance and involvement in class, and your contributions to your community project.

So, if one decides to join a community project promoting peace by joining the local Ann Arbor pro-life group, does that count? What if a student doesn't believe that the ideals promoted by the professor are accurate and believes that sometimes military action is warranted, can they still take the class? If a student writes a paper supporting military action as opposed to non-action, is that acceptable? Should the American Psychological Assocation be supporting professors at public universities who are soliciting student volunteers for their pet political projects? Is this fair to students who are dependent on the professor for a grade?

A recent Zogby poll showed that a majority of Americans think political bias among college professors is a serious problem--and after taking a look at some of the syllabi promoted by the American Psychological Association's division 48, I can see why.

Touching at Work: The Good Old Girl Network

It seems there is a double standard in the workplace--if Katie Couric slaps her male staff for (horrors!) using a word she doesn't like, it's just cute but if the genders were reversed--watch out. Just touching a woman or even making a comment is often seen as sexual harassment that can get you placed in sensitivity training, on probation or fired, while massaging men at work doesn't raise an eyebrow--not even from the men who aren't looking for a free back rub. Craig at Buffalog blog posts on his experience:

There's a manager where I work, a woman, who demonstrates an unnatural need to give back massages to the men in the department (most of whom are younger than she). We work in an open-office and so the, um, attention, is quite public. Now, I assure you that, in this particular case, the attention is not welcome, but men being men, even in 21st century America, no one will go to H.R. about it. Imagine if the sexual tables were turned.

Yes, just imagine--the women would be up in arms. But when the tables are turned, it seems that the nurturing sex is as unsympathetic toward men in the workplace as men were toward women years ago. MSNBC has an article entitled, "Male Sexual Harassment is not a Joke" that describes the case of Thomas:

Thomas, who works in academia but didn�t want his full name used, found himself in an office made up of mainly women who would routinely share and copy each other emailed jokes and emails about men. A few, he adds, �made fun of men�s unique anatomy, if you know what I mean.� The behavior, he says, made him feel isolated. When he finally addressed the matter with the women in the office, �the women were stunned, generally with a �You�ve got to be kidding,� kind of attitude. And they kept doing it.�

I am not a big believer in charging co-workers and others with sexual harassment over trivial matters. Perhaps Katie Couric really didn't mean to slap the male writer and maybe the women in the example above with Thomas the academic didn't think that what they said was done in a malicious manner. But their conduct shows that they have no respect for their male colleagues and employees--surely, if the tables were turned, they would support a woman taking action against this type of behavior. Are the good old girls so sexist that they expect men to sit quietly and take whatever behavior they wish to dish out? If so, then equality in the workplace has nothing to do with equality between the sexes and everything to do with women seeing themselves as the new nobility.

Snapped in the New York Times

The show "Snapped," the Oxygen show about women who murder was in the New York Times the other day (thanks to the reader who sent the link):

Were you to spend a day at home in the exclusive company of your remote control, you might come to the conclusion that �Snapped� was the most consistently rerun show on television. A true-crime series set to begin its sixth season on the Oxygen network in the fall, �Snapped� appears every Sunday night and for hours and hours each weekday. Should you happen upon it on a random Wednesday morning, you might feasibly reorganize a closet, do some yoga in your living room, make a brisket and still never be forced to change the channel to find something new to watch.

�Snapped,� which made its debut three years ago, is about women who murder. It remains among Oxygen�s highest-rated shows, having had an instrumental role in recasting women�s television away from its celebrations of victimhood to its new fetish for female aberrance. (�Snapped� is rivaled in popularity on Oxygen only by �The Bad Girls Club,� a reality show whose title precludes the need for any explanation.)

I can vouch for the endless reruns of this show. I was an expert on for the first season and a half and get at least someone every week saying that they have seen me on one of the shows within the last week. I don't get the Oxygen channel on my cable network but apparently the show runs all day long. If you get the Oxygen network, you can check out the show times here.

Good grief--what have I started? And is that really Dr. Bliss in the photograph?

The New Forgotten Man

George Will had a review of The Forgotten Man in his column yesterday (Hat tip: Tomcal):

Republicans had long practiced limited interest-group politics on behalf of business with tariffs, gifts of land to railroads and other corporate welfare. Roosevelt, however, made interest-group politics systematic and routine. New Deal policies were calculated to create many constituencies -- labor, retirees, farmers, union members -- to be dependent on government.

