Patterico's Pontifications

2/10/2005

L.A. Times Issues Correction on Dobson and SpongeBob

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 6:31 am



Responding to my recent complaint, the L.A. Times today runs the following correction:

SpongeBob — An editorial Saturday about children’s literature and cartoons erroneously stated that James Dobson of Focus on the Family declared that SpongeBob SquarePants is a homosexual sponge. Instead, in a speech last month, Dobson criticized as pro-homosexual a tolerance video featuring SpongeBob, Big Bird and others.

This was no trivial error. It formed the basis of the entire editorial, which mocked Dobson by snidely citing other “examples” of children’s characters who must be gay — like Bert and Ernie (“longtime roommates, but who really buys those twin beds?”), the Pied Piper (an “obvious pedophile”), and Peppermint Patty (“another one with evident gender issues”). These examples made sense only if Dobson had really claimed that SpongeBob was gay — a claim that Dobson never made.

The editors at The Times are entitled to criticize Dobson and his views, of course. But that criticism is legitimate only when it is based on what Dobson actually said, not what Times editors imagine he said. I’m pleased that the editors have corrected the record, but I’d be happier if they were more careful about making such reckless assertions in the first place.

UPDATE: Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and welcome to Instapundit readers. I ask anyone interested in media bias issues to consider bookmarking and/or blogrolling the main page.

UPDATE x2: Josh Marshall glibly says:

Recently, I’ve been referring to James Dobson again as a notorious SpongeBob-basher. But it’s now been brought to my attention that there is a subculture of SpongeBob-Dobson-smackdown enthusiasts who are keen on the point that Dobson never directly accused Spongebob of being a homosexual but rather accused him of promoting the gay lifestyle.

O-kay. So I’m part of a “subculture of SpongeBob-Dobson-smackdown enthusiasts.” And here I thought I was just part of a subculture of people who cared about accuracy.

As I have said before, I have never watched Dobson before and I’m not even religious. But I’m bothered by falsehoods in the media, whether the victim is a favorite of mine or not. I’ll let you read Marshall’s post yourself and see if you think he can make the same claim.

85 Responses to “L.A. Times Issues Correction on Dobson and SpongeBob”

  1. […] piece is in the final editing stages right now. (I have dropped hints about this in a few places, but nobody except for motionview ever picked up o […]

    Patterico's Pontifications » Patterico Inside the Tent (0c6a63)

  2. […] ked him for supposedly thinking SpongeBob himself was gay. The Dog Trainer had to issue a retraction (albeit one that hardly anyone other than a Patterico reade […]

    damnum absque injuria » Squarepants on Fire (38c04c)

  3. […] ked him for supposedly thinking SpongeBob himself was gay. The Dog Trainer had to issue a retraction (albeit one that hardly anyone other than a Patterico reade […]

    damnum absque injuria » Squarepants on Fire (38c04c)

  4. […] cked him for supposedly thinking SpongeBob himself was gay. The Dog Trainer had to issue a retraction (albeit one that hardly anyone other than a Patterico read […]

    damnum absque injuria » Squarepants on Fire (38c04c)

  5. […] cked him for supposedly thinking SpongeBob himself was gay. The Dog Trainer had to issue a retraction (albeit one that hardly anyone other than a Patterico read […]

    damnum absque injuria » Squarepants on Fire (38c04c)

  6. […] 7:31 pm

    There is an update (UPDATE x2) to this post about the Dobson-Spongebob correction. You won’t want […]

    Patterico's Pontifications » Josh Marshall: Patterico Part of “Subculture of SpongeBob-Dobson-Smackdown Enthusiasts” (0c6a63)

  7. You want the LAT to eliminate reckless speculation…what, and deny them their reason for being?

    Menlo Bob (639060)

  8. Patterico claims another win
    The Times critic-from-the-right takes credit for a correction the paper published today about its editorial last weekend on SpongeBob and the Focus on the the Family activist who is in a dither about tolerance of homosexuals. The “For the Record”: Sp…

    L.A. Observed (ccf68e)

  9. PATTERICO wins
    another one — this time it’s Michael Kinsley’s editorial page with egg all over its face….

    PRESTOPUNDIT (84db7a)

  10. Blogs are the wet blanket to liberals’ straw men.

    (Not that there’s anything wrong with that …)

    Wet Blanket (4bc1aa)

  11. Wow. You actually got the retraction. Next you’ll get invited to write an “Outside the Tent” piece. If that happens, you’ll know this is all an evil scheme to assimilate you (ala The Borg).

