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.
How dare these researchers claim that they know more about their own research than Dobson does.
And we all know that researchers would never try to distort or misapply the facts just to make their point. If they said it, it must be so.
But we know that Dobson is a liar and a phony, so my money's on the researchers.
Of course, like Mr. Dobson, you have no evidence that these researchers did any such thing.
rusty shackleford - play nice now, I took a bath this morning.
maybe not, but the fact that Dobson cherry picked a conclusion to make an assertion that he cannot support statistically would suggest that he didn't disagree with the scientific methodology. His problem, like those who would automatically be so dismissive of the researchers without any basis whatsoever (does that include you?) is allowing personal bias to lead to assertions that are deliberately misleading. Worse, there is no doubt whatsoever that the documented low esteem with which gay persons hold themselves is the product of such broad bias, and that does lead to depression and self destructive, often suicidal, behavior. When gay persons have risen beyond that and are sufficiently emotionally healthy to deal not only with the bias but to devote themselves to the joy of raising children, this should be viewed as a blessing, not a curse.
Nope, not me. I have no bias at this time. I still have to do a little research on this topic before making up my mind. I am not going to say the researchers or Dobson are correct. I will get back to you with the truth later.
We can hardly wait.
I am sure that you think you know the truth already.
I'm glad to hear that you'll be conducting your own, in dept research on the subject. While you're at it, would you mind checking for me on whether or not the children of mixed race couples suffer any social stigma? Or whether children of people with disabilities are face additional stress? Or whether children of religious fundamentalists are subject to any similar problems? ...
Actually, don't bother. Even if you were to determine that any of the above situations resulted in increased social or psychological challenges for children.... why would that constitute a legitimate reason to prohibit marriage for those people?
Ask any sociologist: there are many factors that statistically place children at a disadvantage... poverty being the leading one. But we don't outlaw marriage for poor people. (Quite the contrary, it's valorized.)
So please, by all means, go do your research. But you'll still need to explain how your findings have any relevance. The fact that the researchers cited by Media Matters contest Dobson's assertion only goes to argue that Dobson misrepresented what social scientists have determined. You can continue to argue that point, or you can go to the heart of the matter.
And sorry -- that should have been "in-depth research."
Or at best it isnt likely. What you will give us is YOUR take, thats all you can give us.
I mean I dont believe for a second they did, but that still doesnt address whether or not THEY are more credible concerning THEIR reserach than Dobson is, obviously they ARE.
this is all these right wingers do ... pick out the bits that agree with their delusional beliefs and ignore the remaining 99% of the evidence which again and again prove their statements to be false.
Though you'll never get any of these people to admit they are wrong ... to them that just isn't possible.
Dang those right wingers, its a good thing that we have so many honest democrats around to protect us from all those far right wing lies.
Who said anything about this being a "right winger" vs "Democrat" issue? I respect that you're reaching for a classic rhetorical strategy (i.e. when in doubt, reduce the issue to a binary, two-party opposition and then throw mud at both sides), but it's more than a little weak.
These researchers don't have God on their side like Mr. Dobson...
(sarcasm intended for those of you who didn't quite catch it)
What is Dobson's point, after all? That only the biological parents of a child should be allowed to raise it? That would be the logical extension of his argument, if we were stupid enough to take him seriously. He's just trying to justify his bigotry toward gays by cloaking it in ersatz psychobabble.
The man is a troglodyte and a phony.
It's little surprise Dobson is (once again) twisting the facts. I live in the same town as him, and when the anti-gay Amendment 2 was being voted on, Dobson went on the air in support of it, claiming that if it didn't pass it would leave gays with special rights, meaning that "if a gay person applied for the same job as a straight person, the gay person would have to be hired, even if he was less qualified". Well, while the Amendment did pass, it was struck down by the Supreme Court, and I've yet to hear of one case where a gay person was given a job for that reason, or had any special rights at all. I've also yet to year Dobson apologize for misleading people. I've heard of Jews for Jesus, I think Dobson should join Liars for Jesus.
Tsk Tsk, obviously not a believer here.
Of those to whom believers look for guidance, I'm proud to say, "Include me out."
Saying mean things about Dobson makes the Baby Jesus cry.
I will self-flagellate later.
Not necessary, apology accepted!!
