About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Dobson, Mohler invented controversial statements by feminist Linda Hirshman

April 03, 2006 12:12 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

24 Comments

On the March 22 edition of the Focus on the Family radio show, "The Attack on Motherhood," Focus on the Family founder and CEO James C. Dobson promoted a broadcast by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president R. Albert Mohler Jr. in which Mohler criticized feminist Linda Hirshman. As he introduced Mohler's broadcast, Dobson compared Hirshman to an "old-time bra-burner type" and alleged that during an ABC interview with Good Morning America host Diane Sawyer that he admittedly did not watch, Hirshman "asserted that women who stay at home and raise their children are a threat to civilization." In his broadcast, Mohler said that in an article Hirshman wrote for The American Prospect, "she says, 'This [trend of women becoming stay-at-home mothers] is a harm to civilization.'" Contrary to Dobson and Mohler's claims, Hirshman did not assert in her ABC interview or in her American Prospect article that so-called stay-at-home mothers are "a threat" or "a harm to civilization."

In a discussion with his co-host, John Fuller, about Hirshman's appearances on Good Morning America on February 22 and 23, Dobson stated:

DOBSON: Well, John, there was an outrageous piece on the ABC Good Morning America television show last month that was, according to those who saw it -- and I didn't see it but I've certainly heard about it -- simply beyond the pale. It featured a very radical feminist who asserted that women who stay home and raise their children are a threat to civilization. I mean, can you imagine that? I mean, this woman could easily have come out of the late '60s or the early '70s. It was the old-time bra-burner type of feminism. People will have to pardon me for reminding us [sic] of that.

FULLER: You're saying, though, that my wife is a threat to civilization?

DOBSON: That's what she is saying, yes -- asserting. And it must have made a lot of women angry around this country. You know, for 5,000 years, women didn't have to defend their mothering role and in fact, there used to be a catch-phrase that spoke of the untouchable American values of the flag, motherhood and what?

FULLER: Apple pie.

DOBSON: Apple pie. Well, the flag was burned a long time ago, and motherhood is just continuing to be assaulted by the media and the loony left. Again, I ask people to forgive me. The only thing that remains unscathed from those traditional values is apple pie.

[...]

Anyway, those traditional values have all been under assault, and that's symbolic of a lot of other values, marriage itself being under attack. But that's what happened on Good Morning America, on that television show. Diane Sawyer did that interview.

Dobson then segued his broadcast into the February 23 edition of The Albert Mohler Program, in which Mohler criticized Hirshman's critique of stay-at-home mothers. Mohler introduced his broadcast by reading from Hirshman's November 11, 2005, article in The American Prospect, titled "Homeward Bound." He then stated, "Now, what's the real glass ceiling? She [Hirshman] says it's not so much the oppression of women by men. It's not so much the fact that women are being forced to do this because there are choices. It's the fact that too many women want to be moms and want to be stay-at-home moms and see raising children as a profession. And she says, 'This is a harm to civilization.'"

As with Dobson's baseless recitation of Hirshman's alleged comments during her appearance on Good Morning America, Mohler invented Hirshman's claim in The American Prospect that stay-at-home mothers are "a harm to civilization." In fact, the crux of Hirshman's argument in both her Good Morning America appearance and in her Prospect article is that women who benefited from the gains of the feminist movement with career opportunities and first-rate educations, by leaving the workforce to become stay-at-home mothers, are denying society the benefits of their productivity and leadership potential as well as jeopardizing their professional and financial well-being. Liberal feminism, she wrote in the Prospect, has failed to address this problem: "[W]hile the public world has changed, albeit imperfectly, to accommodate women among the elite, private lives have hardly budged. The real glass ceiling is at home."

Besides serving as president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, Mohler is a board member of Focus on the Family. Mohler appeared alongside Dobson as a speaker at Justice Sunday I, a nationally televised rally on May 24, 2005, to engender Christian conservative support for President Bush's federal judiciary picks. Mohler is the author of Dr. Mohler's Blog and host of The Albert Mohler Program, a daily one-hour radio show dedicated to "engaging contemporary culture with biblical truth." It is broadcast on over 40 stations nationwide and syndicated by Salem Radio Network.

