Time Magazine asks Dobson about Mary Cheney's kid

[dewdrop_world]

Let's fire up the word processors and send some letters to Time Magazine. Guess who they asked to write commentary about Mary Cheney's pregnancy?

James Dobson.

That's the most balanced conservative voice they could find?

His piece is just what we might expect: sugarcoated innuendo. Reasonable on the surface but doesn't take too much digging to find the cracks.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568485-1,00.html

How much satisfaction does a 39-cent stamp buy these days? :) (Is it still 39 cents?)

James

PS Let's also make sure to be more reasonable than reasonable.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Tomorrow Soulforce will launch a petition asking Time Magazine to check Dobson's facts.

[dewdrop_world]

I will sign that petition.

More ammunition:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612110002

James

[Jamie McDaniel]

Thanks, dewdrop_world. I just passed that along to the team working on this.

[dewdrop_world]

Here's my letter.

To the Editor:

James Dobson's organization, Focus on the Family, has been criticized for a casual approach to social science research that takes data out of context and ignores results contrary to its predefined position. It is no surprise that his Time Magazine commentary on Mary Cheney's pregnancy indulges in the same half-truths and innuendoes.

Dobson cites two researchers, Kyle Pruett and Carol Gilligan, as evidence of the need for a father and mother. Social conservatives have ridiculed Gilligan's work for years on the grounds that her views on parenting would hopelessly feminize boys. But Dobson glides past the controversy and implies that she supports the same views of fatherhood as he. Anyone familiar with Gilligan's research would recognize the inaccuracy.

Pruett has publicly disavowed Dobson's use of his research, stating that it "couldn't be further from my personal or professional position." Dobson is surely aware of this, but repeats his mischaracterization.

If there is a principled social science position to take against gay parenting, Dobson's consistent misuse of the research makes him the wrong person to make that case. For Time to publish his opinion without thoroughly checking his facts is a regrettable editorial practice indeed.

Sincerely,
James H.

[Emproph]

Tomorrow Soulforce will launch a petition asking Time Magazine to check Dobson's facts.Thank God.

~~
Sorry James but I’m running with this one. I’m not suggesting anyone use my sarcastic bent if they do send a letter but I thought it might help to elucidate the insanely hypocritical parts.

Let the autopsy commence...

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.
Oh really, nothing to do with politics? It’s all about what’s best for the children and the nation?

With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.
“With all due respect” Dr. Dobson, the same argument could be made to outlaw single parenting and single parent adoption, both of which continue to be legal.

That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy--any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl.
Squarely equating a penis with masculinity and a vagina with femininity, and dispelling any “myth” that there are mothers/wives who “wear the pants in the family.” I find it particularly demeaning to equate the characteristics of masculinity and femininity solely upon the basis of one’s genitals.

Anyone who's paid attention to even the stereotypical nature of homosexuality for the past 30 years would be more concerned about having a female influence in a lesbian household and a male influence in a gay-male household.. (duh).

The fact remains that gender matters--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.
Still no word yet on why single parenting and single parent adoption are infinitely less important problems.

Other researchers have determined that boys are not born with an understanding of "maleness." They have to learn it, ideally from their fathers.Got it. All boys need to be "taught" to be attracted to women, and if they do happen to grow up in a matriarchal single parent home they automatically grow up to be gay.

But wouldn't that make single parenting the cause of homosexuality in the first place?

But set aside the scientific findings for a minute. Isn't there something in our hearts that tells us, intuitively, that children need a mother and a father? Admittedly, that ideal is not always possible. Divorce, death, abandonment and unwed pregnancy have resulted in an ever growing number of single-parent families in this culture. We admire the millions of men and women who have risen to the challenge of parenting alone and are meeting their difficult responsibilities with courage and determination. Still, most of them, if asked, would say that raising children is a two-person job best accomplished by a mother and father
We "admire" single heterosexual parents for having “risen to the challenge,” but homosexual couples who actually desire and plan for a child are not only a threat to that child, but also to "the nation at large."

In raising these issues, Focus on the Family does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe. Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples.Which of course is why the pandemic of divorce, single parenting, single parent adoption, and the implications of poverty upon them, are paid lip service every so often – like in this Time magazine article.

Traditional marriage is God's design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth.
You’re a proven liar, hypocrite, and bearer of false witness. With all due respect Dr. Dobson, your “truth” is not Biblically based.

