Ok, so it is not Friday but this episode of Dr. Phil definitely warrants a "fuck you".
I was watching election news and it went to a commercial break. I flipped through channels and came to Dr. Phil and these older women were discussing how they thought there was a heterosexual dating double standard. I naively thought that the episode would seriously discuss dating double standards in our society. Unfortunately, I was wrong and all the show did was infuriate me.
The show featured a a 58 year old grandmother who liked to date younger men off of the internet and flew around the world meeting men. All Dr. Phil did was tell her how weird and "desperate" she was. A quote from the grandmother:
"There's a huge double standard for women and men... "On my profile, I started at 48, then, I went to 44, 35, 33, 29. I had 50-something guys who were looking for a 36-year-old girl."
In a society where older women are told that they are ugly and romantically worthless after a certain age, it takes serious guts to defy those standards and date anyways.I agree that internet dating can sometimes be dangerous.However, the fact that that woman has the courage to defy social expectations and go after what she wants is pretty awesome!
The episode only got worse when a 30, (yes, that's right 30) year old woman came on the show and discussed how she was almost too old for love:
"I am actually very afraid when I see women who are older, in their 40s and 50s who are single, that I might end up like that,"
She also went on to discuss how she was a "successful business woman" and how people are intimidated by her, because they think she is "self-absorbed, or some feminist."
However, the 30 year old business woman's story is not nearly as sad as the advice our wise buddy Dr. Phil gives her!
"I think it's really important that you do let men know, 'I definitely have needs.' Dr. Phil also tells her to not be so obvious about the fact that she is successful in business.
I think the part of the episode that made me most irritated was that it did nothing to address the male aspect of this double-standard. THE ENTIRE PROBLEM IS THAT WOMEN ARE SO HIGHLY JUDGED BASED ON THEIR AGE AND PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AND ITS CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE! Dr. Phil did nothing to point out that the double standard is WRONG! All he did was tell women to conform to the social standard.
So fuck you Dr. Phil for promoting the heterosexual dating double standard while shaming women who do not conform to it.
Here are the links if anyone is interested.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Tuesday Feminist Fuck You: Dr. Phil and Hereosexual Dating Double Standards.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11483
*I meant inaugeration not election. Sorry about that!
Yea Dr. Phil can be a pretty big asshat. I saw a show about a transgendered dad who's daughters and old wife hated her for being so "selfish" that she changed her appearance to become a woman. The whole episode was about how selfish she was and how she was hurting her daughters.
that is repulsive! i'm impressed that you endured such BS. time after time, story after story, seems like mr. phil subsists on (re)traumatizing folks with already-subjugated identity elements.
Mr. Phil had his license to practice psychology revoked due to his unethical relationship with a young female intern. He was dating her (she was 19 and he was 38) while she was working in his office and giving her therapy at the same time. He was ordered to attend ethics classes, which he never attended and is still unable to practice psychology in any state. So, basically, Mr. Phil, should not be referred to as "Dr. Phil" since he cannot practice anymore and is a complete and utter asshole who's making millions of dollars off of making other people feel badly about themselves.
I don't know. I think if women in any larger number suddenly showed a marked preference for younger men, a lot of this problem would be dissipated. I'm not sure being younger is considered a sexually desirable trait in a man for most women.
Women hold the power in relationships because women are in greater demand than men sexually in our society. To paraphrase Gandhi, date the change you want to see in society.
I agree with the first half of your statement, but I also think that women only have the upper hand re: sexual desirability up to a certain age. Like the all-caps portion of the OP says, once a woman's "older," society dictates she's not desirable anymore, and it's considered gross for them to be sexual beings. Whereas if you're an older man with a younger woman, it just proves your virility and the older you are, the more awesome you are for still getting some. (There's an interesting analysis to be made in there: women are judged by their sexual desirability, and men are judged by the sexual desirability of the women they can attract.)
Also, it seems like younger and younger women are getting labeled "cougars" for dating men a few years younger than themselves, whereas you have to have a solid couple decades between an older man and younger woman for it to register in sugar daddy territory, or whatever term you want to use. Jennifer Aniston got smacked with the cougar label for dating a guy nine years younger, but no one called 34-year-old Brian Austin Green anything for being engaged to 21-year-old Megan Fox (and I'd argue 21 and 34 is a more significant maturity gap than 30 and 39). And now that I've revealed I know too much about the lives of C-list celebrities, I will close.
