The controversy over Dr. Dobson’s Time editorial

Old news by now, there is a dust up over Dr. Dobson’s column regarding Mary Cheney and subsequent complaints by writers Dobson quotes. While not much is happening on this story in the mainstream press, blogs are all over it.

I have not looked into the matter much and am undecided how much time I am going to spend on it. It seems to me as I read the column that Dr. Dobson cites aspects of the work of these researchers but does not say they agree with his position. This happens all the time in academia. You quote people to make points with which they themselves might disagree. Data are, but how one interprets the data is another matter and certainly influenced by one’s presuppositions. First blush reaction; if I get into it more perhaps I would see it differently.

One article and discussion that I found interesting (and perhaps worth getting into) is at the website Inside Higher Ed. Many of the discussants there seem to echo my current point of view. The dialogue is spirited but on point most of the time.

One provocative comment from the Inside Higher Ed page that caught my eye was made by Stanislaus Dundon who wrote:

Using research data independently of conclusions

If Carol Gilligan has a complex argument in which the data of important distinct advantageous contributions of father and mother is somehow over-ridden by the unique advantages of same-sex or single parent homes, or at least equaled by them, let her prove that via additional data or highlighting the contrary data she has already presented. The idea of refusing to let Dobson use her data sounds a bit like the Catholic Cardinals who did not want people to look through Galileo’s telescope.

Dr. Dundon is Professor Emeritus in Philosophy at California State University – Sacramento.

UPDATE: Here are two reactions from Focus on the Family that I do not think are widely circulated. The first rebuts an article from Jennifer Chrisler who was given space by Time to respond to Dr. Dobson’s earlier op-ed. The second provides supporting documentation for Dr. Dobson’s initial op-ed.

11 thoughts on “The controversy over Dr. Dobson’s Time editorial”

  1. Timothy, Dobson’s “best” means “best for children”. Chrislers corrected statement now includes hundreds of thousands of households where there are no children at all — which are not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, are they?

    Honest mistake? Somehow I doubt it.

  2. “She quotes the Census saying that 75% of households are not traditional households. However, if you look at the numbers a little differently you see that 68% of kids live in a married two-parent home. How you use the numbers conveys a different picture. I suspect that was deliberate”

    Perhaps. But if I read Dobson correctly, he’s saying that a child needs their father and their mother in the same household:

    …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.

    “Raised by their married mother and father” is not the same thing as “in a married two-parent home”. In addition to gay parents, there are also step parents, grandparents, etc.

    Chrisler is pointing out that 75% of households don’t meet Dr. Dobson’s standard for “best”. It is rather unfair to now say that what he really meant was married heterosexuals. Not only is that not what he said, that isn’t supported by the studies.

  3. I think it would be fair to say that readers would think Gilligan believes that there are differences between men and women as the result of the use of the quoted characterizations. If she doesn’t believe there are differences, then perhaps it would not wise to use her quotes. It also may have been wise to say something like, “even those who disagree with me on same-sex parenting, believe moms and dads bring something unique to the parenting table” and then quote her and Pruett. But I still have a hard time seeing how quoting someone on a supporting point means that person buys your value position.

    Sadly, the misuse of science is a “wing thing” not just right. Activist groups do this, I wonder if there is an activist training school that teaches this but it happens on both sides. Jennifer Chrisler’s response to Dobson’s piece is a pretty good example of that. She quotes the Census saying that 75% of households are not traditional households. However, if you look at the numbers a little differently you see that 68% of kids live in a married two-parent home. How you use the numbers conveys a different picture. I suspect that was deliberate.

    No wonder people are cynical about the professions, if they really think all of us are lined up on sides and we only produce research and speak when the conclusions fit our world view.

    Perhaps you are right though in that sense. The right and the left do exist in kind of parallel worlds. I read both and it is amazing how distorted both sides can be about the same thing.

  4. Context matters a great deal when an author quotes any source or authority.

    Warren, you say in your original post: “Dr. Dobson cites aspects of the work of these researchers but does not say they agree with his position. This happens all the time in academia.” In academia, perhaps, readers would not leap to the conclusion that the researchers quoted would suppport Dobson’s position. Academics would also be more likely to know the overall work and reputation of the researchers cited, and have access to check the original sources, so they would have some idea of the original context.

    But Dobson was not writing for an academic audience–he was writing for in Time magazine for a broad popular audience. And clearly, his intention in cherry picking one isolated statement here and another there from various social researchers was to make it seem that his views on gay parents are based on actual science, rather than his own presuppositions.

    Unlike academics, the readers of Time magazine are not likely to know that the researchers and studies he cites actually disagree with his overall conclusions. It’s also highly unlikely that they can go back to the original research to check his accuracy. In this context, Dobson’s citations–with absolutely no qualification to indicate that the cited research does not support his argument overall–seems unarguably dishonest.

    The same misuse of science pervades the arguments of the religious right on every topic from evolution to global warming. Scientists are always careful to hedge their findings with qualifications. The religious right seizes on the qualifications to turn the meaning of science and research on its head.