Mohler has a history of making controversial statements. During a March 2000 appearance on CNN's Larry King Live, Mohler criticized then-Pope John Paul II's efforts to establish a dialogue with Jews and Muslims. Then he stated, "I believe that the Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel...and indeed, I believe that the pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office." And, as Media Matters for America documented, on the March 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Mohler defended 700 Club host Pat Robertson's recent claim that Muslims are "motivated by demonic power," and expanded on Robertson's comments, saying: "Well, I would have to say as a Christian that I believe any belief system, any world view, whether it's Zen Buddhism or Hinduism or dialectical materialism for that matter, Marxism, that keeps persons captive and keeps them from coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, yes, is a demonstration of satanic power."

From the February 22 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:

DIANE SAWYER (host) Well, as we said, the "mommy wars" are back and raging again big-time, but with a brand new gladiator. Professor Linda Hirshman wrote an article called "Homeward Bound" last year for The American Prospect magazine. And it began a ballistic debate and here's why: the number of college-educated women who are leaving the workforce to go home with the kids. In fact, census figures show 54 percent of mothers with a graduate or professional degree are no longer working full-time. And Hirshman says this is a big mistake, that women will pay a large price for it with no measurable gain for their kids. So, today and tomorrow, let the debate begin. She doesn't look like a flame-thrower. Law professor Linda Hirshman, a mother herself, who says women who choose their children over an independent career life are simply wrong. The women argue to you that this is choice, that we are an era of choice feminism.

HIRSHMAN: Feminism.

SAWYER: And that you have to have the valid right to choose for yourself what's right for you.

HIRSHMAN: I think people don't choose by throwing darts at dartboard, OK? What I am saying is when you're thinking it through, think about the consequences of this decision.

SAWYER: Well, and the softer version is they say you're judgmental, that you're judging.

HIRSHMAN: Right. And I do agree with that. I am judging, according to the standards of Western history.

SAWYER: History, she says, has taught us the truth behind these pictures of parallel lives. Two women, each with children. Samantha Jordan, a full-time career outside of home, and Celia DeBenedetti, who works at home. In the morning, both cuddle their children. In the morning, time and hugs all around. But by day, a difference. Home mom is there for every concern, boo- boo, help with toys, a lullaby for an afternoon nap, while the career mom has to try to get it all done somehow by phone.

JORDAN: Did you get to do bubbles, though, anyway?

SAWYER: But Hirshman argues research has now proven that sometimes, it's just fine.

HIRSHMAN: I do know that the social statistics that we have show that children aren't worse off.

SAWYER: There are so many women who say, my child is sick at home, and I have to come into work? My child has a soccer game, I just want to go see the soccer game, but I have to work.

HIRSHMAN: You don't have to be superhuman, you don't have to --

SAWYER: You don't have to be at the soccer game or there when they're sick?

HIRSHMAN: You know, sometimes you go to the soccer game, sometimes you go to the dance recital.

SAWYER: So, you think there is nothing that children gain from having their mother, not someone who takes care of the kids, but from having their mother there every day when they get home?

HIRSHMAN: There are no reliable statistics showing that the children of working mothers do worse than the children of stay-at-home mothers.

From the February 23 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America:

SAWYER: Yesterday, law professor Linda Hirshman argued that there's no evidence that it helps children with grades, happiness and success to have a stay-at-home mom. Well, this morning, the flame-throwing Hirshman, who is, by the way, also a mother, argues that it is bad for girls growing up in America when smart women leave their careers and decide to go back home.

HIRSHMAN: I think it's a mistake for these highly educated and capable women to make that choice.

SAWYER: But are you saying a woman's place is in the office?

HIRSHMAN: I'm saying an educated, competent adult's place is in the office.

DEBBIE KLETT (stay-at-home mom): I completely disagree with that.

FAITH FUHRMAN (stay-at-home mom): I do, too.

DEBORAH SKOLNICK (career mom): Absolutely. I think --

SAWYER: With us again are three moms, the one who stayed as an editor in the workplace and the other two -- one a nurse, one in ad sales -- who left their careers to be home with the kids, though one of them started a magazine at home about just these decisions. These two women think Hirshman is arrogant. But Hirshman answered, how can you quit work when the national divorce rate is 41 percent? And don't these women know that after a divorce, his standard of living goes up. Theirs can collapse.

SAWYER: How are you going to feel a year from now if it is divorce, and suddenly he's making, has a higher standard of living and yours plummets?

FUHRMAN: Prepared.

KLETT: Yeah, absolutely.

FUHRMAN: You know, you -- I think that the -- that's my point. The women of today are prepared for that.

KLETT: Mm-hmm.

SAWYER: Prepared how?

