I’m quite late to report this, but on April 21 “Dear Abby” gave her opinion about Dr. Dobson’s theories on the origins of sexual orientation. Without coming right out and calling Dr. Dobson an idiot, she sidestepped the whole “make him gay” issue and gave some helpful and reassuring advice:
DEAR ABBY: My husband, “Ron,” and I are at odds over parenting our 7-year-old son, “Brett.” My husband is very domestic. He cooks like a world-class chef and does more housework than any man I know of.
I have read Dr. James Dobson’s books on family. He clearly states that a father should be the manly role model for the son, to prevent the son from being homosexual. I’m concerned that Brett will learn feminine ways from my husband and turn out to be gay. How can I convince Ron that he needs to teach Brett the more manly things in life?
— Worried Mom in Florida
DEAR WORRIED MOM: From my perspective, you don’t need to change a thing. With all due respect to Dr. Dobson, your husband is already a manly role model to your son. He is teaching the boy important survival skills that will be invaluable when he is older. With luck, your son will turn out to be every bit the man — and father — that your husband is.
Duh!
What kind of woman is she?! She should be grateful that her husband has the willingness and the skill to do such things around the house.
Not only will this help her son become self sufficient, but whatever domestic situation he finds himself in, his significant other won’t mind a bit.
Besides, aren’t most of the world class chefs all men?
Cooking that people want to eat, is high art, not women’s work!
Between Dobson and that pig Owens….they have no respect for men, obviously…who aren’t like THEM.
Dear Worried Mom: Learn how to cook like world-class chef yourself and do more housework than any sane woman in the world — don’t let your husband lift a finger around the house! When your son reaches adulthood, he then will have a healthy idea what to expect from women in his life! And you doing all the women’s work around the house will fer shure help keep your boy straight!No? Hee-hee!!
That “Dear Abby” article completely misrepresents what Dr. Dobson and other advocates of male role models are saying. Abby’s response was right, but what most people who have their mind made up about Dobson don’t(or won’t) realize is that they actually agree on this point!
All of the calls to be a good, strong male role model have nothing to do with the specific tasks you’re doing. Cooking, cleaning, construction work, secretary work, teaching, it’s all the same. It’s not what you do — it’s the character you exhibit while you do it. Blog entries like this do nothing but borderline slander people like Dr. Dobson and misrepresent what they’re actually saying.
“That “Dear Abby” article completely misrepresents what Dr. Dobson and other advocates of male role models are saying.”
Regardless of what you think he’s saying, that’s what those who follow his advice are hearing.
I remember reading the Dear Abby letter and thinking, “Lady, there are a lot of women who would give their eye teeth for such a husband!” Quite a few gay men too.
I wonder what Mrs. Dobson thought about it, being married to such a boob.
Derek,Before criticising Dear Abby, perhaps you should criticise 1) that woman who read Dobson in the first place and 2) Dobson for what he has written.* She read the book. That’s the message she picked up.* He wrote the book. That’s the message he’s sending.You have actually read “Bring Up Boys” I assume — particularly Chapter 9? Apart from all that… do you notice the sheer mind-bending irony of a woman marrying a straight man who can cook and clean (and does, more the point)… and then being worried that this is heading into homosexuality territory???Perhaps Dear Abby should have simply replied with another of Dobson’s fav. marriage basics —
In other words — echoing P/Saul — shut up lady. Face it… if she wasn’t such a bad example of a slatternly wife, the husband wouldn’t have any reason to be cooking and cleaning in the first place. By being such a poor wife, she’s causing her husbands feminine behaviour. So it’s HER FAULT!(And as we’re obviously in the mood for a thick spread of irony today, why Focus chose a celibate, never-married gay man to write that particular guideline… oh, never mind.)See also here and here for a full blast of Dobson’s thoughts.
That was us. Sorry, Typekey going bananas.
Cooking and cleaning is what makes you gay? I never learned either, is there something wrong with me?
And with all due respect to Dear Abby, how dare she say “With all due respect to Dr. Dobson.”
grantdale said:
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord…
Just to be accurate, even if Dobson was not, that same passage goes on to say:
In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one has ever hated his own body but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church…
And there are others that are much more explicit about how the relationship is one of equals (which was rather radical in that culture). I get tired of those who view these passages as some Neanderthal way of ordering their wives around.
David Roberts
Yeah, I know David. We always check the source, even if Dobson(R) has stated it.But what I know, what I think, and how I behave… is not what we’re discussing – or you either, right?.Jeepers, as if I would want, let alone COULD, get partner to be quiet when p’d off with me 🙂 Frankly my dear husband, let it all out and tell me! I might be wrong. I might have time to correct myself. Or you.As for Dobson… wadda expect from a man who would take a belt to a small dog???
grantdale said:
As for Dobson… wadda expect from a man who would take a belt to a small dog???