  5. Yeah, Marty the handedness thing isn’t working for me.

    What is an interesting question and one that perhaps is empirical is:

    We all know that fatherlessness is a real problem in this country, and that it leads to many societal problems — no one denies this. So can we therefore conclude that fatherlessness is NOT a problem, when the loss of the father is caused by the mother’s inability to love a man — i.e gender bias?

    More on this in a bit…

  6. Maybe it is my knowledge of the field but when I read the essay by Dobson, I did not assume or even consider that Gilligan or Pruett supported Dobson’s views. I thought he was looking at their work and saying that fathers and mothers are different in what they bring to the parenting situation. Perhaps others reading it would think that his quote of them meant they agreed with him. I did not take that at all.

    In the case Timothy raises of how my support for loving relationships would be construed as supporting gay marriage, I would only take offense if the author knowingly claimed a position for me that I do not hold. I have been quoted many times in contexts that I am not completely comfortable in but I generally complain about the times where I am said to believe something I do not believe. For instance, this used to happen a lot regarding reparative therapy where I was said to be a reparative therapist. Now, saying I believe people have the right to pursue chosen values in the context of a reparative therapy article is fine with me. If on the other hand, the writer says: Throckmorton believes homosexuals derive from a poor relationship with their same-sex parent, then I would likely complain (and have). Never thought about a YouTube video though. Well, actually I guess I did about the Schoenewolf thing.

    I think we are covering similar ground as the Higher Ed dialogue.

  7. Dr.T,

    Dobson claims that research shows that children do best with both a mother and a father. Many others claim that research shows that motherless or fatherless children do just fine — when they have two same-sex “parents” that are gay.

    We all know that fatherlessness is a real problem in this country, and that it leads to many societal problems — no one denies this. So can we therefore conclude that fatherlessness is NOT a problem, when the loss of the father is caused by the mother’s inability to love a man — i.e gender bias?

    So, if research proved that children who were missing their right arm were perfectly normal, compared to children with both a right and a left arm, should society approve of parents who amputated their kid’s right arm, because of their own left-handed bias? No, I don’t think we would. Even if research “proved” that it really didn’t matter much.

    Why? Because all children are born with a left and a right hand. Just as all children are born of exactly one man and one woman. Just because a woman doesn’t much care for men is not a good enough reason for her child to have to live without a father.

  8. Let’s look at what he said, not what he decided he meant after he was called on it:

    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

    None of these “better” studies that he is referencing compared marriage to same-sex parent couples – only to single heterosexual parents. Studies that do compare gay couples to straight married couples have shown that there is no significant difference. His next quotes are about Pruett and Gilligan and it’s implied that they are part of “30 years of research” that agrees with him.

    If that were not enough, in quoting Pruett and Gilligan, Dobson does not simply use their research. That might be reasonable, though a little snakey. Instead he sets up a comparison. Look at his wording:

    The voices that argue otherwise tell us more about our politically correct culture than they do about what children really need. The fact remains…The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett…According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan…

    He is comparing “the voices that argue otherwise” with those who care about children, ie. him, Pruett and Gilligan”. He is – if you look at his words – placing them in a category with him and in contrast to the “other voices”.

    Dobson DOES by that method claim that Pruett and Gilligan agree with him.

    To illustrate my point, consider whether the following statement is true:

    Some people claim that gay people don’t need marriage and that their families are not important. The truth is that gay families are essential to emotional well being.

    Dr. Dobson – an authority on such matters – says, “Families are essential to social structure. They are the very bedrock of society”.

    Dr. Throckmorton also demonstrates that relationships are crucial and necessary to happiness, “I always work to strengthen relationships”.

    Setting aside the psychological support of gay marriage for a moment, even common sense tells you that gay marriage is boon to society…

    You would be irritated, and rightly so. I’m clearly claiming that you support gay marriage.

    But this is exactly what Dobson has done. Using selected words and quotes and ideas to claim support for a position that is opposed by those he claims support it. And then trying to defend this dishonesty is really immoral.

  9. Marty – Respectfully, I have to say I am not following the gender bias idea. I think your example of de-arming children is off-target. Where I agree there is a valid public policy issue is what are we to say about fatherlessness and motherlessness? Is it an issue or is it not? If it is an issue, then is it prudent public policy to institutionalize intentional arrangements to prohibit the possibility of an involved parent of the opposite sex? I think these issues are worth considering.

    CK – I am looking into that one more. Of the three recent complaints, I think this one may have some validity.

  10. If researched proved that one-armed children were as well-adjusted and grew into just as happy and productive adults as two-armed children, would this then mean it would be OK for left-handed parents to sever the right arms of their infants?

    Fatherlessness (or motherlessness) doesn’t just happen — it is always the result of a failure and/or tragedy. The gender bias of M.Cheny and H.Poe that caused their child to be born fatherless is no less tragic than any other fatherless family. And maybe just a bit more reprehensible, considering the cause — gender bias.

Comments are closed.