~~
Again, If you're going to write a letter, take James' and Soulforce's non-violent lead on this. The words "liar" and "hypocrite" may be true but are not the most conducive language to use for the sake of "winning hearts and minds." :) (-Actually maybe they are, but only sometimes)

[dewdrop_world]

More about Dobson's linkage to the Dominionist movement.

http://www.harpers.org/FeelingTheHate.html

James

[Daniel]

More about Dobson's linkage to the Dominionist movement.

James- thank you for the link. The end of the piece stood out to me for the simple reason that I remember very clearly when Pat Robertson and his ilk came to prominence during my undergrad days at Evangel ('77- '81).

I can't help but recall the words of my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, Dr. James Luther Adams, who told us that when we were his age, and he was then close to eighty, we would all be fighting the “Christian fascists.”

He gave us that warning twenty-five years ago, when Pat Robertson and other prominent evangelists began speaking of a new political religion that would direct its efforts at taking control of all major American institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government, so as to transform the United States into a global Christian empire. At the time, it was hard to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously. But fascism, Adams warned, would not return wearing swastikas and brown shirts. Its ideological inheritors would cloak themselves in the language of the Bible; they would come carrying crosses and chanting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Adams had watched American intellectuals and industrialists flirt with fascism in the 1930s. Mussolini's “Corporatism,” which created an unchecked industrial and business aristocracy, had appealed to many at the time as an effective counterweight to the New Deal. In 1934, Fortune magazine lavished praise on the Italian dictator for his defanging of labor unions and his empowerment of industrialists at the expense of workers. Then as now, Adams said, too many liberals failed to understand the power and allure of evil, and when the radical Christians came, these people would undoubtedly play by the old, polite rules of democracy long after those in power had begun to dismantle the democratic state. Adams had watched German academics fall silent or conform. He knew how desperately people want to believe the comfortable lies told by totalitarian movements, how easily those lies lull moderates into passivity.

Adams told us to watch closely the Christian right's persecution of homosexuals and lesbians. Hitler, he reminded us, promised to restore moral values not long after he took power in 1933, then imposed a ban on all homosexual and lesbian organizations and publications. Then came raids on the places where homosexuals gathered, culminating on May 6, 1933, with the ransacking of the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin. Twelve thousand volumes from the institute's library were tossed into a public bonfire. Homosexuals and lesbians, Adams said, would be the first “deviants” singled out by the Christian right. We would be the next.


It really is facism. And they really do want to be us on the altar of their idol, grinning all the while that it's for our own good.

The prevailing message- one that was pounded into students at Evangel during chapel- was that, once one graduated, one was obligated to Christianize America via one's profession.

It has amazed me that, even here, in other threads, there has been disbelief that such a thing can happen in the land of the free. Well. It can, and will, if we all don't do something to stop it.

[novaseeker]

Yes, it certainly can happen. People too quickly forget that Hitler himself came to power democratically and then used his democratically-achieved power base to gradually dismantle the democractic state and transform it into a totalitarian one. Having an underlying democratic system doesn't at all in itself ensure that illiberal and even fascist politics will not, at some point, prevail.

The other thing that tends to be overlooked is how seductive totalitarianism really is. People are seduced by it for the same reasons that they are seduced by fundamentalism in the religious context: it offers a comprehensive, simple, unitary answer to the (in reality) complex, muddy, hard to deal with business of reality. In short, many people prefer simple, straightforward, black-and-white "answers" to the harder business of mudddling through a world of grey, of variation, of diversity. Life can seem much more manageable when the chaos can be ignored, and not dealt with, because everything is definitively dealt with by the totalitarian ideology or fundamentalist belief system. And if you take that innate attractiveness and clothe it in something as comfortable and familiar as religion, the attraction can be almost irresistable for some people.

The good news is that more people are catching on to what is really happening in America these days. More books are being written about it, and the phenomenon has come out into plain view, which is a good thing. What is thoroughly regrettable and, frankly, almost insane, is for a mainstream press publication like Time to be giving an audience to the likes of Dobson to publish his unsupported nonsense regarding issues like this one. I mean, if the editors wanted to include a piece from Dobson, the least that they could have done would have been to include a parallel piece by someone in the mental health and child development fields that actually spoke to the empirical data. Left as it is, Dobson's piece will be read by at least some and perhaps many readers as simply being true, when in fact most developmental psychologists disagree with what he has written there. It's a very odd and sad development for institutions like Time to allow themselves to become the platform for Dobson's propaganda.

