Thursday, December 14, 2006

Researcher Nails Dobson

I don't know what the editors were thinking, maybe just trying to stir up controversy, but they let Family Blah Blah guy James Dobson soil the pages of Time this week with an editorial about Mary Cheney having a baby.

He started out acknowledging that the lesbian baby dilemma is a trap for people like him:
A number of social conservatives, myself included, have recently been asked to respond to the news that Mary Cheney, the Vice President's daughter, is pregnant with a child she intends to raise with her lesbian partner. Implicit in this issue is an effort to get us to criticize the Bush Administration or the Cheney family. But the concern here has nothing to do with politics. It is about what kind of family environment is best for the health and development of children, and, by extension, the nation at large. Two Mommies Is One Too Many

It's a little predictable, but Dobson believes there should be a father in the family. OK, I guess we would've guessed that.

So he goes on a little bit. Quotes some research:
According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences. Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of "maleness." They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers.

It might strike you as a little strange, if you followed these things, that a traditionalist like Dobson would be quoting the founder of "difference feminism," a researcher who has long argued that women's values and morals differ from men's, and who has emphasized that the Dobsonistic patriarchal form of "justice morality" has its equal in the "ethics of care," a feminine morality that treats relationships as primary.

It did strike Dr. Gilligan as strange. And she wants him to stop misquoting her.

Wayne Besen has the letter she sent Dobson:
Dear Dr. Dobson:

I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future. I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine. Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.

From what I understand, this is not the first time you have manipulated research in pursuit of your goals. This practice is not in the best interest of scientific inquiry, nor does bearing false witness serve your purpose of furthering morality and strengthening the family.

Finally, there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article. My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can’t raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households.

I trust that this will be the last time my work is cited by Focus on the Family.

Sincerely,

Carol Gilligan, PhD
New York University, Professor

I am somewhat pessimistic about Dobson actually getting the message here. If he had to be truthful, had to stop bearing false witness, had to stop taking research out of context to support discriminatory goals, what would be left?

33 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dobson never said Gilligan supported the traditional family. He only said that her research showed how males and females contribute different aspects of a child's development. I notice she didn't refute that. The fact that she didn't realize a possible implication of her research is really beside the point.

Her objection is that her research could be used for a "discriminatory goal". Obviously her concern has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with socio-political considerations. I think that most Americans, even liberal-crazed Montgomery County residents, would agree that discriminating beteeen good and bad environments in which to raise children is necessary for the good of everyone.

As much as it may make her unpopular among her Greenwich Village neighbors, Ms Gilligan has done research which contributes to the cause of the traditional family. Research is like that.

December 14, 2006 10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It might strike you as a little strange, if you followed these things, that a traditionalist like Dobson would be quoting the founder of "difference feminism," a researcher who has long argued that women's values and morals differ from men's, and who has emphasized that the Dobsonistic patriarchal form of "justice morality" has its equal in the "ethics of care," a feminine morality that treats relationships as primary."

It only strikes you as strange because you actually aren't that familiar with Dobson or with the biblical principles of family life.

December 14, 2006 10:45 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The research overwhelmingly supports the fact that children of gay parents do just as well, if not better, than the children of heterosexual parents, as I pointed out in this thread:

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2006/12/crc-threatens-huge-legal-expense.html#comments

December 14, 2006 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not acording to Dobson. We've already established that you think you're smarter than 69% of the APA, so it's no surprise that you also think you're more informed than this nationally respected PhD in Psychology.

December 14, 2006 12:54 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"nationally respected", that's a laugh - not respected by any other than those blinded by religion.

What 1970's APA members think who never reviewed or rebutted the research on the mental health of gays is irrelevant. What matters is the unopposed 34 studies themselves which support the mental health of gays.

December 14, 2006 1:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Dobson is just one extemist opinion compared to the dozens of researchers who've proven that children of gays do just as well as children of heteroesexuals.

December 14, 2006 1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"not respected by any other than those blinded by religion"

What are you talking about? A national secular magazine asked him to write an article in this week's edition. Don't project your biases on everyone else. You're a bigot.

December 14, 2006 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dobson is just one extemist opinion compared to the dozens of researchers who've proven that children of gays do just as well as children of heteroesexuals."