    Regret (9cd6cd)

  12. Funny you should mention that, Regret . . .

    Patterico (08c813)

  13. I thought maybe it was an inside joke.

    Xrlq (e2795d)

  14. L.A. Times Issues Correction on Dobson and SpongeBob
    L.A. Times Issues Correction on Dobson and SpongeBob

    Dummocrats.com (44ac70)

  15. Kinsley lives for the snide aside.

    Grumpy Old Man (d61a37)

  16. I have no idea who “The Borg” is, Xrlq. What I meant was, it’s funny that Regret should mention the concept of my being offered a shot at the LAT “Outside the Tent” column.

    Patterico (756436)

  17. The Borg were a villainous alien group on Star Trek the Next Generation (and the spin-offs). They assimilated their enemies by making them into cyborgs (part man, part machine). Always seemed like a vague reference to collectivists, because they were more concerned with the group than the individual.

    Pat Curley (82ec91)

  18. “The Borg? Sounds Swedish…”

    E. Nough (5970ad)

  19. The collectivist/USSR angle of the Borg seems more evident when you look at the first “let’s rescue a Borg and teach him to be human and use personal pronouns in their singular forms, when refering to himself!” episode, and see that it was aired in 1992… of course, they sent the Borg in question back to his people, and decided to use the “idea of liberty/personhood” as their method of destroying their nemesis, instead of a computer virus.

    I’m rather shocked at the content of that retraction. It almost clearly points to why it’s an important thing to correct. I’m thinking, in comparison, of the “The person referred to in the story on page 36 of last Wednesday’s Times was incorrectly given the last name of Gonzales. It should have read Erikkson” corrections, where you’re at a complete loss as to what the story was even about, let alone who Messrs. Gonzales and Erikkson were, or what either one of them was supposed to have done.

    Congratulations!

    Sarah (846998)

  20. The truth can be found here:
    The Saga of SpongeBob Squarepants

    -Dave

    The Faithful Few Weblog

    David Huntwork (087e37)

  21. I really fail to see the nontriviality here. The distinction between saying that a cartoon sponge who lives in the sea “promotes the homosexual agenda” and that a cartoon video in which said sea-dwelling sponge appears “promotes the homosexual agenda” positively embodies triviality. Absolutely equivalent levels of wingnuttery/moonbattery involved in formulating the “logic” behind both statements.

    Let’s flip it around: suppose Sandals J. Longhair of the National Association of Godless Commies came out with a press release decrying Claymation Christmas as a “transparent propaganda device intended to indoctrinate children into rigid Judaeo-Christian morality,” and the Washington Times responded with an editorial mocking Mr. Longhair for “calling Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer a propagandist.”

    Is there any substantive difference between the original statement and the hypothetical Times editorial? I would submit that no, there is not. I also somehow doubt that many righties would have their panties quite so indignantly bunched in the second situation.

    Mike C (238173)

  22. Excellent news. Yet, I wonder if they (LAT/MSM) really care, that is, coming back quietly with the correction after having screamed the “fact” to the world.

    On the other hand, you are becoming more mainstream than the old media. Congratulations on a job well done.

    Aunt Rant (0deeda)

  23. Um, Mike, read the correction again. The Times claimed that Dr Dobson had said that Spongebob was himself gay, not that Spongebob was promoting the gay agenda.

    Pat Curley (82ec91)

  24. Again, Pat, substance. I see none.

    Mike C (238173)

  25. Mike,

    I don’t get your analogy. Sorry.

    I think the significance is that everyone can laugh at some buffoon who says SpongeBob is gay. Someone who makes such a clueless statement deserves to be made a figure of fun, like Jerry Falwell with his Tinky-Winky comment. One can safely respond to such a person by simply being snide, as The Times was. Indeed, had Dobson actually accused SpongeBob of being gay, the editorial would have worked.