FUHRMAN: But I would have a sense in yourself that, you know, whatever happens, I'm gonna be OK.

SAWYER: That some of the women say, "If I choose to be dependent on my husband and risk whatever the divorce rate, then let me choose that without feeling bad about it."

HIRSHMAN: Well, people ride -- choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, OK? But that does not stop us from saying it's a mistake. Listen to the risks you're taking before you take the risk. All I have to give is ideas. I can't send someone to jail.

[...]

SAWYER: Which brings us to law number three. Hirshman says it isn't possible for interesting, intelligent women to be fulfilled at home. One of the things, though, a number of women have said is, "I am fulfilling myself. I am the most me, I am fully engaged, intellectually, spiritually and every way by working at home."

HIRSHMAN: I would like to see a description of their daily lives that substantiates that position.

KLETT: Walk in our shoes and then you'll understand what we do all day, is what I say to people who say, who ask that question. Because you do, you run at Mach 3 with your hair on fire. And, and you get up in the morning, and suddenly you're pulled in four different directions, and suddenly it's lunchtime, and suddenly it's dinnertime. And you're just constantly moving, constantly challenging yourself, constantly learning and growing as a person.

HIRSHMAN: One of the things I've done working on my book is to read a lot of the diaries online. And their description of their lives does not sound particularly interesting or fulfilling for a --

SAWYER: To you.

HIRSHMAN: -- complicated person, for a complicated, educated person. It's physical, but it's repetitious.

SAWYER And our career mom kind of agrees.

SKOLNICK: The days that I'm at work are more interesting than the days I'm at home. It's true.

SAWYER: But she adds the office is not always fulfilling, either.

SKOLNICK: I don't know what her idea of office work is, like, maybe she's been reading brochures from companies that show like the eager employee raising her hand at the meeting --

KLETT: Yeah. Exactly.

SKOLNICK: -- with the PowerPoint presentation, and you're standing up there. Hello. You know, I'm in front of the Xerox machine. Why is it not working? Where is the paper stack? Like my purse is like a bank of weird stuff. View-Masters, linty lollipops, old tissues, so disorganized --

SAWYER: So, we asked about Hirshman's most inflammatory rule of all, that working women shouldn't have more than one child.

SAWYER: She's also written, "Don't have two kids." That you have one, then you can keep up in the workplace financially, but having two, that it's been shown statistically, it's not her, it's not her numbers.

SKOLNICK: Exponentially more difficult.

SAWYER: Yes.

SKOLNICK: It almost broke me going back to work after I had my second child. Kids have this tendency of getting sick, like, over two consec -- you know, one gives it to the other. So, oh, I'm sorry, boss, I can't make it today, and I can't make it two days from now because now the other one has the eye infection.

SAWYER: And finally, we wondered how these women would respond to Hirshman's most sobering argument: that women who leave the workplace are ensuring that the hard-won gains made by women will be undone. She said, why would businesses hire or universities give advanced degrees to those who don't use them?

HIRSHMAN: Right. This only makes sense, right? You don't need a law degree to raise children.

FUHRMAN: I think it's not just the universities. It's the executives in the boardroom.

KLETT: Mm hmm. Mm-hmm.

FUHRMAN: In the hi -- you know, hiring --

SAWYER: Yes, I trained you --

KLETT: Absolutely.

SAWYER: -- I brought you along this far, and you're leaving?

FUHRMAN: It's a -- it's a liability.

HIRSHMAN: I think that one could argue that these women are letting down the team. Consider a society in which the entire Supreme Court is male. We may actually experience that in our lifetime. What would it feel like if all -- the entire Congress were male?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Yellow Bird (April 03, 2006 12:21 pm ET)
         

      Again, I see here an attempt to smear a voice of feminism in the proclaimed 'war on christianity' and the 'culture wars'. Feminism, including the ' [...] late '60s or the early '70s [, ...] old-time bra-burner type of feminism' contributed significantly to get equal rights for women. Since that time these women have been ridiculed and smeared, although their approached have changed. Now they attack feminists that they attack those who chose (?) to stay home and raise children.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Yellow Bird (April 03, 2006 12:55 pm ET)
           

        ... and: the discussion is really poor. I cannot figure out what they are discussing. Also, the way that Dr. Hirschman defends her points of view are very poor.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by holly (April 03, 2006 2:01 pm ET)
             

          I don't see that Hirshman was representing women well. Empowering women by data and choice is how I see feminism. Someone else in this thread notes how nebulous Hirshman's data of the online diaries are. I think Hirshman started with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis and selectively sought the data that seeminly proves it. She seems like Dobson in that way, but hey, I'm like Dobson right now: my data base is miniscule. I haven't read Hirshman's books.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by RMGB (April 03, 2006 12:27 pm ET)
         

      She reads diaries online? Nice.