[Jamie McDaniel]

The petition is up now.

www.soulforce.org/petition/2 (http://www.soulforce.org/petition/2)

[Vanessa White]

I am all over this...... just signed it. Thanks Jamie! :love:

[marutidas]

I have sign as well,

Drop by drop, change ensues

[keltic63]

I signed. I was thinking that this really could be an important action. If Time realizes that there are enough people calling on them to check out the research that Dobson uses, they may discover that there is a story here! Maybe this will get people thinking. It has always bugged me that Dobson et al can continue to make the claims that they do, and no mainstream media outlet calls it into question.

[andrewlittle]

And ditto on the tally.

[suzer1013]

Signed it!

Susan

[1engelbythesea]

Signed it and passed the word along to others who might not have been alerted.:mad:

[dewdrop_world]

Signed, and I sent a personal email to family and friends too.

Thanks for setting this petition up! When I saw the link at the Washington Blade's website, I was pretty horrified and I'm glad we are doing something.

James

[pnggrad79]

I signed it and told Dobson to keep his mouth shut. Funny, how everytime he opens it, he just looks more and more like the buffoon and imbecile he really is.:rolleyes:

[Jamie McDaniel]

And ditto on the tally.
1,311 at the time of this post.

Our previous petition (http://www.soulforce.org/petition/1) had a total of 2,857 signatures (2,000 after the first week or two).

Most of the signatures today came from our email list, which is at 12,500 (about 3,500 who regularly open the emails. A 25% open rate is fairly standard for large lists, I understand. Our list size was about 7,000 this time last year, so the organization is growing.)

Hopefully we can get the word out further. You'll notice the petition asks you to forward it to your friends after having signed it.

You all do have justice minded friends outside of Soulforce, don't you. ;)

addendum: Oh the questions we ask of others ought to be asked of ourselves. After writing that, I realized I have not forwarded it to anyone outside of Soulforce. Better go do that. :running:

[Jaroslaw99]

Glad Soulforce is there to counter this garbage. I'm sure these aren't new sentiments, but in one respect, the RR has forced me to become more active and out.

Second, I can't believe more "true Christians" don't denounce people like Dobson. The Psalmist said "create in me a clean heart" and Jesus stressed purity and conscience over rituals and laws.

It should be obvious to the most casual observer of the Religious Right that they outright lie often enough (for only one example, Mr. Pruett saying openly Dobson was misusing his research - hope I got his name right)

God Bless all who signed the SF petition.

[Daniel]

Thanks Jamie. Signed and Clicked.

While Rev. Dobson has his freedom of speech, Time is not obligated to print it. If it does, it should at least do so with a disclaimer. His advice is harmful to one's mental and physical health.

[Emproph]

While Rev. Dobson has his freedom of speech... I misread that the first time as "Dobson has his freedom of hate speech..." (insert self-righteous sneer smiley here)

~~

Time article title: Two Mommies Is One Too Many.

free republic comment: "One Dobson is too many"

~~

Seen these yet?

From the Time article:
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.

In a letter to Dobson, obtained exclusively by Truth Wins Out (http://truthwinsout.org/news/?p=37) after the group contacted Gilligan and informed her of the Time article, Gilligan expressed her dismay and demanded that the right wing leader apologize. According to the letter:


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

~~

And then there's..

Time DEC 06:
The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother."

(link below courtesy Good As You (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2006/12/who_needs_dr_sp.html)):

The Yale Herald, Nov 04: (http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=3783)


The group, Defense of Marriage Coalition (DFM), supports Amendment 36—a recently passed amendment to Oregon's constitution that defines marriage as being the union of one man and one woman.

"They were cherry picking research for their own purposes—they would have seen that my research doesn't support their conclusions at all," Pruett said. "In my book, I talk about how gay and lesbian marriage is not currently thought to be placing children at risk."

Pruett does not feel that this situation has been completely rectified, but he is grateful that he has had the opportunity to set his record straight. "My five-year-old grandson lives in Portland," he said. "I just hope he feels, as he grows up, that the name is not stained, and that he will have choices when he grows up."

~But I'm sure Focus on the Family wasn't involved with any of that. :rolleyes:

[keltic63]

1,311 at the time of this post.

Our previous petition (http://www.soulforce.org/petition/1) had a total of 2,857 signatures (2,000 after the first week or two).