"Belief" doesn't enter into it: Dobson would be a lying, self aggrandizing pudge-ball living off the lies he tells his flock regardless of whether he was a Babtist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, or Zionist.
Like saying Jesus said "It's easier....for a rich man to get into heaven"
But I suspect you'd believe THAT, eh?
there is a big difference between an anti-gay amendment and an anti-discrimination against gays amendment or statute. Dobson's conclusion is stupid as to the latter, as well, since a law can on the one hand prohibit discrimination in employment and commerce while contain a prohibition against requiring affirmative action to eradicate it. The balancing test becomes an evidentiary issue, though: it is tough to prove any kind of discrimination without being able to show statistical patterns. The solution: a law that provides that statistical proof may be used to show discriminatory intent but courts may not fashion mandatory relief requiring specific employment levels of a minority group. Finally, even affirmative action never required hiring a less qualified person over a more qualified person. That has never been the law at any level.
sufficiently invidious the affirmative relief ordered may have had that unintended effect.
It's little surprise Dobson is (once again) twisting the facts. I live in the same town as him, and when the anti-gay Amendment 2 was being voted on, Dobson went on the air in support of it, claiming that if it didn't pass it would leave gays with special rights, meaning that "if a gay person applied for the same job as a straight person, the gay person would have to be hired, even if he was less qualified". Well, while the Amendment did pass, it was struck down by the Supreme Court, and I've yet to hear of one case where a gay person was given a job for that reason, or had any special rights at all. I've also yet to hear Dobson apologize for misleading people. I've heard of Jews for Jesus, I think Dobson should join Liars for Jesus.
insofar as it appears self-contradictory to assert on the one hand that the father's and mother's roles are important for differing reason, but on the other hand that same sex marriages do no harm. In my view, the factor that makes the cherry picking wrong is the failure to recognize the accuracy of the statistically supported first conclusions does not negate the fact of the statistically supported second conclusion, which is why the cherry-picking out of context is so bad. It ignores the fact that other intangibles - such as the deep committment to child raising that adoptive parents bring to the table - may in many ways offset the positive results of statistically significant strengths provided by heterosexual birth parents to their own children. Dobson's biggotry - whether he really believes his own venom or whether he simply manipulates it for reasons related to power and money - will not permit recognizing that rather obvious truth, but Time Magazine's editors ought to have enough sense to see this.
Didn't stantogt (reply #359 [link to mediamatters.org] give the links to some sites that state that Dobson's 'findings' are correct, in the last "Dobson" thread mmfa had going? Why are they going through it again? mmfa is fishing for a reason to knock religious teachings and trying to find as much as it can to distort factual scientific findings to advance their agenda. The research is out there for all to read. Whether you choose to believe it is just the same as if you choose to believe in..well...the Bible. Since many of you don't then many of you will not believe the scientific research that proves having a mother/father raising a child will give the child a better chance at a better life than if same sex parents raised the child. When you come up with research that proves otherwise, then by all means bring it to the table! Until then, you have no factual basis for determining that Dobson is wrong.
So continuely calling him names based solely on your hatred and prejudice against Christian beliefs shows your ignorance of the subject and the ideals.
No, the works to which Mr. Stanton linked did not prove that Mr. Dobson is correct, as we discussed in that thread. Mr. Stanton chose to cut and run from the discussion after posting his links.
The very researchers that Mr. Dobson cites to support his assertions have publicly stated that their research does not support his assertions:
"There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support [Dobson's] conclusions...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." - Dr. Kyle Pruett
"Not only did [Dobson] take my research out of context, [he] did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What [Dobson] wrote was not truthful...
...there is nothing in my research that would lead [Dobson] to draw the stated conclusions [he] 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." - Carol Gilligan
Dobson has no leg to stand on, and neither do you.
If I have no leg to stand on, then where is all the evidence or the studies that show gay families can/do raise children to be as healthy as children raised normal families. Obviously, (according to most posters on this site), gays have been around and even had civilizations to themselves for a loooong time. Where is the scientific support to uphold mmfa's claim Dr. Dobson is incorrect in stating that children of normal parents are better off than children of gay parents. Until I can be scientifically told that gay families can/do raise children just as healthy, then Dr. Dobson cannot be proven incorrect. He can be "opinionated" incorrect, but without scientific support you have no leg to stand on, either.