And Hugh Hefner is still a "hot bachelor," or something, for dating multiple women who are under the age of twenty one.
I don't always think our society sees older man/young woman relationships as more acceptable than those between older women and younger men. For example, when you look at allegations against high school teachers who have had sex with their students: if it's a male teacher and a female student, it's assumed that he was taking advantage of her and it's prosecuted as the crime it should be. If it's a female teacher and a male student, though, it's not seen as "bad" because the boy must be having the time of his life. He's seen as "lucky." And instead of being seen as a predator, the female teacher is assumed to be mentally or emotionally unstable, but not evil. Of course, this is just as sexist, because it's assumed that the man is the one who initiated the relationship and is the one who is controlling it. The idea that a male student might be pressured into a relationship by a female teacher against his will is unthinkable, and even more so is the idea that a female student might actually enjoy having sex with her teacher.
Another example of how I think people sometimes find older women/younger men relationships more acceptable was the reaction of my classmates to "Manon des Sources," (where Ugolin, a man in his 50s or so, is obsessively infatuated with Manon, a woman in her late teens/early twenties) versus "Harold and Maude" (Harold is about 19 and Maude about to turn 80). We watched "Manon" in my high school French class and I remember my classmates loudly whining about how "gross" Ugolin was and how he was such a "pedo" (even though Manon was an adult) to the degree that it was hard to hear the movie. Whereas, when my college floor-mates and I were watching "Harold and Maude," some scenes were called "awkward" but no one thought it was "gross." (This could, of course, be a testament to how much more open-minded college students are vs. high school students, but I'm only in my first year of college and most of my floor-mates are too, so I don't think that's it) It's notable too that both Harold and Maude were shown as enjoying each other's company. You rarely see movies where a much younger woman actually enjoys having sex with a much older man - she usually just enjoys whatever money/status/power it brings her, if she enjoys it at all (because usually when these things happen, the younger woman is being forced to do it against her will).
It didn't mean that to be a reply to you, dame_elphaba. Although I would like to take this moment to point out that I REALLY love your username :)
God you guys are all geniuses. I have too noticed that shows on E! and the like are quick to label women cougars who date men just a few years younger than them. And society does think old stanky ass dudes who date younger women (think "Hef") are cooler. The older the dude and the younger/hotter the women, the cooler! barf. P.S. Hugh Hefner is now dating twins. Wouldn't we classify that as incest?
Dr Phil's an idiot and an asshole. I have a large and deep-seated hatred for the man having gone through psychology for undergrad. He seriously says things that just go to further DAMAGE others. He's a tool and should be sued or in some way taken off the air. It's not a case of freedom of speech when you're just given a space to damage the lives of people who don't necessarily know where they can get REAL HELP from a REAL PROFESSIONAL.
I've watched enough dr. phil to develop a broad picture of the guy. A few things:
1. Yeah he was brought up on charges for an inappropriate relationship. He wasn't dating the patient, she was a former patient he (stupidly) gave a break to by allowing her to work in his office. It backfired and subsequently said to hell with the profession, BFD.
2. Has he sold out for TV, yeah, welcome to the real world of upward mobility via blind ambition. You don't get one without the other.
3. I would say on balance watching him in the early years had a huge upside. He clearly respects his wife, he clearly cares that she is happy and that she is safe (whether he understands her or not.) -- Which frankly girls, is the model you should be looking for.
4 Finally, watching Phil McGraw strategically argue is about the best training you'll ever get in standing your ground. Seriously, it doesn't matter how right you are if you can't insist on a certain level of respect. Wonder why Sarah Palin intrigues you so much --- it's because she oozes the latter.
"he clearly cares that she is happy and that she is safe (whether he understands her or not.) -- Which frankly girls, is the model you should be looking for."
Gross!
(this may not be the most mature response, but I'm pretty sure it sums up many of the "girls'" reading this feelings towards your comment).