Most of the signatures today came from our email list, which is at 12,500 (about 3,500 who regularly open the emails. A 25% open rate is fairly standard for large lists, I understand. Our list size was about 7,000 this time last year, so the organization is growing.)

Hopefully we can get the word out further. You'll notice the petition asks you to forward it to your friends after having signed it.

You all do have justice minded friends outside of Soulforce, don't you. ;)

addendum: Oh the questions we ask of others ought to be asked of ourselves. After writing that, I realized I have not forwarded it to anyone outside of Soulforce. Better go do that. :running:


also noted: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/images/misc/whos_online.gif (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/online.php) Most users ever online was 439, Yesterday at 05:21 AM.


Could that have been when many on the mailing list received their email about signing the petition?

[novaseeker]

I was wondering if Dobson was going to be able to get away with dropping Gilligan's name shamelessly into his article, given how hugely opposed her views are to his, but it's good to see she's stepped in to protest that. Good for her!

I've signed the petition as well and forwarded it to some friends.

[Dash]

Just saw this on TIME's website:

Two Mommies or Two Daddies Will Do Fine, Thanks (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1569797,00.html)
An advocate for gay families says James Dobson misuses science to discredit same-sex parenting
By JENNIFER CHRISLER

[novaseeker]

Just saw this on TIME's website:

Two Mommies or Two Daddies Will Do Fine, Thanks (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1569797,00.html)
An advocate for gay families says James Dobson misuses science to discredit same-sex parenting
By JENNIFER CHRISLER

Thank goodness! :D

[Jamie McDaniel]

2,661 signatures at the time of this post.

[Vanessa White]

1300 new signatures a day is a good average. :) :love:

[andrewlittle]

The petition has also been linked by the Firstlight GLBT ministry website in a thread with the Dobson/Time story. The moderator of that site recently became a member of this one. Networks at work.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Focus on the Family
CitizenLink Action Alert
Dec. 15, 2006

Let Time Know You Support Dr. Dobson

Gay-activist groups have mobilized to oppose an editorial in Time magazine written by Dr. James Dobson. Write the publication’s editors and let them know that you appreciate them publishing “Two Mommies Is One Too Many,” Dr. Dobson’s piece on why children “do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.”

You can read Dr. Dobson's Time editorial by clicking here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568485,00.html)

Homosexual-advocacy groups posted Internet and email alerts this week expressing “outrage” that Time published Dr. Dobson’s essay. Supporters of same-sex marriage, parenting and adoption are trying to challenge long-standing social science data that children do best with a married mother and father, claiming that newer research discredits these findings — a claim that many respected experts in this field reject. As part of this effort, gay activist organizations are asking their supporters to write Time and complain that Dr. Dobson’s essay is inaccurate.

In reality, Time editors fact-checked Dr. Dobson’s commentary before it was published and found it to be accurate.

So, what can you do to support Dr. Dobson and traditional families?

Write a brief, polite note (200 words or less) to the editors at Time and thank them for publishing the truth about parenting from Dr. Dobson. Thank them for allowing Dr. Dobson to share with the nation what gay activists don’t want anyone to know: Children do best when raised by their married mother and father.

E-mail your letter to the editor to letters@time.com

[ladyinred]

Time Publishes Dobson Lies: Take Action!
By Psyche Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 04:12:24 PM EST
topic: All Topics section:Posts email story print


Dobson is loose again - on this occasion in Time magazine , using the Cheney pregnancy as a springboard to spread more misinformation about gay families (ht Aravosis ). In this latest assault, rather than relying on his usual "in-house" fraudulent research, Dobson cherry-picked and distorted the work of reputable professionals: psychologist Carol Gilligan, an NYU professor formerly at Harvard, and Kyle Pruett, a Clinical Professor of Child Psychiatry at Yale. Gilligan is well known for her research on moral development. Looks like Dobson picked on the wrong people this time.



The response has been rapid and from many quarters. Gilligan, herself, responded to the misuse of her research in a letter to 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
Then Pruett:


Dr. Dobson, I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission. You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, "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." Kyle Pruett, M.D. Yale School of Medicine

Media Matters has corrected the record and further reports that Pruett has raised objections in the past to the misuse of his work by right wing groups, including the Defense of Marriage Coalition. Numerous professional groups are alerting their listservs as well.

