Fathers & Families: Did Dr. Phil Unwittingly Promote False Accusations on His Recent ‘Crisis in Family Court’ Show?
posted by Helen at 1:01 PM
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Contributors
Previous Posts
- PJTV: Young and conservative?
- "Bam is a bully."
- FIRE: The University of Tennessee acts to protect ...
- The return of the Great Depression?
- Men, Women and Separate Checks
- CNBC: Obama's Cowardly New World.
- "Assistant State's Attorney Julie Drake said the s...
- "...they are allowing themselves to become agents ...
- Stuart Schneiderman: God save us from therapy!
- PJTV: One man's journey to protest ObamaCare
17 Comments:
Quite frankly, cases like this make me understand why no other civilized country has such lax libel and slander laws. In a just society, Sheldon Creek would be able to financially ruin in perpetuity his wife for the kind of charges she's bringing.
Dr. Phil is one of the biggest arrogant, condescending, manipulative, phony morons I have ever seen.
His therapy license was suspended in Texas for some issue involving sex with a patient and an unwarranted job. Instead of responding to the inquiry, he high-tailed it out of the state.
The fact that big chunks of the American public seem to think he's something wonderful may actually be evidence that the collapse of civilization is near.
Otherwise he's OK, I guess.
Isn't a parent constantly telling a child that they are, or were, being abused by the other parent itself a horrible form of abuse?
JG, the story as I heard it went like this. He was paid by the father of a patient to give the patient a job in his practice. The patient did not do this, was livid when she found out, and filed a complaint with the licenseing board.
It was wrong for Phil to hire a patient to work in his office as this was a dual relationship and is clearly unethical in our guidelines. The fact that he did so to get free work only makes it more slimey.
When aksed about the situation in an interview his response was something like "You try to help someone, and this is the thanks you get."
Trey
Joe, it certainly is a horrible form of abuse to the child. It is also parental alienation, which should be a crime against the parent who has their relationship with their child stolen.
In my mind and experience, coaching a child to believe that they were abused should be prosecuted as child abuse.
Trey
Here's what the unassailable authority, Wikipedia, (umm ... just a joke) has to say about Dr. Phil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Phil
"The Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists determined on October 21, 1988 that McGraw had hired a former patient for "part-time temporary employment."[12] Specifically the Board cited "a possible failure to provide proper separation between termination of therapy and the initiation of employment"[13] and issued a letter of reprimand and imposed administrative penalties.[14] The Board also investigated claims made by the patient of inappropriate contact initiated by McGraw, but the "Findings of Fact" document issued by the Board on October 21, 1988, at the end of its investigation, includes no reference to any physical contact of any kind."
As I understand it, his license is still suspended / in limbo, but I guess you don't need that to be a Big TeeVee Doctor.
As noted in the linked story:
While Dr. Phil is correct to publicize these tragic cases, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, most parental murders of children are committed by mothers, not by fathers. Dr. Phil could have had a similar show featuring fathers whose children were murdered by the children’s mothers, at times after fathers had tried to warn courts. It is misleading to only focus on murdering fathers when there are, in fact, more mothers who kill their children than fathers.
For someone with the resources and background that Dr. Phil has and to do so many good stories, it is a shame that he appears to have such an "anti-man" bias. I have noticed a trend in these types of stories. He highlights male on female abuse but ignores female on male. He highlights where fathers abuse kids but ignores where mothers do. He appears to be a very strong child advocate and I do not doubt that he truly wants to help, I just wish he was more balanced in his stories and shows.
What I absolutely cannot understand is this:
He's undeniably a fat ass, but he has written a diet book and lots of people apparently bought it.
First off, that takes a whole lot of chutzpah to write a diet book when you can't lose weight yourself. Secondly, why are there so many morons in America that would buy hypocritical crap like that.
"... I do not doubt that he truly wants to help ..."
----
I doubt that.
It's ALL about the money and a position in which he can boss others around. That's who he is.
