Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Updated: Dobson slammed on "fiction[al]" anti-gay Time Mag column [VIDEO]

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 5:31 PM on December 21, 2006.


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

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Video in your
mailbox!

 

NYU prof Carol Gilligan PhD, whose research was cited in Dr. Dobson's recent Time Mag column on Mary Cheney's pregnancy, sent a scathing letter to the head of right wing Christian outfit, Focus on the Family. You can read the letter, in full, below (Truth Wins Out video, right -- Digg it HERE for maximum exposure).

Truth Wins Out Exec Director Wayne Besen commented: "Dobson's group is a fib factory that should change its name to Focus on the Fallacies... This organization habitually lies and shamelessly mangles research to support its anti-gay agenda. Time Magazine should immediately withdrawal Dobson's column because it is so riddled with scientific errors that it is essentially fiction."

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

Digg!

Tagged as: anti-gay, dobson, focus on the family

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.


GOP Senator Lindsey Graham Breaks Ranks, Admits "The Green Economy Is Coming"
Finally, one member of the GOP has a slice of reality pie.
Post by Staff. November 5, 2009.
Iowa Wingnut Steve King Lauds Lobbyists as American Heros for Bussing in Health Reform Protesters
Astroturfing earns praise from the GOP rep.
Post by Lee Fang. November 4, 2009.
GOP Loon Goes Off the Rails: Health Reform Greater Threat than Terrorism
The government's trying to put you to death, don't you know.
Post by Faiz Shakir. November 2, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
frank67
Posted by: frank67 on Dec 14, 2006 11:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dobson is just another money grubbing right wing thug!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dobson is running from the memory of Haggard
Posted by: lessbread on Dec 14, 2006 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dobson bailed on his friend Ted Haggard and now he's trying to reassert his gay bashing bone-fides. It's a shame that Time Magazine obliged his PR effort.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time
Posted by: sui_generis on Dec 14, 2006 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Time Magazine has gotten increasingly right wing in the last seven or eight years. I work in the same building and even I don't understand the reason for their slant. It's insidious and steady, I see it in every issue.

Someone needs to start holding them accountable on a regular basis, like MediaMatters does for the networks. It could be a full-Time job!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, you fool. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Awesome
Posted by: fanny666 on Dec 14, 2006 12:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hooray for Dr. Carol Gilligan! Her research is one of the catalysts for "Take Your Daughter To Work Day".

What a scathing letter. It's especially frustrating when anti-gay voices pretend that they have science on their side.

She is also a cogent voice against "No Such Thing As Essentialism" theory in feminism; she talks about the fact- which has much scientific backing- that males and females are not exactly the same thing. In my view, this (perhaps well intentioned but incorrect) notion that men and women think and emote the exact same way is what leads many to conclude that homosexuality is just a choice and nothing more. Therefore, goes the logic, it can be considered a moral choice. But I digress...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Awesome Posted by: tap17x
» Agreed. Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Awesome Posted by: Lauren
Love it!
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 14, 2006 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No sugar coating on that one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I cancelled my subscription to Time
Posted by: Ellie1 on Dec 14, 2006 7:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when they put Anne Coulter on the cover. If I want filth in my house, I could find better sources.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fair use
Posted by: hquain on Dec 15, 2006 5:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Research, when published, is public. I don't understand how you can enjoin someone from citing it. It is standard, of course, to have the right of reply.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fair use Posted by: Jesse
» RE: Fair use Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Fair use Posted by: babs
goeswithness
Posted by: goeswithness on Dec 15, 2006 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm pretty much an essentialist. I question your "pretty much proven," which isn't enough to call something a "fact" anyhow. No one has ever been able to say with any firmness where biology stops and socialization starts. Philosophically, such predictions are limiting and dangerous, because no one ever fully fits into what female or male behavior is supposed to be. I'm also curious that to you, essentialism leads to the idea that being LGBT is a choice, when I would say the exact opposite: seeing the span of variations of sexual orientation and gender identity leads to understanding that every individual is unpredictable, unique, unbound.

Still, cudos to Carol Gilligan for calling the creep on his dishonesty. Twisting someone else's research is an emotional reaction: looking at the real world can cause a loss of cherished belief, and that's frightening - much easier to misinterpret the data. So good for her also for proving that women AREN'T more likely to be ruled by emotion, or LESS likely to be logical!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: goeswithness Posted by: fanny666
» oops... Posted by: fanny666
time article
Posted by: cbaileydarland on Dec 15, 2006 6:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just read the article. Just a reminder...he's against same-sex marriage and offspring resulting those unions because it is not biblical. He could care less what any research shows. It's pure religious tunnel-vision. Not surprising but it just seems pointless to argue the science when that really wasn't his point. We should be demanding that he keep his religion out of our government and not waste our time arguing his blather.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: time article Posted by: Lauren
Come on out James
Posted by: rotorooter on Dec 17, 2006 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more Dobson rails against gays, the more I get the feeling that sooner or later we're going to find out that he is gay, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Come on out James Posted by: markusmark
» RE: Come on out James Posted by: Morgaine Swann
» I hope not! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Come on out James Posted by: kelt65
Other authors
Posted by: Kevbo on Dec 22, 2006 1:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If only the authors of the books of the Bible were alive to step forward and assail Dobson for distorting their work too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time DID publish a rebuttal to Dobson
Posted by: WandaZ on Dec 22, 2006 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thankfully, Time did publish an essay that debunks Dobson's psuedo-scientific assertions.

