Deconstructing Focus on the Family

Many of you have probably heard of Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian right organization led by Dr. James Dobson, infamous for his denounciation of Spongebob Squarepants and related children's cartoon characters as promoting the homosexual agenda. After such an inane accusation, one might think the group would have faded into obscurity, laughed off the table by professional psychological associations. Not so. In fact, they're back with a new outgrowth called Focus on Your Child, which just recently released an article pinpointing such signs of homosexual behavior such as "a tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy" and urging parents to seek help to steer their gender-confused children towards heterosexuality. Let's take a closer look at some of these sections.

Evidences of gender confusion or doubt in boys ages 5 to 11 may include:

1. A strong feeling that they are “different” from other boys.

2. A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.

3. A persistent preference to play female roles in make-believe play.

4. A strong preference to spend time in the company of girls and participate in their games and other pastimes.

5. A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them “queer,” “fag” and “gay.”

6. A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even “think” effeminately.

7. A repeatedly stated desire to be — or insistence that he is — a girl.

Is My Child Becoming Homosexual?

These symptoms all fall prey to the oldest of logical fallacies - post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Just because one event occurs after another does not mean it is caused by the latter. Feeling different from other children is natural, especially if traditional gender-specific domains are forced upon a child who wants to try something different. And aversion to athletic activities? Tell that to Olympic swimmer, Johan Kenkhuis, or Bronze medalist, Guenter Seidel. I'd think spending time with the girls would be a good thing for parents worried about their boys' attraction to females, but apparently when it involves engaging in activities like jumprope and dress-up, the activity could lead to dire consequences. Since you don't want your little girl to be a tomboy, but insist your little boy stay away from "sissy" games, I guess that only leaves the middle ground of...eating. And perhaps when Dobson comments on teasing, he would do better to examine its relation to the psychological state of bullies rather than a symptom of homosexuality. Besides which, how exactly does one "think" effeminately? Do they count fluffy pink bunnies instead of sheep in their sleep? Envision cupcakes and tea instead of pizza when modeling math problems? The entire list is based solely on outdated gender stereotypes.

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, a psychiatric professor at Columbia University, created a firestorm in May 2001, when he released the results of his research at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. Spitzer, who had spearheaded the APA’s decision in 1973 to declassify homosexuality as a mental-health disorder, says his findings ‘show some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that.’ This was not what his critics wanted to hear.

Bringing Up Boys, reprinted in Experts Speak Out: Change of Sexual Orientation Is Possible

What Dobson fails to mention are the rather egregious shortcomings of Spitzer's research.

1. Independent or external verification of the answers given is not possible, as the changes were self-reported. One could potentially have asked subjects' spouses, if applicable, questions about sexual activity and about their perception of their partner's satisfaction, etc. For those subjects who had been in therapy, one could potentially have asked the therapists to confirm, refute, or cast in doubt the changes that their clients were reporting.

2. Not a random sample nor a controlled study. Also, 78% of the subjects had spoken or written publicly in favour of efforts to change. The results can therefore not be applied to same-sex-attracted people in general, nor is one able to determine the effectiveness of different types of therapy. Dr. Spitzer had neither of these as his goals in doing this research, and they do not affect the validity of the results.

Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?

For an indepth rebuttal of the neo-Freudian "preventive measures", I point you to an APA statement titled Science, Politics, and Morality. Suffice it to say that the majority of the research is highly circumspect, with little if any empirical support. As for the homosexual campaign against children...well, I'll just leave the accusation of a conspiracy within the Boy/Girl Scouts to molest children, coupled with the unfounded argument that homosexuals are behind an international lowering of the age of consent to speak for itself. The imaginary specter of persecution serves to give the Christian right's troops purpose, after all, as George Lakoff so eloquently explained in Don't Think of an Elephant. Although radical fringe groups like NAMBLA do exist, they are hardly representative of the general population, just as violent Islamic extremists do not represent the majority of Islam. To resort to these measures is incredibly hypocritical, wouldn't you think, of a movement that rarely recognizes the radicals in its own camp who bomb abortion clinics and commit violence against homosexuals?

The article in its entirety is a series of flimsy claims supported only by self-referencing "research", all of which comes from either the head of Focus on the Family himself, or one of several well-known proponents of reparative therapy. This is hardly a scientific endeavor. It's one-sided propaganda.

And while we're focusing on the family, let's not forget Dobson's other recommendations on child discipline, most notably that "pain is a marvelous purifier...spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely" from Dare to Discipline, pgs 6-7, and "some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be spanked, and their wishes should be granted...two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, 'You must obey me'" from The Strong-Willed Child, pgs 53-4. So, I wonder what our academic luminary would say about the UK case in which a man beats his child to death trying to prevent him from turning gay? Would it be murder or simply accidental death in the course of necessary discipline? Dobson warns against beating a child into submission, yet maintains that sincere crying is necessary, which strikes me as distinctly antithetical since a young child's primary indication of real physical distress is tears. That is, unless he or she has already passed out from the abuse.

Either way, whether you agree with him or not, one cannot disagree that Focus on the Family's leader is a radical - his recent statement comparing Supreme Court justices to the KKK only emphasizes this point. And until Dr. James Dobson realizes we are no longer living in the 19th century, it would be wise to take all of his words with a very large grain of salt.

