Cultural news – Page 20 – Warren Throckmorton

The controversy over Dr. Dobson’s Time editorial

Old news by now, there is a dust up over Dr. Dobson’s column regarding Mary Cheney and subsequent complaints by writers Dobson quotes. While not much is happening on this story in the mainstream press, blogs are all over it.

I have not looked into the matter much and am undecided how much time I am going to spend on it. It seems to me as I read the column that Dr. Dobson cites aspects of the work of these researchers but does not say they agree with his position. This happens all the time in academia. You quote people to make points with which they themselves might disagree. Data are, but how one interprets the data is another matter and certainly influenced by one’s presuppositions. First blush reaction; if I get into it more perhaps I would see it differently.

One article and discussion that I found interesting (and perhaps worth getting into) is at the website Inside Higher Ed. Many of the discussants there seem to echo my current point of view. The dialogue is spirited but on point most of the time.

One provocative comment from the Inside Higher Ed page that caught my eye was made by Stanislaus Dundon who wrote:

Using research data independently of conclusions

If Carol Gilligan has a complex argument in which the data of important distinct advantageous contributions of father and mother is somehow over-ridden by the unique advantages of same-sex or single parent homes, or at least equaled by them, let her prove that via additional data or highlighting the contrary data she has already presented. The idea of refusing to let Dobson use her data sounds a bit like the Catholic Cardinals who did not want people to look through Galileoâ€™s telescope.

Dr. Dundon is Professor Emeritus in Philosophy at California State University – Sacramento.

UPDATE: Here are two reactions from Focus on the Family that I do not think are widely circulated. The first rebuts an article from Jennifer Chrisler who was given space by Time to respond to Dr. Dobson’s earlier op-ed. The second provides supporting documentation for Dr. Dobson’s initial op-ed.

Soy boys = Gay?

Can soy formula make kids gay? A minister named Jim Rutz thinks so. In a WorldNet Daily article called, “Soy is making kids ‘gay'”, Rutz claims: “Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality.” Soy formula is the blame, says Rutz, for the “rise in homosexuality.” And here I thought it was a shortage of tennis rackets and pillows needing a beating.

I researched this a bit and found some concern about mice but no adverse effects in humans. So if preventing nelly mice is your thing, go easy on the Soy Chow. For further information about the subject, read this and this and this. The summary of the latter article from the Journal of the American Medical Association says:

Long-term Effects of Soy-Based Formula on Health

Dietary phytoestrogens, including soy isoflavones, have been shown to influence hormone-dependent states. To determine whether exposure to soy-based infant formula is associated with long-term effects on health, especially reproductive health, Strom and colleagues evaluated adults aged 20 to 34 years who had participated in controlled feeding studies during infancy. Women who had been fed soy formula as infants reported slightly longer duration of menstrual bleeding and greater discomfort with menstruation. For more than 30 other general and reproductive health outcomes, however, no statistically significant differences were observed between the group of adults who had been fed soy-based formula as infants and those who had been fed cow milk formula.

You know though, I have been eating a bunch of soy protein in my Kashi cereal lately. Colors do look a little brighter, and I don’t say “dude” as much as I used to and I even think Cher sounds better (not looks better, that would require another type of substance). Perhaps, I should have a more open mind…

Mitt or Mitt?

I don’t venture into politics much here but this story is a fascinating mix of sexuality, religion and politics. Mitt Romney is apparently putting out feelers regarding the GOP presidential campaign. The issue in blogdom is “Can a Mormon win?” Hugh Hewitt, Christian conservative who knows Romney, believes he can and is supporting him.

I think Romney will need to do something fairly quickly to be conservative enough for the Republican base if he is to be successful. With his stance in 1994 on gay rights, I think he will get a chilly reception. Will there be a winter surprise for conservatives from the Romney camp? What I mean is, will he feel the need to do something in the area of gay rights to find his inner social conservative prior to lining up serious conservative support? I doubt the Mormon issue will be as much of an issue as his potential duplicity in saying one thing while running for Senate and posturing another way when seeking the GOP nod.