Yeah, it does. Ew. Also, I have no idea why these folks with the condescending usernames and equally condescending comments always assume that the women here need their advice, particularly on how to find a good man. Plenty of us are already in relationships with intelligent, respectful men (or women), and I can guarantee none of them are modeled after Dr. Phil. Oh, and others don't care since hooking a fella is not the be-all end-all goal of every female's life. A shocker, I know. Also, having watched Dr. Phil on TV does not make you any more of an expert on his credibility or qualifications than anyone else.
The only thing that "intrigues" me about Sarah Palin is the fact that she's an idiot who can't put a coherent sentence together and has demonstrated a total lack of information about or interest in the wider world, and yet there are still people who hold her up as an example and insist that she's totally qualified to hold high government office. Not so much intriguing as mind-boggling, really. And yeah, winking her way through a vice-presidential debate just oooooozed self-respect (along with intelligence and professionalism!). Not.
I found this particularly interesting because I once saw a segment of Dr Phil where he basically told a family who was upset with their transgendered adult child that they needed to get over it because it wasn't their lives, it was their child's choice and they should accept it. I don't remember the details of the episode, but his opinion on it really stuck with me because I was surprised he would take that stance. I haven't seen a lot of his shows. Does he frequently flip flop his stance on things to fit the episode's theme or something?
Oops, this was supposed to be in response to LittlePunk's comment second from the top.
I stopped watching him years ago when it became clear to me that while he can say some enlightened things, he basically is all about maintaining the status quo and supports "traditional" values. I can't remember ever seeing him bring gay or lesbian couples on the show for relationship advice. I think a psychologist who tells someone they're lazy and they should get a job isn't being helpful - he's being judgmental. His promises to follow up on difficult cases fizzled quickly.
This kind of show is exactly the wrong way to get psychological advice. It makes for interesting television for voyeurs, people who want to see someone worse off than them so they can feel superior, and those who live their lives following bromides instead of looking deeper. I would argue that he does more harm than good.
"I think it's really important that you do let men know, 'I definitely have needs.'>>>
I think it's important for ALL people in relationships to let their partner know that they have needs, and what those needs are. He shouldn't just be teaching this to women, especially when his message seems to be to communicate in order to seem vulnerable.
>Dr. Phil also tells her to not be so obvious about the fact that she is successful in business.>>>
Yes, because men need to feel masculine and manly and successful women are a threat. I think I actually read that in an advice column once. It was published in the 1950s.
Damn you, Oprah, for unleashing this beast on the world!
Women never stop talking; they don't say anything of construct, bashing men that don't agree with them wholeheartedly and fling fancy words at men that have their own opinion: misogyny. For women to embrace misandry appears to be a right of passage and laughable hypocrisy. Liberals are of the same mind set, it seems. Self absorption is not an admirable trait; women might consider joining the human race and accept the FACT the world does not revolve around them or their accompanying opinions 24 hours a day. Maybe this is why women are so self absorbed, miserable, and whining so much of the time. The truth hurts. Any man that is a man, talks like a man, expresses himself like a man, is a complete threat to women; women feel they must conquer him in any way possible, name calling, and vile language notwithstanding. Women demand to be able to say what they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want; men are supposed to censor their speech and play by some artificial social rule imposed and policed by, you guessed it, women. Good luck with all that; hypocrisy and double standards has been the battle cry of the feminista so-called 'movement' forever. (I was an young man in the 1970's; I cannot be conned or invalidated; women acted all self-righteous and 'offended' when they were viewed as sex objects - which they now encourage and embrace). Equal rights are demanded everywhere by women but in criminal court, divorce court, custody court, and any situation where a difficult standard that men have always been held is imposed. Gender equality means just that. Selective gender equality is a sham. I am all about gender equality and would embrace the notion if it was possible to attain. What we have now in America could not be further from the stated goal - women that try to act like men and treat men like garbage and servants; unless there is some short term use for him for her benefit. If gender equality is such the goal; why do women, mothers, sisters, and females everywhere 'feel' they should not have to go into combat, die in wars, or be equal in ALL things, instead of selective things? I used to think (before I gained male liberation and fixed my preprogrammed self) that women were oh, so mysterious. Not true, manipulative, yes, mysterious; not by a long shot. According to women, when they have a strong opinion, they consider themselves heroes. When a man has a strong opinion (of which they may not agree), he is an idiot. Some of us are laughing at you, not with you.