      I read multiple online journals. And considering how many people love to rant about how they hate their work, I'm not sure that paid employment is always the excellent thing she claims it is. (Note: I'm not saying that it's never worthwhile-but it's not a panacea.)

      And finally, we wondered how these women would respond to Hirshman's most sobering argument: that women who leave the workplace are ensuring that the hard-won gains made by women will be undone. She said, why would businesses hire or universities give advanced degrees to those who don't use them?

      So a would-be SAHM can't choose the path she's interested in because it might look bad for other women? The choice to hold a job should not be a choice but rather mandatory?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (April 03, 2006 12:42 pm ET)
           

        It's that same unspecified mechanism that would cause civilization to collapse if gay marriage were made legal.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Yellow Bird (April 03, 2006 12:33 pm ET)
         

      to see they do not talk about home dads!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by ChristianDemocrat (April 03, 2006 1:46 pm ET)
           

        I'm guessing Dobson would consider stay-at-home dads a threat, but Hirshman would welcome it.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (April 03, 2006 12:33 pm ET)
         

      Dobson demonstrates that honesty is not necessarily one of his cherished "traditional family values". In fact, it is apparent that the so-called "values voters" who allegedly ushered in our current administration do not value honesty much at all.

      How odd.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pleinedepoisson (April 03, 2006 12:51 pm ET)
         

      I think Dobson and Mohler need to just come out and say it: Ladies only belong in the home. Not only is that the best place for them, it is the only place. I know that's what they're thinking; they might as well get it off their chests.

      I think it's hillarious that women debase each other because of what they do for a living. My mom was a stay at home mom, raising seven children. She worked until she got pregnant with her third child, then she couldn't do it anymore. I have encountered other familes where the mother worked full time for a living. And, according to this segment of what happened on Good Morning America, neither set of women think that what the other person is doing is emotionally fulfilling. I think that fighting against each other based on what we do for a living is the best way to retract all the good things feminism has brought us.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (April 03, 2006 12:56 pm ET)
         

      Dobson was just doing what he and most of his ilk do.

      When the facts don't fit the message and the message is dogma driven, hell, tweak the facts!

      Anyway, Dobson's targets, those pulling his wagons, have bibles for blinders, they gladly gulp his Kool Aid and just like rabbits, they eat their own crap.

      They don't want to be distracted by facts, to taste the vile liquid of reality and they're convinced those rabbit turds still taste better than the bitter pill of truth.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by holly (April 03, 2006 1:04 pm ET)
         

      ...everywhere are uncertain about their choices. Dobson is uncertain. Hirshman is uncertain. We all are. So, rather than drag that uncertainty out into the light and confront it, it whispers to us from the shadows. So, what do we do? We indirectly try to persuade people to choose as we've chosen and to make our position more attractive, we simplify it. Dobson does it. Hirshman does it. The stay-at-home mommies did it. They reduce their complex worlds to something shiny and simple.

      Now, Dobson is more disingenuous than most, but when Hirshman asserts that educated women are more edified at work, she's generalizing and simplifying. Much professional work is mundane. Playing with kids can be cool. At the same time, much of mommying is mundane, isolating, and numbing. I'm neither persuaded by Hirshman or the mommies. Sawyer set up conflict, 'cause conflict entertains us, and Hirshman and the mommies complied. They served the show by delivering drama, but they didn't serve discourse, for their arguments lacked subtlety.

      Hirshman did make a good point in alerting these women to the possibility that their husbands will leave...and take the majority of his resources. That's reality for many women. Those housewives weren't wise to blithely assert that they'd have a clue what to do.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (April 03, 2006 1:13 pm ET)
           

        But I think the important consideration here is not that Dobson disagrees with Hirshman, but that this self-proclaimed earthly representative of Jesus is willing to blithely lie to make a political point. It's nothing new, by the way; priests have been lying to increase their own power and wealth throughout history.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by holly (April 03, 2006 1:26 pm ET)
             

          Is his choir the home-schooled folks? Were they schooled in teasing the genuine from the disingenuine? It's moments like this that reveal the necessity for critical thinking. One shouldn't be seriously considered if one isn't serious about thinking and positing. Dobson revealed that he didn't he bother to watch the program. That's akin to a restaurant critic critiquing a restaurant that he never patronized...and saying so. Dobson is working off of hearsay and there's a reason that hearsay is inadmissible. Hearsay is crap and there's the axiom: Crap in. Crap out.

