Focus on the Family accused of data manipulation

[ck4829]

"Writer Angela Phillips believes, and I agree, that the high incidence of homosexuality occurring in Western nations is related, at least in part, to the absence of positive male influence when boys are moving through the first crisis of child development."

Or so Dr. Dobson claims in an article titled How Boys Learn to be Men.

The problem is that Angela Phillips does NOT believe that at all. Per her letter on Wayne Besen's site,

"I do not suggest that lack of positive male role models leads to homosexuality (or indeed that it would be problematic if it did)."

and

"My concern is that boys are currently learning, either from their fathers, or in the absence of fathers, from the women who rear them, and the men they encounter, that the most important thing about being a man is being: "not gay", "not gentle" and not "girlie". While adult men are afraid to demonstrate that it's okay to be gentle and caring how are boys to learn anything positive about what it means to be a man?"

In that article Dr. Dobson quotes Don Elium, Peter Karl, Dr. Carol Gilligan, Angela Phillips, Dr. Kyle Pruett, Dr. William Pollock, and the National Center for Children in Poverty as being in agreement with his ideas. Of those seven, Dr. Carol Gilligan, Dr. Kyle Pruett, and now Angela Phillips have accused him of grossly and irresponsibly misrepresenting their research.

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/12/another_researc.html

[BOSSHOG]

1. There are at least 500,000,000

published papers by reputable and honorable men and women who support everything that dobson says. Just ask him.

He's a sack of garbage who has to keep the ignorant trash fired up so they keep tithing. Yes you ignorant fucking "christian conservatives" you are fools and dupes used by radical chrisitian clerics to keep them in their lifestyles. Sad, pathetic, disgusting, human beings.

[JackBeck]

3. I agree 100%

And they have no legs to stand on anymore. After building their cause for the last 50 or so years, I believe it has all come to this moment. This is their political moment and they didn't get and won't get what they want because just about everyone knows they are phonies. Snake oil salesmen, if you will. And it's almost over for them. They will soon be leaving the political "spotlight", only to return to their marginalized lives deep in the crevices of our political system. It's over for them and they have accomplished very little.

[noonwitch]

2. Positive male role models are important for all children

But I doubt it has all that much to do with that child's orientation when he or she grows up.

But whether a man or the child is gay or straight, a positive male role model will show him how to be respectful of other people, how to treat women and children properly, and spend time with him to give him a feeling of being valued.

[BOSSHOG]

4. rush limbaugh is a positive male role model to his lemmings every day

Teaching them how to hate, lie, do drugs, fail at any attempt at humor, fail at anything but lying and hating, take an interest in little boys in foreign countrys. limbaugh is the type of guy dobson has over for christmas dinner. They are all so blessed.

[Tansy_Gold]

5. Why do they have to be "male"? Can't they just be

"positive role models" without the gender tag?

Positive role models are people who project values -- yes, VALUES -- of caring, accountability, responsibility, patience, tolerance, love, kindness, understanding, strength, joy, laughter, justice (and outrage at injustice). These things have nothing to do with "male" or "female" or any other gender label.

When I hear or read comments about "positive male role models" I know the person issuing them is still trapped in a "children need male fathers and female mothers in traditional roles or the kids will grow up warped or criminal or gay or something else horrible."

Children need positive role models and those models can be two gay fathers, a single mom, a loving grandparent, a circle of nurturing friends, it doesn't matter who or how old or how rich or what gender.

This whole thing smacks of religious rightwing patriarchy -- if a boy doesn't have a father, he'll end up bad. "Boys" and "fathers" are somehow special, somehow more important than mothers and girls.

Don't get me started today. . . . . . . . :grr:


Tansy Gold

[TahitiNut]

7. I think here, as in most things, 'diversity' is the key.

I think we all (including children) benefit from the richest and most diverse social/familial context we can achieve and embrace. What's counter-intuitive, I've found, is that there's really very little that's 'homogeneous' about 'homosexuality.' Having enjoyed the camaraderie of GLBT friends, I can testify to a rich and diverse array of viewpoints and perspectives even in such a community. (It's one of the reasons I eschew "political correctness" as well. The neurotic attachment to 'uniformity' isn't limited to the poltical right.)

"Fish will be the last to discover water." (Einstein) ((or maybe his wife?))

[rodeodance]

6. Gilligan is a well know Gender Studies acedemic---glad to see she

contested Dobson.

[HuffleClaw]

8. this is NEWS ???

it would be newsworthy if they actually did something truthful.

[ChickMagic]

9. Isn't he the dork that recommended

showering with your son and wagging your weiner at him to show him who's boss?
Something is seriously wrong with that jerk.