In the belief that Dobson is unlikely to change his stripes but that we can hold accountable the media which provide platforms for him, I sent the following LTE to Time yesterday:


To the Editors:
I was dismayed to see James Dobson's comments on Mary Cheney and his denigration of same sex parents. It is one thing for him to have personal opinions based on his religion or anything else he chooses, provided these opinions are labeled as such. It is quite another thing for him to distort and lie about scientific research. It is an unfortunate habit of his but a national magazine such as Time does not have to provide a platform for this misinformation and bigotry.

Do you have no fact checkers? Carol Gilligan is a well-known psychologist with an impressive publication record. It would have been quite simple to check James Dobson's references to Dr. Gilligan's research. There is also a substantial body of peer-reviewed research on same sex parents and children that suggest that these families are as healthy as those with heterosexual parents. Summaries of this research can be obtained from the American Psychological Association. I hope that you will avail yourself of these publications so that your magazine can avoid this kind of embarrassment in the future.

XXXXX X XXXXXX, PhD
Clinical Psychologist

Today, I discovered that Soulforce has launched a petition addressing some of these concerns. After reviewing the links, if you feel as strongly as I do, please write to the editors at Time. Individual letters have more impact than petitions. However, numbers count as well and it will only take a couple of minutes to sign the Soulforce petition. It's important that we join with allies to get our voices heard.

[ladyinred]

Imagine that Dobson has used notable researchers credentials to back up his phony claims . Why should gay people be concerned? Time magazine has a pretty large audience . His fraudelent claims unless exposed for what they are will be read and believed by millions of readers. (Read my previous post on Dobson distorting researchers findings) Updated _I know there has been previous postings about this , I may have hastily posted this while not reading others posting previously on this forum. One was posted about the Truth wins out website, that exposed similar info. I go to Talk to action and other resources, because I am a member of it among other websites.

[ladyinred]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1569797,00.html
Nation
Two Mommies or Two Daddies Will Do Fine, Thanks
An advocate for gay families says James Dobson misuses science to discredit same-sex parenting
By JENNIFER CHRISLER
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHORViewpoint: Two Mommies Is One Too Many

Posted Thursday, Dec. 14, 2006
The strategies of religious and political extremists like James Dobson of Focus on the Family have become more nuanced of late. They have adjusted their language so that it is less vitriolic. They now utilize terms and approaches that often have a scientific-sounding overlay and are designed to appear more reasonable than those of their earlier efforts. They use the language of "concern" instead of the language of direct condemnation. They have had to make these adjustments because — as the lives of gay people and their families have gained visibility — the previous methods of attack lost their effectiveness. Nevertheless, the science they wield, if not unsound, is misconstrued. Responding to the news of the pregnancy of Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of the Vice President, Dobson, writing in a viewpoint in TIME magazine, put to work the time-worn tools of lies and distortion to make his argument that lesbian and gay parents are not able to provide environments for their children comparable in quality to those created by heterosexual parents.

These are the facts. According to the 2000 census, the vast majority — more than 75% — of American children are being raised in families that differ in structure from two married, heterosexual parents and their biological children. We are a nation of blended and multi-generational families, adoptive and foster families, and families headed by single parents, divorced parents, unmarried parents, same-sex couples and more. Despite Dobson's assertions to the contrary, there is no single "traditional" family structure in the United States.

Moreover, despite Dobson's attempt to blame this reality on "no-fault divorce," this is not a new development. Over time and across cultures, the definition of family and the arrangements in which children have been raised have varied tremendously. Dobson's idea that the nuclear family is "supported by more than 5,000 years of human experience" and constitutes "the foundation on which the well-being of future generations depends" is simply not historically accurate.

Within his commentary, Dobson directly attributes some of the points of his argument to prominent psychologist and social researcher Dr. Carol Gilligan. However, when asked about his use of her research, Dr. Gilligan stated emphatically that its inclusion constitutes "a complete distortion of my work" and went on to say that there is nothing in her research that would support Dobson's stated conclusions.

It is true that there is 30 years of research about families headed by lesbian and gay parents. However, Dobson claims that the resulting data shows that "children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father." To say that Dobson is misinformed here would be inaccurate. He is simply lying. The people who are misinformed by these untruths are the readers of his material and those who publish his work without appropriately verifying his assertions. The fact is that research findings on these issues overwhelmingly testify to the success of gay families as nurturing environments for children's growth and development.