He said his opinion was based on decades of research. Just like you say yours is. The big difference is he knows what he's talking about and you don't. He has the credentials to make such a statement.

December 14, 2006 2:12 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Randi writes,

Dobson's "credentials" are irrelevant when he just asks people to take his religiously tainted word for fact. Fact is there is no research showing gay parents don't do well. It all shows they do just as well if not better than heterosexual parents. I've listed it, you and Dobson have proven - all you two have got is your empty misleading claims.

Could you please provide that info and/or URL again, thanks.

December 14, 2006 3:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonymous said "He said his opinion was based on decades of research. Just like you say yours is. The big difference is he knows what he's talking about and you don't. He has the credentials to make such a statement.".

You moron. I backed up my claim by listing the actual research, he didn't. I've read this claim by "Focus on the Family" many times and when I've checked the research they listed it always compared two parent families with single parent families. When he says decades of research show children do best with a mother and father he's refering to research on single parent families, never to research comparing gay parents to heteroesexual parents. Its the same sort of doublespeak as when "exgays" claim to have "changed" - they let people think they mean they've changed same sex into opposite sex attractions but when pressed admit they mean they've changed their behavior, not their orientation.

Dobson's "credentials" are irrelevant when he just asks people to take his religiously tainted word for fact. Fact is there is no research showing gay parents don't do well. It all shows they do just as well if not better than heterosexual parents. I've listed it, you and Dobson haven't - all you two have got is your empty misleading claims.

December 14, 2006 4:48 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Here you go, Orin.

"The Lesbian Mother," by Bernice Goodman [American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
Vol. 43 (1983), pp. 283-284]

Kirkpatrick, Martha et al; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative
Study," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 545 (1983) "Homosexual Parents,"
by Brenda Maddox [Psychology Today, February, 1982, pp.66-69]

Riddle, Dorothy I.; "Relating to Children: Gays as Role Models," 34 Journal of
Social Issues, 38-58 (1978)

"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody," by Marilyn Riley,
San Diego Law Review, Vol. 12 (1975), p. 799]

Susoeff, Steve; "Assessing Children's Best Interests When a Parent is Gay or
Lesbian: Toward a Rational Custody Standard," 32 UCLA Law Review 852, 896 (1985)

Gibbs, Elizabeth D.; "Psychosocial Development of Children Raised by Lesbian
Mothers: A Review of Research," 8 Women & Therapy 65 (1988)

Green, Richard; "The Best Interests of the Child With a Lesbian Mother," 10
Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 7 (1982)

Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)

Golombok, Susan; "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual
and Psychiatric Appraisal," 24 Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 551
(1983)

Hoeffer, Beverly; "Children's Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in Lesbian-Mother
Families," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 536 (1981)

Green, Richard; "Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or
Transsexual Parents," 135 American Journal of Psychiatry 692 (1978)

Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo
Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior
167 (1986)

Gottman, Julie Schwartz; "Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents," 14 Marriage and
Family Review 177 (1989)

Rees, Richard; "A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual
Mothers on Three Measures of Socialization," 40 Dissertation Abstracts
International 3418-B, 3419-B (1979)

Sterkel, Alisa; "Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian Mothers," Gay &
Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed., 1987)

Mucklow, Bonnie M., & Phelan, Gladys K.; "Lesbian and Traditional Mothers'
Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept," 44
Psychological Report 880 (1979)

Whittlin, William A.; "Homosexuality and Child Custody: A Psychiatric
Viewpoint," 21 Concilation Courts Review 77 (1983)

Herek, Gregory M.; "Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social
Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 133
(1991)

Cramer, David; "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of the Research and
Practical Implications," 64 Journal of Counseling & Development 504 (1986)

Wismont, Judith M., & Reame, Nancy E.; "The Lesbian Childbearing Experience:
Assessing Developmental Tasks, 21 Journal of Nursing Scholarship 137 (1989)

Meyer, Cheryl L.; "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian
Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 237 (1992)

"In the 'Best Interests of the Child' and the Lesbian Mother: A Proposal for
Legislative Change in New York," 48 Albany Law Review 1021 (1984) Harris &
Turner, "Gay & Lesbian Parents," 12 Journal of Homosexuality 101 (1985-1986)