    As it is, we have a video supporting tolerance put out by an organization that is pushing teachers in the classroom to teach tolerance to kids. The brand of tolerance to be taught specifically includes tolerance of homosexuality. Many people, including myself, have no problem with that. But many, like Dobson, do have a problem with it, for religious reasons. It is certainly possible to disagree with Dobson’s actual view. But it is, I think, harder to dismiss this view — his actual view — as simply laughable.

    That’s my view of it, anyway.

    Patterico (756436)

  26. OT but I found a site offering primary sources on Ward Churchill
    and thought you might be interested

    http://www.pirateballerina.com/index.php

    It has primary documents and evidence organized and indexed by topic:

    1. all the pdf files from the American Indian Movement Documents on Churchill
    2. the pdf fils of academic research demonstrating academic fraud found in his research
    3. very old interviews with Churchill over his battle with AIM, his claim to Indian ancestry, his road to tenure and so forth.
    4. documentation on the professional reviews of his publications
    5. documentation on his publishers and their reputations

    The site is set up for easy access for research

    Most of it cannot be found through a google search but was accumulated by a combined research effort. Anyone wishing to use the documents for further research on Mr. Churchill may help themselves.

    Mirramele (048b9c)

  27. Law on the Edge
    War criminal Donald Rumsfeld managed to escape justice once again as Germany declines to prosecute the madman:

    KARLSRUHE, Germany (Reuters) – Germany’s federal prosecutor Thursday rejected calls to…

    Spartac.us (be1a09)

  28. Law on the Edge
    War criminal Donald Rumsfeld managed to escape justice once again as Germany declines to prosecute the madman:

    KARLSRUHE, Germany (Reuters) – Germany’s federal prosecutor Thursday rejected calls to…

    Spartac.us (be1a09)

  29. Glad that they made the correction.

    But Dobson is still homophobic and still against teaching children to respect people who are different.

    Mark J (e127df)

  30. Alright Patterico, I guess I can acknowledge your point when you put it that way. I’m still not sure it makes Dobson’s position any less mockworthy, but I suppose the nuanced view would be that there is some degree of difference between the LA Times’ interpretation and Dobson’s initial statement. I can only add that I probably would have interpreted it the same way as the Times did had I encountered that statement in raw form. I also stand by the point that both the “real” Dobsonian position and that portrayed by the editorial are equally wingnuttish.

    Mike C (238173)

  31. ‘The Times claimed that Dr Dobson had said that Spongebob was himself gay, not that Spongebob was promoting the gay agenda.’

    Apparently for some people it makes them appear as less of a buffoon to attack the idea that kids are taught tolerance.

    actus (e8ffe9)

  32. actus:

    Apparently for some people it makes them appear as less of a buffoon to attack the idea that kids are taught tolerance.

    Well, since an accusation that “Spongebob is gay” is groundless, yes, I think that’s more buffoonish. It’s opposition to tolerance plus fabricating an idea from whole cloth. There’s intolerance, and then there’s intolerance plus delusion.

    Patterico:

    Someone who makes such a clueless statement deserves to be made a figure of fun, like Jerry Falwell with his Tinky-Winky comment.

    Far be it for me to be a Falwell defender; but on this one issue I’m forced to be a Falwell defender. Though widely misreported, Mr. Falwell never said Tinky-Winky was gay. Rather, he said Tinky-Winky had been adopted as a symbol by the gay community. Now you or I may say, “So what? Why do we care that people in the gay community — gasp! — look for media figures to identify with, just like other people. Horrors!” We may not agree with Mr. Falwell that this is a big deal. But his statement itself was as factually correct as what Mr. Dobson said in regards to Spongebob and the tolerance message. At the time of the Tinky-Winky kerfluffle, I Googled for the character, and found stories at least a year earlier than Mr. Falwell’s statement, stories in which some members of the gay community had indeed adopted Tinky-Winky as one of their own.

    So by the same standards you set for Mr. Dobson, Mr. Falwell may be intolerant, but he wasn’t laughable. (In that case, at least.)