          Regarding Dobson and his alleged special Christian status, Thomas Jefferson would assert that Dobson is a pseudo-Christian, believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but the morality of the Christ.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by Yellow Bird (April 03, 2006 1:39 pm ET)
           

        I agree.

        Further, even though Hirschman supposes to be a feminist, she leaves out that in the majority of families there are two parents. She leaves out the possibility that males can also take care of their children.

        Also, you said: " but when Hirshman asserts that educated women are more edified at work, she's generalizing and simplifying", especially because she seems to refer to diaries. If those form a majority of her 'subjects' her data is definately biased.

        Finally, I am not sure whether she discusses that women have to keep working because there is a possibility that they have to divorce, or whether she is suggesting that women have to work otherwise the number of women in important positions will become less and less with the years to come because of a negative gender bias.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by holly (April 03, 2006 1:11 pm ET)
         

      Dobson said, "I mean, this woman could easily have come out of the late '60s or the early '70s. It was the old-time bra-burner type of feminism. "

      This is ironic. He suggests that Hirshman is the fossil, but he's the fossil. It's no longer 1967. Most women don't procreate and stay at home for 25 years. He pines for this earlier era, but it's gone. I pity him. Time changes and those that resist it don't realize how cool and liberating some changes can be.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mr. l (April 03, 2006 1:36 pm ET)
         

      I personally know of only one mother who stays at home with her children. Coincidentally, she and her family are Bible Baptists..every other mother I know chooses/has to work to survive.

      My mother was a stay at home mom, and she went crazy with boredom and repitition. Maybe using Fox News type statistics, I can claim that 100% of all stay at home mothers become/are crazy...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (April 03, 2006 1:42 pm ET)
           

        Wasn't that woman who drowned her five children a stay-at-home mom? And a religious fanatic at that?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by bruce1ace (April 03, 2006 1:43 pm ET)
         

      I thought the feminist movement was about equality between the sexes, was about giving women the ability to do what they wanted in life. Apparently, Hirshman thinks her version of what fulfills women is the only correct one.

      Her postion towards SAHM is condescending IMO.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ChristianDemocrat (April 03, 2006 1:43 pm ET)
         

      I.e., what was Hirshman implying with this statement...

      HIRSHMAN: I think that one could argue that these women are letting down the team. Consider a society in which the entire Supreme Court is male. We may actually experience that in our lifetime. What would it feel like if all -- the entire Congress were male?

      Isn't Hirshman implying that women who stay at home are a threat to society?

      Quite frankly, I can do without Dobson and Hirshman. They are flip-sides of the same coin; both are radicals who fear anything but their extreme view of the world. They are both sexist extremist nuts.

      I say all the more power to the mom who works, the dad who stays at home and vice versa...and whatever you do, do it well.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mirkwood (April 03, 2006 2:47 pm ET)
         

      KLETT: Yeah, absolutely. .. KLETT: Mm-hmm. .. KLETT: Mm hmm. Mm-hmm. .. KLETT: Absolutely. ..

      It doesn't take much does it.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by tom4501 (April 03, 2006 3:25 pm ET)
         

      "It was the old-time bra-burner type of feminism" Feminists never burned bras. This myth comes from the 1960s demonstration at the Miss America Pagent at which feminists put a bra in a trash can. Since then this has been falsely reported as "bra burning". The image of burning a bra is more violent than the image of a bra being put in a trash can.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Yellow Bird (April 03, 2006 5:05 pm ET)
           

        We do not have a law yet that make bra burning an offence. Unless it has the US flag on it of course.

        I agree with you that the 'bra burning' makes feminists look more militant.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by conleytgwinn (April 04, 2006 4:23 pm ET)
         

      I do not perceive Ms. Hirshman as "flame-throwing". Could someone (yellow bird?) please point out the exaggerations or distortions for me? I further note that she somehow managed at the end of the segment to have elicited agreement from each of the three SAHMs, to most of her primary points. Although anecdotal "evidence" is lacking, I find her to be both "right", and convincing, in the argument that the choice to become a SAHM requires deeper consideration than is often accorded while the woman is young, the man is attracted, and the future has limitless potential for doing something different if the first choice fails to work out.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.