See: "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 Link: "Two Mommies"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hypocrites All
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Dec 23, 2006 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Focus on My Anus, the so-called Family Research Council, etc are nothing more than anti-social groups. This is obvious because of the extremely narrow focus on their initiatives. Each of these groups is headed by brow-beating fans of the most anti-social version of the Judeo-Christian god, which is obvious by listening to a mere five minutes of their leaders' vitriolic preaching about the ills of modern society.

Indeed, religion and their leaders have always been the largest coefficient of drag into the future. Always have been, always will be.

That is the purpose of religion in society. The purpose of religion in society is to prevent civilization from progressing. Religious thought is static. It is beholden to no time or place except for its point of origin. That is why our nation is so focused on Israel (point of origin) and times around the 1st century CE (time of origin). Static fixed points are psychologically stable for the adherents of these religions because of the tremendous pressure of instability that the adherents have in their extremely disturbed minds.

Dobson is one of our contemporary disturbed minds. All you have to do is listen to about five minutes of him on the air or read a dozen pages of one of his extremely disturbing books to gain marvelous insight into his depraved mind. Fathers showering with sons, his fight with his dachshund...please, only disturbed people write like that.

To gain further insight into the disturbance that exists in their mental unstable minds, all you have to do is listen to who they agree with politically. The Republican party is not a 'people' party. The Christian right follows in virtual lock-step with the Republican party. Thus, the Christian right is not a people oriented religion - in this country - anymore. Dobson has described this to us in detail for years now.

We understand that religions are made up of fixed points. We also understand that religion depends on mythology. It depends on unprovable tenets and concepts. It is made up almost in its entirety of mythos and iconic memes. Dobson is a man who is used to lies, distortions and made-up concepts. Thus, he probably isn't even aware of how much of a liar he is. He is steeped - like my breakfast cup of Darjeeling tea - nay, saturated with hypocritical thinking and speaking.

I doubt very seriously whether he even knows how to unravel his mind from the lies and even know where the very beginning of reality is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You Call That Scathing
Posted by: yankabroad on Dec 28, 2006 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You call that scathing?

That's about as scathing as a letter from Miss Manners to God.

I wish IT WERE scathing. We need MORE scathing.

It's okay to be angry.............sometimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dobson's Rebuttal - anyone know the truth?
Posted by: WandaZ on Dec 28, 2006 3:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's what Dobson has to say about the Chrisler article on his website:

In fact, Focus on the Family research analysts did a point-by-point examination of Chrisler's piece and found it to contain many questionable assertions. The most egregious may be this one: "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."

Not true, Focus' analysis finds.

"Anyone can go online to the U.S. Census Bureau's recent data and learn that in 2001, 71 percent of children lived in a two-parent home and 67.6 percent lived with two married parents," the report states. "Of the children living with two parents, 88 percent lived with their biological mother and father, and only 10 percent lived with one biological and one step-parent.

"In fact, the Urban Institute, a liberal child-advocacy organization, reports that a child is more likely to be living with her married parents today than in the mid 1990s, rising 2.5 percentage points since that time."

Chrisler also makes the stale argument that "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."

What she doesn't say is that the associations that have issued such statements have done so via very small and special-interest driven committees -- hardly representing the views of the groups' entire memberships.


What's the truth? Who really has the FACTS? I am curious.

Also, does anyone know if anyone has written anything that debunks Dobson's "Eleven arguments against same-sex marriage"?
Who has the facts? I am having trouble finding unbiased research!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ALTERNET HAS GONE OVER THE EDGE TODAY !
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Dec 30, 2006 1:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No matter what I read everyone is pissed off. More than usual, that is. At some point (Dobson) I had to laugh. Saddam is gone, Bush is sleeping well, Rick Santorum is history, Rummy is gone, Mary Cheney is with child, Some of our favorites spent Christmas in jail, The Bush twins are partying and lot of the garbage in the White House is about to be hauled away. So much to be grateful for. Happy 2007.
Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sdryj
Posted by: tukurion on Mar 4, 2007 5:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]