Before the 1930s, the adjective "liberal" denoted policies of individualism and individual rights; since Roosevelt, it has primarily pertained to the politics of group interests. So writes Shlaes, a columnist for Bloomberg News, in " The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression." She says Roosevelt's wager was that, by furiously using legislation and regulations to multiply federally favored groups, and by rhetorically pitting those favored by government against the unfavored, he could create a permanent majority coalition.

In the process, says Shlaes, Roosevelt refined his definition of the "forgotten man." This man had been thought of as a general personality, compatible with the assumption that Americans were all in it together. "Now, by defining his forgotten man as the specific groups he would help, the president was in effect forgetting the rest -- creating a new forgotten man. The country was splitting into those who were Roosevelt's favorites and everyone else."

Not much has changed since the New Deal; special interest politics still rule and dependence on the government continues to increase. Today's forgotten man is now any group who is not politically correct enough to warrant any government goodies.

Vacation, Summer Reading and The Forgotten Man

Well, I got back from my beach vacation in Florida last night after driving for over 13 hours--including a stop through McDonough, Georgia where we found this unusual Chik-fil-A diner. I spent most of the time at the beach sitting under an umbrella with lots of sunscreen catching up on some reading material that I had put aside to take. I started out with some lighter reading with my very first issue of Garden & Gun that I ordered after hearing about the name and reading up on it in The New York Times. The magazine is very asthetically pleasing, with glossy photos and interesting articles such as "Hemingway's Cuba" and "Southern Swell" about women who surf. My only criticism is that there are too many advertisements for my taste but I suppose that is par for the course these days in any magazine.

The book that I spent most of my time reading is the one that I am holding in the picture below, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes, a journalist and economics reporter. If you have an interest in understanding more about the New Deal than what you hear about in the media, Shlaes provides a terrific reinterpretation of the Great Depression. "She shows how both Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt failed to understand the prosperity of the 1920's and heaped massive burdens on the country that more than offset the benefit of the New Deal programs. The real question of the Depression, she argues, in not whether Roosevelt ended it with World War II but why the Depression lasted so long." Did government intervention play a part in making it last longer? Our current entitlement mentality and expectations that the government will provide is based, I think, in large part on the New Deal. The book gave me more perspective and understanding of how this change in mentality took place in our country and how important it is to be aware of the flaws of government intervention into every problem. I think our current desire to embrace universal healthcare is another mistake waiting to happen, but that is a whole other issue. This book is definitely more than just beach reading, it is a detailed and fascinating study of an important part of our nation's history.

Are Men as Talkative as Women?

Yes, according to a USA Today article on a study that says that both sexes speak about 16,000 words a day:

Popular wisdom would have it that women talk more than men-- 20,000 words a day, while men average just 7,000.

Research out today contradicts that stereotype. Both sexes say about 16,000 words a day, a study in Science magazine says.

"It's been a common belief, but it just didn't fit," says co-author James Pennebaker, psychology department chairman at the University of Texas-Austin.

He and colleagues analyzed conversations recorded from 1998 to 2004 of 396 students in the USA and Mexico, 210 women and 186 men, ages 18-29. The study examined word count, not vocabulary or word use. Pennebaker says two-thirds of participants spoke 11,000 to 25,000 words a day; the average for both sexes was about 16,000.

The finding may seem surprising in a culture in which women are often stereotyped as talkative and men as uncommunicative.

Neuropsychiatrist Louann Brizendine cited the 20,000-vs.-7,000 comparison in her 2006 book The Female Brain as evidence for gender brain differences. After the book came out in August, the statistic was widely quoted.

A linguistics professor says that previous studies have focused on phone conversations and interview transcripts, rather than daily life. If you just look around at the sheer number of women on cell phones chatting with friends, it is no wonder it seems women are the chattier sex. And interviewing some guys is like pulling teeth to get them talking. Phones and interviews may not be a good fit to get men talking. It's like saying that women don't talk as much at sports events and beer drinking contests. So next time you think that men don't communicate and thrive on being the strong silent type, just remember that perhaps the context is the problem, not the fact that they are uncommunicative.

Ask Dr. Helen

My second column is up at Pajama's Media:

Coping with therapists who are unsympathetic to men, and creating intimacy in ways other than sex are among the issues on the minds of those who wrote in to Dr. Helen following her debut column.