That was my point. I didn’t want to leave that hanging the way Dobson did.
David
Yep, David, it takes a certain mindset to do that.A mindset we can grasp, but have trouble internalising. We’re just not the sadistic type. When we see it in action it actually makes us feel quite ill.We should add that, despite the billions of hours of child care we’ve provided over all these years that we have never once had to strike a child. Ever. If we had to, and we would if we needed to, it would be only to save them from something else AND because we had failed to do something earlier. What, afterall is the lesson in striking a child? Do what I say, otherwise I will hurt you? In our opinion, abuse. And also not the way we wish to be treated.Discipline and Rules… oh, we’re actually a couple of nazis. No, really. We’re as hard as nails. 🙂 Naughty children do not get ignored. But they are CHILDREN, first and foremost, and must be SHOWN the way. And we are really manipulative 🙂 In a good way.The nieces and nephew, and all our “other kids” are one of the most rewarding and delightful part of our lives. They bring the freshest perspective to what we see as mundane. They delight in new people and new experiences, even those we’ve seen a million times. And they’ve caused EVERY grass stain on our clothes for 15 years :PAnd we’re not alone, we know. It really pisses us off to have Exodus, Focus etc present us as anti-het or anti-childen. God, I’m not sure we could functon if we were. And we couldn’t stand for it anyway.
Derek, I doubt very much that Dobson would make any distinction between what one does and the “character” with which one does it. Dobson explicitly opines that being homosexual is a bad thing, no matter how much “character” one may have while being gay at the same time.
Face it: Dobson and his followers have adopted a perverted form of Christianity that has more basis in the Laws of Moses than the teachings of Jesus. They see Jesus as part of their old-time-fire-and-brimstone-kill-the-infidels god who was called Yahweh or Jehova. They do not seek to live according to Jesus’ teachings as found in the Sermon on the Mount. They also fail to see themselves (and Dobson) in the story of Jesus’ throwing the moneychangers out of the temple.
Dobson is preaching nothing more than a religion based on hatred of the infidel combined with a very 19th century social view that men and women simply aren’t equal, weren’t created to be equal and have specific roles planned for them by Yahweh.
Jonathon, I’m a little puzzled by your comments. Don’t Christians believe that God is the same as the God that gave the law to Moses? It seems to me that Dobson’s ‘teaching’ is very similar to a particular strain of Christian teaching that has been quite common within the Christian tradition, particularly one that is very focused on the Book of Revelation and a certain kind of dualistic Good vs. Evil, heaven vs. hell, spirit = good/matter = evil dichotomy. It reminds me quite a bit of a strict, conservative Medieval mindset, where the church and state were essentially the same and the rod was frequently used to discipline any form of rebellion against the order of the hierarchy. It also seems that his teaching often has to do with preserving a patriarchal power structure in all areas of life that has little relation with actual religious belief and a lot to do with a deep, unconscious insecurity.
“And with all due respect to Dear Abby, how dare she say ‘With all due respect to Dr. Dobson.’”
Emproph:
That’s the simple beauty of this expression. I’ve used it on occasion, myself. She is extending to Dr. Dobson all the respect he is due — no more. It’s up to the reader to decide how much respect Dr. Dobson is due.
Hava Israel,
yes you are correct re that is how some christians interpret scripture. And it is also indicative of the middle ages mindset.
However, what Jonathan is getting at is that many Christians believe that Jesus was revolutionary in his approach to religion. One tenet of Christianity is that there was a new covenant with God based on a personal relationship, forgiveness and grace. Jonathan is rightly pointing out that Dobson’s brand of Christianity seems more consistent with an older covenant based on law and punishment.
Of course the Christian cultural understanding of time-of-Christ Jewish religion is probably very different than the Jewish cultural understanding of the same peiod. I suspect (hey, I’m not Jewish so it’s a guess) that a Jew would see that time period as a blip on the continuum of God’s relationship with his people. A Christian has been taught to see that time as when Jewish religion had become corrupt and required a redemptive savior.
In that context, Jonathan’s comments may make more sense.
(and yes, David and the other Christians, I know that I was being overly simplistic in my explanation)
sorry
🙂
“That’s the simple beauty of this expression. I’ve used it on occasion, myself. She is extending to Dr. Dobson all the respect he is due — no more. It’s up to the reader to decide how much respect Dr. Dobson is due.”