Bush Silent on Rove's Role

As pressure mounts on the White House and advocates from both sides clash over Rove's resignation, for once, Bush has nothing to say about his senior advisor's involvement in the Valerie Plame case. In Wednesday's press conference, he remained conspicuously silent and refused to comment either way on the controversy, citing a need "for people not to prejudge the investigation based on media reports" as his primary reasoning. Yet not long after, Scott McClellan, who has consistently lied over the course of this story, spins just the opposite way, insisting everyone at the White House, "including Karl Rove", has the president's utter confidence, a statement so trite it deserves a spot on a corporate recruiter's mission statement list.

So let me get this straight. Your strategy is to divert attention away from yourself with an implied condemnation of the media reports, while letting your spokesman toss a few bones to appease the hounds at your door? Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here? But of course, the White House is hardly worried about hypocrisy when it's in spin control mode. If the tempest dies down, you can blame the media, but if Rove ultimately gets the royal flush, you can always backpedal and blame McClellan for a failure in communication. Redefine "confidence", redefine "every person", hell, just redefine the English language itself.

While Bush is keeping mum over the Rove scandal, his friends at the National Republican Senatorial Committee have absolutely no qualms about jumping all over Democratic criticism on this matter. These are "out of control and entirely inappropriate...accusations based on rumor and innuendo," Elizabeth Dole cries, apparently forgetting Cooper's e-mail from Rove specifically identifying Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA officer. If this isn't leaking classified information to a reporter, I don't know what is. It only remains to be seen whether our President will own up to his promise to fire the leaker in this case.

Meanwhile, the White House spokesman is still playing at childish games of I-said-you-said.

Q Well, the President has never been restrained at staying right in the lines of a question, as you know. (Laughter.) He kind of -- he says whatever he wants. And if he had wanted to express confidence in Karl Rove, he could have. Why didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: He expressed it yesterday through me, and I just expressed it again.

Q Well, why doesn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: He was not asked that specific question, Terry. You know that very well. The questions he were asked -- he was asked about were relating to an ongoing investigation.

Q But, Scott, he defended Al Gonzales without even being asked --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll come to you in a second. I'll come to you in a second. Go ahead.

Q Yes, he defended Al Gonzales without ever being asked. (Laughter.) Ed brings up a good point. Didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think he was asked about the Attorney General.

Source: The White House

Hey, Scott? If you guys had answered even a quarter of the questions the people posed directly to you over Iraq, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

Klein's Cancellation of Crossfire

As many of you probably have heard, Tucker Carlson, conservative co-host of CNN's Crossfire, is leaving the network because his contract was not renewed. Jonathan Klein, current head of CNN, plans to cancel the show entirely. This is in light of the recent spat Tucker and Paul (one of the liberal co-hosts) had with Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, a satirical news show that has risen to some prominence during this past election. If you missed the show, you can find a clip on iFilm or read the complete transcript at CNN. Suffice it to say that Jon made some excellent points about the partisan hackery and ineffective job the media has been doing as watchdog of the administration. The confrontation, however, only got worse as Tucker defended himself by making ludicrous accusations that Jon was not asking "hard enough questions" of the political guests on TDS, despite the fact that the show is a comedy, while the comedian shot back by calling Tucker a "dick" on national television. Not a pretty scene. In the end, most people sided with Jon, and this event lived on to infamy.

However, one person I was surprised at was Klein. He made some rather inane and insulting statements after the Crossfire announcement, specifically labeling Tucker as "best suited to host a head-butting talkfest" and saying it was time for more "storytelling" journalism (never mind that CNN has been jumping on the bandwagon to compete with Fox for higher ratings through polarizing rhetoric rather than objective analysis). So the man who sniped at bloggers for first calling attention to the inconsistencies in typesetting during the CBS memo scandal is now sitting on his own golden pedestal of righteousness? Andrew Sullivan and Mickey Kaus picked up on the hypocrisy, as well as general disingenuity of motive, in these statements.

Now, I'm not absolving Tucker of blame. From what I can see in his appearances outside Crossfire, namely on his PBS show Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered and various other interviews with the Washington Post and Real Time with Bill Maher, he is highly intelligent and articulate, much more of a moderate than pundits like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. In fact, he broke with the Republicans on certain controversial subjects such as the Iraq war, which he initially supported. So it stands to reason that, since he is capable of reasonable civil discourse, the inflammatory rhetoric he spews on Crossfire is more contrived theater than anything else, and he knows it. He plays to the format of the show, plays for the ratings, and - particularly with a live audience - plays to get in the cheap jabs that generate applause. In fact, Bill Press, a former host of Crossfire writes that the show died a long time ago when Walter Isaacson turned serious debate into a hackneyed "gong show."

Klein wasn't around during the Jon incident, but that doesn't mean he should come out and bash Tucker like this. I understand his decisions to cancel Crossfire and let Tucker go, especially since it had been reported in mid-November that Tucker would be seeking another position anyways. But the way he says it makes it seem like some kind of noble act. It's not. It's far from noble or courageous, a score for "Jon Stewart's camp," to kill a show that's already been declining. At best, it's a meaningless token gesture, but more likely the decision was simply a result of the politics of corporate media. Klein just found a convenient way to get rid of a ratings burden, up his PR by associating himself specifically with Jon Stewart, and pin the blame for everything that went wrong squarely on a subordinate. It's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

So what's next, now that Crossfire's gone? No word out yet, but perhaps Klein will take Wonkette's advice and get his own show. At least then, he can fire himself for his own hypocrisy.

First Post

I started this blog as somewhat of a foil to my Livejournal, where for the most part I discuss mundane personal events and interests. Here, I shall try to post more serious, reflective pieces on the state of affairs in the world and discuss their far ranging consequences.