Kleber, Howell & Tibbits-Kleber, "The Impact of Parental Homosexuality in Child
Custody Cases: A Review of the Literature," 14 Bulletin of the American Academy
of Psychiatry & Law 81 (1986)

"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody: A Constitutional
Challenge That Can No Longer Be Denied," 12 San Diego Law Review 799 (1975)

"Sexual Orientation and the Law" by the Editors of the Harvard Law Review
(Harvard University Press, 1989)

Green, G. Dorsey, & Bozett, Frederick W., "Lesbian Mothers and Gay Fathers," in
Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed. by Gonsiorek &
Weinrich (Sage Publications, 1991)

Lewin, E., "Lesbianism and Motherhood: Implications for Child Custody," 40 Human
Organization 6-14 (1981)

Ricketts, Wendell; "Lesbians and Gay Men as Foster Parents" (University of
Southern Maine, 1992)

December 14, 2006 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fact is there is no research showing gay parents don't do well."

There's plenty of research showing a family with a father and mother is ideal. Every gay "couple" would be missing one or the other.

December 14, 2006 7:04 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

You continue to miss the point, anonymous.

None of that research you talked about ever compared same sex households with heterosexual households.

The studies you mentioned always compared one parent heterosexual households to two parent heterosexual households.

December 14, 2006 7:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

are you sure he's not a doctor of divinity? i mean, listen to this:

I believe the Lord has placed us in a position to have a tremendous impact on the Church through Focus on the Family's The Truth Project. Given today's rampant relativism, it's more important than ever that believers demonstrate an unwavering commitment to absolute truth, and our worldview curriculum is designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of Scripture's teaching on some of the most important issues of our time...

Dr. James C. Dobson
Founder and Chairman
Focus on the Family


http://thetruthproject.org/endorsements/

dixie

December 14, 2006 7:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You continue to miss the point, anonymous.

None of that research you talked about ever compared same sex households with heterosexual households.

The studies you mentioned always compared one parent heterosexual households to two parent heterosexual households."

Or so Randi said. But what Dobson said is that both genders are vital. He is asking: If that is so, how can a gay "companionship" provide that?

I don't have time at present to go through all of Randi's articles but I notice a number that aren't science articles at all but law articles.

December 14, 2006 7:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"are you sure he's not a doctor of divinity? i mean, listen to this:

I believe the Lord has placed us in a position to have a tremendous impact on the Church through Focus on the Family's The Truth Project. Given today's rampant relativism, it's more important than ever that believers demonstrate an unwavering commitment to absolute truth, and our worldview curriculum is designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of Scripture's teaching on some of the most important issues of our time..."

What's your problem with this statement, Dixie Cup?

December 14, 2006 7:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonymous, studies undertaken by legal entities involve their own scientific research. For example if you'll note the article by Gregory Herek discusses social science research in the context of the law. Herek, Gregory M.; "Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social
Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 133
(1991)

Herek is a research psychologist with far more expertise than Dobson and has frequently been involved in providing expertise on gay issues to the legal profession.
The lone unsupported opinion of Dobson most certainly doesn't overrule the detailed dedicated work of Herek, let alone all the other researchers I listed.

Its a classic logical fallacy to appeal to authority with nothing to back it up. That is precisely what you and Dobson do by making nebulous references to "decades of research" without giving any specific references. Dobson can say both genders are vital all he wants, he has nothing to back that claim up while there is a wealth of information refuting that. In the end Dobson has pre-judged the issue because he's wedded to a religious position which precludes him from making any objective judgements based on modern evidence. The primative biases of thousands of years ago are no basis for modern policy making.

December 14, 2006 8:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

For more information by Gregory Herek go to:
http://www.beyondhomophobia.com/blog/

December 14, 2006 8:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dobson can say both genders are vital all he wants, he has nothing to back that claim up while there is a wealth of information refuting that."

He cited two researchers saying exactly that. Now that their research has been cited in a national magazine and they might be linked to a politically unpopular cause, these two cowards are backing off. But if these two did research that shows that both genders make a vital contribution to child development and if they think gays are some special exception to that rule, they will have to explain why. They haven't so far.

December 14, 2006 8:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Herek is a research psychologist with far more expertise than Dobson and has frequently been involved in providing expertise on gay issues to the legal profession."

If you're talking about litigation support, the lawyers usually select whoever they think will say whatever makes their case. That's not necessarily the leading authority in the field. How unbiased could a blog titled "beyondhomophobia.com" be?