You can go there to comment, comment here, or email me at askdrhelen at hotmail.com

Helpline for Abused Men

In response to my post on domestic violence, Jan Brown, the founder and director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women writes in:

Dear Helen,

Thanks for starting a dialouge about this topic. I started researching domestic violence back in 1996 after a male family member reached out to me and told me of his wife's verbal, emotional, physical and sexual abuse of him throughout their 13 year marriage. I found out that his options were severely limited by society's understanding of domestic violence. Male victims are rarely welcomed at the over 2000 battered women's programs throughout the US and most times they are treated as abusers when they call looking for assistance. In October of 2000 I started a non profit agency. We run the only nationally available toll free crisis line that specializes in offering support and services to male victims of female domestic violence. For the last six plus years over 16,000 people have called our toll free helpline seeking information, support, referrals, and services. Please let male victims know that we are here and we care.

Our toll free line is 888-7HELPLINE (888-743-5754) and our website is www.dahmw.org

PS We receive no federal or state funding, our contributions come from private donations so some of our services are limited, but we do what we can to assist all victims who call our crisis line.
Sincerely,
Jan Brown, Founder and Director
Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women

It is good to know that there are services out there that treat men as fairly as women are treated in the arena of domestic violence. If you would like to learn more about the characteristics of men who are abused and the women who abuse them--take a look at Ms. Brown's article here. Not surprisingly, many of the abused men are in their early forties with children who are being used as "hostages" for keeping the men in their situation.

Women, just like men, need to learn to keep their emotions in check before they become angry enough to abuse those they live with and risk harming their families and those they should care about. The site I mentioned above has a workbook by a forensic psychologist for women entitled The Anger Workbook for Women: How to Keep Your Anger from Undermining Your Self-Esteem, Your Emotional Balance, and Your Relationships that may be a helpful resource. I noticed that the forward was by Sandra Thomas, an expert in anger and one of my current co-authors on a violence article that should be forthcoming. Apparently, the workbook can be used by women or professionals to help reduce feelings of anger and violence.

Happy Fourth of July!

Troubled Homes are Still Better than Foster Care

I was reading an article in USA Today while on my beach vacation in Florida (possibly pictures to come later). Anyway, the gist of the article is that children who stay in troubled families fare better than those put into foster care:

Children whose families are investigated for abuse or neglect are likely to do better in life if they stay with their families than if they go into foster care, according to a pioneering study.

The findings intensify a vigorous debate in child welfare: whether children are better served with their families or away from them.

Some statistics provided by the study were 14% of those who stayed with their troubled family were arrested at least once vs. 44% who were arrested if they were placed in foster care; 33% of those who stayed with their troubled family became teen mothers vs. 56% of those who went into foster care and finally, 33% from troubled families were able to hold a job for three months vs. only 20% for those in foster care.

I agree with a professor in the article that says more research is needed to determine whether or not kids do better in foster care; however, if state intervention is found to lead to more problems for kids, perhaps figuring out how to keep children in their homes is a better solution.

Comments on Domestic Violence

Digg linked to my post on women being twice as likely to hit as men. There are some interesting comments from many of the readers over there, some sad, some puzzled and some sexist. The truth is, many men are hit by their significant others, and no one wants to talk about it. Women often expect men to have total restraint and take the blows and abuse without a whimper. This is a form of psychological abuse, but somehow it is only seen that way if it is committed against a woman. Men actually have feelings too, believe it or not -- and punching, hitting and kicking is a poor way to communicate with them.

I am glad people are talking about it, but talk is cheap, and action is better. Perhaps it is time to start realizing that women can also display acts of aggression that are psychologically damaging to men in ways that are deeply wounding. Women should be taught the boundaries of aggression in their interactions with men and realize that a punch thrown or a knife tossed is not funny or cute, even though it's often portrayed that way in the movies.

Podcast with Musician Hector Qirko

Hector Qirko is a musician of an extraordinary sort; he is a guitar legend in Knoxville who has played with everyone from Chicago blues star Lonnie Brooks to seminal punk band Balboa. He is currently remastering some of Balboa frontman Terry Hill's lost tapes, and has also just put out a new album of his own that includes acoustic tunes with a mountain flavor. We talk to him in our studio about his music, his 21 years in the music business and how the industry has changed. Plus, there is some really good music. You can visit Hector's website at www.hqband.com.
Links mentioned in the show include Hector's own site, the site of R.B. Morris, and the Terry Hill memorial page. Plus, the Lonesome Coyotes.

You can listen to the show directly -- no downloads needed -- by going here and clicking on the gray Flash player. Or you can download the entire file and listen at your leisure by clicking right here. You can get a lo-fi version for dialup by going here and selecting "lo fi" and -- of course -- you can subscribe via iTunes by clicking right here. Visit our show archives for new and old episodes at GlennandHelenShow.com.

This podcast is sponsored by Volvo at Volvocars.us.