Marcus: ahh.. Interesting bit of diplomacy trivia. I’ll keep it in mind, could be useful. -Thanks
Timothy said:
(and yes, David and the other Christians, I know that I was being overly simplistic in my explanation)
You can be forgiven for not being able to explain the mystery of God’s redemptive work in man in two paragraphs, though I have seen you do an excellent job of it in not much more than that. We can leave that for other web sites like GayChristian.net or Evangelicals Concerned, as that is more their focus. I’ve been trying to do that more myself lately 😉
David Roberts
Timothy, thank you for interpreting my post. That is EXACTLY what I am talking about.
I grew up in the Southern Baptist tradition, which in all honesty is a pretty primitive view of Christianity. There is much more focus on the Old Testament than on the actual teachings of Jesus. Even today, after many many years of study about the life and teachings of Jesus I still find that I am more familiar with OT scripture than NT scripture, because that was what was emphasized in almost every Sunday School lesson or sermon.
I believe that Jesus brought us a new understanding of God, one that superseded the old, Bronze Age Abrahamic “burning bush” deity. I do indeed believe that Dobson and his fellows worship a different deity than the God of the Universe. Yahweh/Jehova/Allah is not God; I can find no way to merge the anthropomorphic, violent, jealous, petty and moody deity described in the “Books of Moses” with the magnificent, loving and all-forgiving God revealed to us by Jesus.
Dobson lacks a serious understanding of Jesus’ core teachings, which had much more to do with the human condition than with any fanciful dreams of a cushy afterlife. Instead of working to suppress the civil and human rights of gays and lesbians, atheists, etc. Christians are called to minister unto those who are needy, hungry, naked and sick. Dobson’s organization (as well as many others who are in the same business) is not “Christian” in the sense that it follows the teachings of Jesus, but rather is “Neo-Hebrew” in its celebration of a god of wrath, punishment and destruction.
More Dear Abby on gay people:‘Confused’ gay man gets lots of advice
As suggested in this section by another person after my initial comment, I have picked up “Bringing Up Boys,” and I have just read the suggested chapter 9.
One paragraph concerning non-stereotypically male activities stood out to me on page 120:
“But make no mistake. A boy can be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle, and be heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician — and heterosexual. These innate artistic skills are ‘who he is,’ part of the wonderful range of human abilities, and there’s no reason to discourage them. But they can all be developed within the context of normal heterosexual manhood.”
The mother who read Dobson’s work was acting ignorant, but Dobson can’t be blamed for that when his message is quite clear, and quite different from what she perceived. After reading the chapter, I’m convinced this is just another strawman argument against Dobson and his work. I’m happy that I was able to find “Bringing Up Boys” at a discount store. I’d hate to have paid full price only to find out that it confirms what I already believed about Dobson.
I read the chapter, and there is no hatred or malice there. Simply a call for us as adults to be sentitive to young men and do our best to recognize and meet their needs. Too bad the mother who wrote the letter to Abby didn’t get it.
Actually Derek, that quote is from Joseph Nicolosi. And there’s the first clue for the malice and slander that is embedded throughout that chapter. You must have missed the bits about homosexuality being a disorder that can be cured? The distorted presentation of gay men as effeminate and gender-confused? The weak or abusive inadequate parents that we all had?The chapter is not about being “sensitive to young men”. It’s a corrupt claim about “The Origins of Homosexuality”, and a deliberate attempt to present gay men as immature and damaged.Dobson, via Nicolosi, has indeed said that heterosexual boys/men can be all those “artistic” things. But the mother has also read Dobson’s claims about the orgin of homosexuality — gender confusion caused by an inadequate father figure — and applied it to her family. She didn’t write with a concern about her husband turning gay, she thinks her husband’s behaviour will turn the boy gay.She read Dobson’s views correctly.
Well, I have to say that I agree that homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured. I don’t see the problem in saying so if it happens to be true. I was exclusively gay from the onset of puberty until I was 22 years old, but I’m not anymore. And I’m sorry, but personal experience supports Nicolosi’s views. I’m not saying it’s instant, or that it’s easy — but it’s most certainly possible.
The claims about the origin of homosexuality are anything but corrupt from my vantage point. At no point does Dobson or Nicolosi say that those are the only causes of homosexuality. They merely state that they are prevalent and are the most easily preventable potential causes.
Besides, everyone’s damaged and inadequate in some way. It’s part of being human, and hardly exclusive to homosexuals. And Dobson never says otherwise — he merely points out homosexuality as one symptom that may manifest as a result of this brokenness. And he states that it’s not entirely unpreventable or untreatable — which is true.