In terms of specific examples, Dr. Nanette Gartrell, former Harvard Medical School faculty and current Associate Clinical Professor of Psychology at the University of California, San Francisco, has conducted research on lesbian-headed families since the early 1980s. Gartrell's findings have proven that "in social and psychological development, the children [of lesbian parents] were comparable to children raised in heterosexual families." In addition, Dr. Charlotte Patterson, Professor of Psychology as the University of Virginia and respected family and child researcher, has determined that "there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances."

In addition, professional organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers have all issued position statements supporting same-sex parents. The Child Welfare League of America says, "It should be recognized that sexual orientation and the capacity to nurture a child are separate issues." The American Psychological Association goes even further: "Not a single study has found children to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psycho-social growth. Gay and lesbian parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide healthy and supportive environments for their children."

The fundamental reality is that all parents, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, are linked in a very real way. We want our children to be safe, healthy and happy. When any of our families are politicized, it is an assault on our ability to protect ourselves, each other and our children. When people like Dobson profess "concern" for the welfare of children, while simultaneously attacking those very children's parents and family structures, their insincerity becomes evident. If their paramount focus is truly the health and well-being of children, then we invite Dobson and his colleagues to join our fight to ensure that all loving families are recognized, respected, protected and celebrated.

Jennifer Chrisler is the Executive Director of Family Pride, the nation's largest LGBT family advocacy group, and the mother of twin boys with her wife Cheryl Jacques. They reside in Washington, D.C.

[ladyinred]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612140004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Media Matters
Home Issues/Topics About Us Take Action Press/Bloggers Donate Thu, Dec 14, 2006 4:12pm EST
Send to a friend Print Version
Donate now! Only 16 days left
to make a tax-deductible gift in 2006!

Experts say Dobson's Time column distorted their research to denounce same-sex parents
Summary: Two researchers cited by Focus on the Family's James Dobson have both accused Dobson of misusing their research in a Time magazine guest column arguing that same-sex parenting is harmful to children.
Psychologist Carol Gilligan and Dr. Kyle Pruett, the two researchers cited by Focus on the Family chairman James C. Dobson in his December 12 (previously dated December 10) Time magazine guest column arguing that same-sex parenting is harmful to children, have both accused Dobson of misusing their research. As Media Matters for America previously noted, Dobson made unfounded assertions in the column about gay and lesbian parenting while appearing to distort "social-science evidence" to claim "that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father."

Indeed, as Media Matters noted at the time, Pruett had previously reportedly criticized people for "distorting his work" to advance their political agenda.

On December 14, Time.com posted an online rebuttal to Dobson, "Two Mommies or Two Daddies Will Do Fine, Thanks," written by Family Pride executive director Jennifer Chrisler, in which Chrisler noted that "when asked about his use of her research" Gilligan "stated emphatically that its inclusion constitutes 'a complete distortion of my work' and went on to say that there is nothing in her research that would support Dobson's stated conclusions." Additionally, on December 14, the weblog Truth Wins Out posted a letter that Gilligan reportedly sent to Dobson in which she accused Dobson of distorting her research:

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.

[...]

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.

Pruett also accused Dobson of "cherry-pick[ing]" his research. As Media Matters previously noted, Dobson cited Pruett's book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child (Random House, 2001), to argue against same-sex child-rearing by asserting that children need a father because "[a] father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate." As Truth Wins Out noted December 14, responding to Dobson's column, Pruett stated:

I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission.

You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you site in your piece, I wrote, "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."

Further, in his Time column, Dobson cited a 1996 Psychology Today article that discussed the "complex and unique phenomenon" of fatherhood and its "huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children" to assert that "gender matters -- perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing." Yet that Psychology Today article focused on "fathering behavior" and did not address same-sex parenting. A 1999 Psychology Today article, "Making Over Mom & Dad," specifically addressed the effects of "lesbian motherhood" on their children. The article stated: "Many studies over many years have found that lesbian moms do just as good a job of raising their kids as heterosexual moms do: their children don't differ significantly on measures of intellectual development, gender identity, sexual orientation, peer group, or self-esteem."

From Dobson's December 12 Time column, "Two Mommies is One Too Many":

With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father. That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy -- any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl.

The voices that argue otherwise tell us more about our politically correct culture than they do about what children really need. The fact remains that gender matters -- perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing. The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because "fathers do not mother." Psychology Today explained in 1996 that "fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children." A father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa.

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.

[...]