December 14, 2006 8:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonymous, no where in the posts did those researchers say both genders are vital. They've stated the opposite, that there is nothing to support the opposition of gay parenting. When there is no evidence showing this there is no explanation needed.

December 14, 2006 9:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now that their research has been cited in a national magazine and they might be linked to a politically unpopular cause, these two cowards are backing off."

Total BS. They are not backing off; they are correcting Dobson's misuse of their research.

Completely contrary to Dobson's spin, Carol Gilligan stated "My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can’t raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households." and Kyle Pruett reaffirmed what his book said on page 134, “What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.”

December 14, 2006 9:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonymous said "How unbiased could a blog titled "beyondhomophobia.com" be?".

Anonymous its the religionists like Dobson that are biased. They've taken a stance against gays without any knowledge and refuse to entertain any evidence that they're in the wrong. They're determined to oppose gays no matter what whereas non-religous researchers have no such prejudice. Herek has judged objectively and come to the only rational conclusion.

December 14, 2006 9:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Completely contrary to Dobson's spin, Carol Gilligan stated "My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can’t raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households.""

Dobson didn't quote Gilligan saying that "same-gender families are harmful to children". He quoted her detailing the different ways each gender uniquely contributes to a child's development. She didn't deny this or explain how, contradictorially, gay couples could make good parents, given this fact.

"and Kyle Pruett reaffirmed what his book said on page 134, “What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.”"

Dobson cites Pruitt in discovering the importance of fathers to a child's development. The above quote slyly doesn't contradicy that.

December 14, 2006 10:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonymous, you're dumber than a bag of hammers. Gilligan said these supposed gender differences aren't necessary to raising healthy and well adjusted children. What part of that don't you get?

December 14, 2006 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Gilligan said these supposed gender differences aren't necessary to raising healthy and well adjusted children."

Gilligan said gender differences aren't "supposed" but actual. Dobson cited on this not her opinion of same gender partnership parenting.

What part did you not read? Oh, that's right- all of it.

If only you were as attentive as a bag of hammers.

December 15, 2006 12:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon asked, "What's your problem with this statement, Dixie"

Sam Harris says it better than I could, so here's your answer:

Excerpt: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, Sam Harris

"The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history, mythology, and art even to be entertained - as the beliefs, rituals, and icongraphy of each of our religious attest to centuries of cross-pollination among them. Whatever their imagined source, the doctrines of modern religions are no more tenable than those which for lack of adherents, were cast upon the scrap heap of mythology millennia ago; for there is no more evidence to justify a belief in the literal existence of Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus perched upon his mountain throne or Poseidon churning the seas."

dixie

December 15, 2006 8:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, Dixie. You object to the fact that Dobson's not an atheist.

Noted.

December 15, 2006 9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NATION IN BRIEF

...BOSTON -- Harvard University has dropped a proposal that would have required all undergraduates to study religion as part of the biggest overhaul of its curriculum in three decades.

Efforts to revamp the curriculum, which has been criticized for focusing too narrowly on academic topics instead of real-life issues, have been in the works for three years.

A proposal for a "reason and faith" course requirement, which would have set Harvard apart from many other secular universities and made it unique among its peers in the elite Ivy League, was made public in a preliminary report in October.

"We have removed 'reason and faith' as a distinct category," a faculty task force said in a revised report, excepts of which were obtained by Reuters.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301943.html

December 15, 2006 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is an odd point for Dobson to make:

"Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of 'maleness.' They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers."

Really? What is it they have to learn, exactly? Ah: Dobson's definition of masculinity is what they have to learn. 'Cause that just don't come natural.

December 15, 2006 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read Pruett's book. He explains what Dr Dobson means by "maleness".

December 15, 2006 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pruett, the man who wrote the book, wrote a letter correcting Dobson's misinterpretation of it. Perhaps it's your delusions of grandeur that make you think you know the material better than the author.

December 15, 2006 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pruett, the man who wrote the book, wrote a letter correcting Dobson's misinterpretation of it. Perhaps it's your delusions of grandeur that make you think you know the material better than the author."

He didn't say Dobson misinterpretted his concept of maleness.

Boy, does that make me feel grand!

December 15, 2006 5:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home