And again, back to the mother. She read a statement that inadequate fathers may be a primary cause of homosexuality. It’s true, but that begs the question of “what is inadequate.” I still hold that if the mother’s opinion is that it’s cooking and cleaning that makes a man inadequate, she’s mistaken and — I fully believe not on purpose — misrepresenting Dobson’s ideas.
Right, thank you Derek.You didn’t miss the slander and malice, you just happen to agree with it.And sorry, but the way that snuck in is also exactly why I don’t take exgay claims at face value. You may, personally, currently, be the #1 fan of Nicolosi and Dobson — as is your right — but research and the experiences of the overwhelming majority do not support their views.
Thanks for the explanation, Timothy, though Jonathons’ follow up comments just repeated the idea that confused me the most. I’ve been under the impression that Christians believed YHVH is who Jesus Father was supposed to be. Apparently not.
I understand how the idea of “law and judgment” is associated with the Hebrew scriptures, but the Rabbinic and later mystical traditions place a whole filter on the text that mitigates a lot of the ‘bronze age’ harshness. It hasn’t been interpreted literally in the Jewish world for ages and ages, except by the simple-minded.
If it’s read literally, without any historical or cultural context or reformed understanding of it’s meaning, I can see how someone could reach the conclusion that Jonathon has, though I think his interpretation is seriously lacking in balance, as well as the misuse of the idea of “judgment” and a very primitive patriarchal ordering of family and society coming out of the Christian Right Wing. It’s sad to see it, though.
To me, it’s a collection of family stories, a kind of early constitution that has layers and layers of ammendments that has kept it ‘living’ for generations and a deeply profound mystical text, so I do find it offensive when someone states that YHVH (or Allah, for that matter) ‘isn’t God’. It’s simply disrespectful and ignorant of other peoples traditions and it doesn’t strike me as being much more enlightened than Dobson’s view.
Jews tend to view Jesus’ teachings as coming out of the tradition of the Prophets, some folk traditions of the Northern Judean countryside, some Essene teachings and the more liberal Pharisaic reformers. An older contemparary of Jesus, named Hillel, is often used as a comparison because of the parallels in their teaching, particularly on the importance of loving kindness and his emphasis on humility and peace. The anti-Pharisaic comments in the New Testament read almost like arguments between Hillel and his more conservative (and less peaceful) rival, Shammai. Hillel was prominently active in Jerusalem between 30 b.c.e. and 10 c.e. and is the grandfather of Gamaliel the Elder, mentioned in the Christian Scriptures.
Jonathon seems to be making the same mistakes as political religious rightists:
–Separating Christianity from its Jewish context and Abrahamic origins,
–Separating Judaism from its history and traditions,
–Separating the Bible from other ancient writings and archaeological records that indicate where Bible passages are inaccurate, incomplete, or biased,
–Misrepresenting Judaism as an authoritarian patriarchy in order to create a fake historical precedent for the heretical political kingdom of present-day Christian fundamentalism.
I’m beginning to believe that, just perhaps, no one should call themselves Christian or claim to be familiar with the teachings of Jesus until they have first spent years living, thinking and studying as Jews.
Hava Israel:
“To me, it’s a collection of family stories, a kind of early constitution that has layers and layers of ammendments that has kept it ‘living’ for generations and a deeply profound mystical text, so I do find it offensive when someone states that YHVH (or Allah, for that matter) ‘isn’t God’. It’s simply disrespectful and ignorant of other peoples traditions and it doesn’t strike me as being much more enlightened than Dobson’s view.”
I’d be careful on this subject, since this is exactly what Gnostic Christians believe and I assume that Johnathon may be a one as well.
The Gnostic Christians of the past and present believe that YHWH/Jehovah isn’t God, but is actually the Demiurge that created an imperfect physical universe. According to their beliefs, the Demiurge arised from the Aeon Sophia, who in turn was emanated from God.
Xeno, I’m fine with someone saying that they do not accept the Books of Moses as their scripture. I personally don’t accept the New Testament as my scripture. I fail to see the difference between a Jew or an atheist discussing the Christian scriptures and Jesus in a negative way and a Gnostic Christian discussing Jewish beliefs and what is sacred to Judaism (and to many, many Christians) in a negative way. I also think that Jonathon might be surprised at how differently Jews interpret the Pentateuch from the way he learned from the Southern Baptists. He might actually agree with some of the concepts, since much of Jewish Mysticism is based in Gnostic thought. We can find ways to respect each other instead of spreading more animosity. That’s something I belief very strongly in.
Sorry, I actually did read that in the preview. Belief obviously should have been believe.
“We can find ways to respect each other instead of spreading more animosity.”
Amen