In raising these issues, Focus on the Family does not desire to harm or insult women such as Cheney and Poe. Rather, our conviction is that birth and adoption are the purview of married heterosexual couples. Traditional marriage is God's design for the family and is rooted in biblical truth. When that divine plan is implemented, children have the best opportunity to thrive. That's why public policy as it relates to families must be based not solely on the desires of adults but rather on the needs of children and what is best for society at large.

—

[ladyinred]

:)
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2006/12/13/162
James Dobson Misrepresents Research In Time Magazine
December 14th, 2006
Jim Burroway
Updated: Dr. Kyle Pruett denounces James Dobson for misusing his research as well

Wayne Besen, of Truth Wins Out, is reporting that James Dobson distorted research in an op-ed that appeared in this week’s Time magazine. In his op-ed, Dobson comments on Mary Cheney’s pregnancy with a child she will raise with her partner Heather Poe. He claims that children do best in heterosexually-married families, citing Dr. Carol Gilligan’s research as “proof”:

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.

Wayne contacted Dr. Gilligan, who responded with a copy of a strongly letter she wrote to 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.

Dr. Gilligan isn’t the only researcher whose work Dobson abused in the Time piece. Since the op-ed isn’t footnoted, it’s not easy to track down all of his sources. But in that same op-ed, Dr. Dobson writes:

The fact remains that gender matters–perhaps nowhere more than in regard to child rearing. The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because “fathers do not mother.”

When Wayne Besen contacted Dr. Pruett about Dobson’s use of his work, Dr. Pruett responded with a letter to Dobson and Time, saying:

Dr. Dobson, I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission.

You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, “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.”

Wayne did a great job tracking this down and bringing this abuse of science to light.

In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics has undertaken an exhaustive review of the professional literature and found that “children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.” That is what the overwhelming research really shows.

For related information, see Focus On The Family

:)

[ladyinred]

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/12/14/161224/09

[ladyinred]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612110002
Time gave Dobson a platform to misrepresent -- again -- science on same-sex parenting
Summary: In a Time magazine guest column, James Dobson baselessly claimed that "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father." In fact, studies have consistently found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no adverse effects in their psychosocial development. See further article

[ladyinred]

What bugs me is that the religious right uses stealth to employ their hate agenda toward gays...It looks innocent and seems to convey an aura of credibility but they will stop at nothing to bend and twist the truth to justify their methods. I beginning to wonder if those that espouse such hatred toward gays and are so vehemently opposed to gay people aren't repressed homosexuals themselves. The exposure on some of these evangelists is tell-n tell I'd say. It is like an obsession with them. Why? There are bigger problems in society to contend with , than to have such a minute fixation on a minority.. It just strikes me as strange... If gays were actually a threat to marriage it would be different... but they really have not impacted the heterosexual institution in a negative way. People are still getting married and reproducing and having children. We now have an estimated 300 million in the U.S. today.. I think these people have deeper issues to contend with...psychologically

[ladyinred]

Time and Dobson should be held accountable for spreading misinformation. If they printed something akin to the article about gay parenting on any other subject or persons, there would probably be a major lawsuit for making untrue and defamatory remarks.

[tpdncr4christ]

"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."

That clip is from Dr Dobson's article, word for word the fourth paragraph. In his last sentence he says that "...boys are not born with an understanding of 'maleness.' They have to learn it..."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Dobson just said that all boys are born gay. That they have to learn to be male (straight) from their fathers. Which side of his mouth is Dobson talking out of here? Does that confuse any one as much as it confuses me?:confused: :confused: :confused: I thought he believed every one is a heterosexual with a homosexual problem. Sounds like he just said everyone is homosexual with a heterosexual tendencies.

[novaseeker]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like Dobson just said that all boys are born gay. That they have to learn to be male (straight) from their fathers. Which side of his mouth is Dobson talking out of here? Does that confuse any one as much as it confuses me?:confused: :confused: :confused: I thought he believed every one is a heterosexual with a homosexual problem. Sounds like he just said everyone is homosexual with a heterosexual tendencies.

I also noticed this language and found it odd.

I suppose that one could say that Dobson's view is that environment is everything, such that if boys are not taught to be "correctly male", that there is a risk that they will "turn out" gay, but that if you ensure that every boy is raised in an opposite sex household, with a father who emphasizes justice, discipline, etc., then there would be no gay people.