His anti-man chivalry is really of the worst kind. He's in a position to bully other men and act like a hero to women - and that's exactly what he does. 'Cuz maybe he'll get laid behind his wife's back with that type of behavior. No scruples, no sense of fairness and no empathy for others.
it is a shame that he appears to have such an "anti-man" bias
I suspect this bias exists in his audience, and he caters to them.
The man bad woman good thing is not only burned into most people's skulls, it makes for more money. Funny how there isn't much of a market for manpraising/womanbashing, but there is a lot of money to be made from womanpraising/manbashing.
This is even prevalent among otherwise decent people. I'll mention three (one Jew, two evangelical Christians) who I consider to be exceedingly honorable people. Point being even honorable people can counsel based on bias.
Example "America's Rabbi" Shmuley Boteach. When a man cheats, Shmuley rakes him over the coals as a self hating fool and/or child. When a woman cheats, he says the real culprit is an unattentive husband.
Steve Harley is a Christian writer I respect, and I like his "Love Busters" on Marriage Builders. But he is victim of this mindset to. He wrote three columns about how to handle broadly defined "neglect." Here is a summary:
Column 1: A wife claims to be in a neglectful marriage. His advice is to plan a separation several months down the road, save money, get an apartment. During this time, shower him with love and sex (while she is scheming to leave). Then, separate to send him a message.
Column 2: Physical abuse. Advocates leaving, which I agree with. But of course, it is about men abusing women. The reverse never occurs to him.
Column 3: Finally, he wrote about a man being neglected. He doesn't recommend the man leaving to send the wife a message, ohhh nooooo. He recommends shaping up and trying harder. He says it's rare for women to neglect and not have sex with a man who treats them well. (He must have a remarkable wife, otherwise he'd know that is bull).
Then Tony Campolo, Christian author, also wrote about differences in sexual desire in two parts with examples:
First, man's desire exceeds woman's. The end result is the man has an affair because he isn't mature enough to deal with it, man's to blame.
Second, he wrote an example about the woman's desire exceeding the man's. The end result is the husband feels inadequate, looks to someone else to boost his ego, and HE ends up having an affair. He dared not use an example of a wife having an affair, which happens pretty close to as often as a man having one, wives don't get caught as much because they get more trust.
Note, in no place did I say men or women are better than the other. Men and women both have problems, both get abused, both get cheated on, both should have access to their children, and both are, well, human. If we want real equality, we need to look at perpetrators and care for victims on both sides, no just one or the other.
Of course, I've long believed that most people who say they want "equality" don't really want it.
Dr. Phil's bias has been documented on mensnewsdaily.com. I agree with every word Mr. Elam wrote:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/08/04/gender-lies-and-phil-mcgraw/
"Unwittingly?" No.
This comment has been removed by the author.
There are millions of angry women out there who are full of rage.
And rightfully so, because they see over and over again on TV and in movies that normal women are swept off their feet by a wealthy man who releases them from the drudgery of having to work, who takes them to Paris every week and who dotes on them, trying to anticipate any wish and fulfill it.
But the woman seeing this then considers that the guy she wound up with - her husband or long-term boyfriend - is not even like these normal men. So it's quite understandable that she is furious. It's the man's fault - all of it.
Now good ol' Dr. Phil comes along and sees an opportunity to make some money, just like his old pappy done told him. He just has to tell these millions of furious women what they want to hear: That they are absolutely right and all of the problem is with their husbands.
That dog is gonna hunt, yessiree!
So everyone is happy. The women get what they want. Dr. Phil wants money so that he can manipulate and humiliate people, and bag women even with his fat gut, bald head and almost unbelievable arrogance, and Dr. Phil gets plenty of money. The men he puts down don't count - they are subhuman scum because they are not living up to the fantasies of their wives - so it doesn't matter in the least what they want.
What I heard was that Phil does not enjoy therapy at all. He apparently has a gift for being able to look at and watch a jury and pick up how the case is going. That is how he made his money. Then he helped Oprah beat the Cattlemen in a suit, and she put him on her show.
Isn't Oprah an untreated sexual abuse survivor?
Trey
Post a Comment
<< Home