So it's a bit different from saying that the "default" is homosexual ... but it is still very, very odd phrasing. I suppose you could, in fact, read Dobson to be saying: "People are born straight, and nature assumes that a dual-sex household with approppriate role-models will developmentally complete this innate sexual orientation, but when those rolemodels are either not present or inadequate, there is a risk that someone who is naturally straight will not have the developmental piece rightfully completed, and as a result may exhibit homosexual behavior." I suspect that Dobson meant something along these lines, because we know he doesn't consider homosexuality to be an orientation, he thinks it is a learned behavior and is environmentally determined. So it seems to me he is saying that unless the environment is "right" during childhood, there is a good chance that the child will develop the "sickness" that results in homosexual behavior due to a faulty development of an appropriately masculine self-image.

It's still bunk, in my view, but alas Dobson and most of his ilk believe it, and the fact that noone really knows with certainty the underlying root cause of homosexuality allows them to propagate these theories with reckless abandon, and gives them more credibility than they deserve in the general public.

[Jamie McDaniel]

3,638 signatures. We will be doing something with these signatures this week. Paige Schilt, our media director, is working to contact TIME. We want a response to appear in the print edition. It was nice that TIME put Jennifer Chrisler's article on their website, but a proper response to Dobson's misinformed article requires an appearance in the print edition of TIME.

[keltic63]

3,638 signatures. We will be doing something with these signatures this week. Paige Schilt, our media director, is working to contact TIME. We want a response to appear in the print edition. It was nice that TIME put Jennifer Chrisler's article on their website, but a proper response to Dobson's misinformed article requires an appearance in the print edition of TIME.

I was thinking the same thing. In many ways, it's like putting a headline in big bold print on the front page of the newspaper, then a few days later printing the retraction on pg12 in small print.

[revtj]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NHdSVknB5Q

[Dash]

I just read Focus on the Family's response to Jennifer Chrisler's article:

Left Apoplectic Over Dr. Dobson's Time Platform
by Gary Schneeberger, editor
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003477.cfm

The article addresses the refutation of Dobson's claims by the researchers whose work he misused. It seems to display a continuing lack of respect for the very people whose authority he would like to use in buttressing his anti-gay position.

As for Chrisler...

The other attack against Dr. Dobson came in the form of a rebuttal op-ed published in Time's online edition last week. It's written by Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of a pro-gay group called Family Pride, and in it she accuses Dr. Dobson of "lying" about the data he cites to support his conclusions.

Focus on the Family's Earll scoffed at the charge.

"The truth is, Time's editors fact-checked Dr. Dobson's piece before they published it," she said. "Not one fact he laid out was excised as untrue. Calling him a liar just points to the desperation of those on the left. When they can't fight facts with facts, they fight them with name-calling."


It seems that Focus on the Family is also ready to invoke TIME as a responsible party in publishing Mr. Dobson's unfortunate, misguiding article.

I pray the Soulforce petition to TIME produces a favorable response. :pray:

[revtj]

Dash, I read the article and it had this eeery affect like it was written for Karl Rove by a 'journalist' in a military uniform. I mean, these people really do want to do a hatchet job on the entire scientific method, and just do away with objectivity in favor of dogma.

If they fact-checked the article the scholars wouldn't be shocked and apalled at his use of their work, now would they?

How can we criticize North Korea if we let s*it like Dobson's article pass as responsible journalism?????

TIME owes a retraction. Pronto.

[tdogg]

Signed it yesterday and sent to my sister. Maybe I need to get her on the forums, she's my strongest and best ally and straight as an arrow. And, you don't want to get her mad!

Maybe we can have her talk to Dobson??? :D ;) :rolleyes:

[Emproph]

I read that thing last night and was aghast.

Those simple comments -- supported by sound research -- have driven the left's spin machine into a week's worth of overdrive.

Calling him a liar just points to the desperation of those on the left. When they can't fight facts with facts, they fight them with name-calling."
I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that they are actually serious about the words coming out of their mouths. From a political standpoint alone their careless choice of words and phraseology speaks volumes.

The “fact-checked” line is a red herring. It’s not about the facts per se, it’s about how they were used and thus the mischaracterization of the researchers and their research.

The whole article reeks of spite. I say we need more “refutations” like this, how many of his casual supporters are catching queer eye for the shrill guy?

[kywildcat1977]

Personally I don't care about his views on homosexual families and couples. I am proud to say I did sign the petition. I think it's time someone finally gets him off his high horse and make him face the real facts instead false ideas about gays and and his false ideas about gays in general. It all boils down to he hates homosexuals and refuses to acknowledge that they should have equal rights as everyone else does.