    UML Guy (ae68c6)

  33. x) Dobson thinks Sponge Bob is gay. Mock him.

    y) Dobson thinks Sponge Bob should not be used to promote the gay rights agenda. Disagree with him.

    The difference seems significant.

    Immolate (4a2eae)

  34. UML guy:

    I didn’t follow the Falwell thing closely, and I’m perfectly willing to believe that he was screwed by the mainstream media the same way Dobson has been. I still don’t care for Falwell; I find him creepy. (I have never seen or heard Dobson.)

    Patterico (756436)

  35. Well, I guess I have to defend the “wingnut” position here, sort of. Basically, as a father and husband of Spongebob aficionados and having enjoyed the show myself, it basically pisses me off when Spongebob, or Arthur, or whatever cartoon character, steps OUT of character to push an agenda, regardless of its worthiness. I’m perfectly willing to tolerate homosexuals. But it irks me no end that my 6 year old’s cartoon gets manipulated to enter the fray of a proposition best left out of the propaganda organs of our state financed monopoly school system. I’d be irked as well if Spongebob came out in favor of supporting the Iraqi people in their struggle for freedom. Even though, Who could be against that?

    Lloyd (3b5bd4)

  36. Immolate:

    No, we still ought to mock Dobson and the other radical clerics who think showing children cartoons about tolerance and against hate is a deplora ble thing.

    actus (e137d7)

  37. ‘it basically pisses me off when Spongebob, or Arthur, or whatever cartoon character, steps OUT of character to push an agenda, regardless of its worthiness.’

    Like when they step out of character to endorse some fast food product?

    actus (e137d7)

  38. Should cartoon characters be able to promote a homosexual agenda? Sure, it’s a free country. They can promote homosexuality, heterosexuality, asexuality, autosexuality, you name it. And anyone who wants to is free to criticize or boycott any or all of the above.

    Of course all this is beside the point, because of course SpongeBob promotes nothing but silliness.

    TallDave (e6a6c1)

  39. Actus,

    By your logic, aren’t you being intolerant of Dobson?

    TallDave (e6a6c1)

  40. Actus,

    Also, you are promoting hatred of Dobson. Isn’t that deplorable?

    TallDave (e6a6c1)

  41. Mike C: I think a more relevent analogy might be if the NRA produced a pro-handgun video that included Bugs Bunny and an anti-gun activist felt it was inappropriate to use a popular cartoon character for such advocacy. It would be inaccurate and dishonest for someone to then write an editorial saying the activist claimed Bugs Bunny was a gun-toting gangster.

    submandave (9ae3af)

  42. ‘Also, you are promoting hatred of Dobson. Isn’t that deplorable? ‘
    ‘By your logic, aren’t you being intolerant of Dobson?’

    The very definition of tolerance education is that we deplore the radical clerics who would halt the message of tolerance. You’re welcome to try and descend into the swamp of moral equivalence, but it won’t change the fact of who is trying to spread tolerance and understanding and who is trying to halt it by attacking cartoon characters.

    Of course we all understand where Dobson is coming from, and of course we should all be aware that he doesn’t actually think spongebob is guy. None of that changes the fact that his goal is to prevent children from learning lessons against hate.

    actus (e137d7)

  43. LA TIMES ISSUES CORRECTION ON SPONGE BOB AND JAMES DOBSON
    Patterico has the details: SpongeBob — An editorial Saturday about children’s literature and cartoons erroneously stated that James Dobson of Focus on the Family declared that SpongeBob SquarePants is a homosexual sponge. Instead, in a speech last mont…

    JunkYardBlog (ccf68e)

  44. “Like when they step out of character to endorse some fast food product?”

    Though I’m not necessarily a fan of such promotions, there is a significant difference between selling junk food and pushing a controversial ideological agenda on 6 year olds. At that age children are not able to really make distinctions between what is an opinion and what is a fact. Shoving gay rights (or any other ideology) on them is far more a case of “conditioning” them than debating a topic.

    Using a character that they enjoy as entertainment and have him turn to them and say “<x agenda> is great!” is a shady tactic at best.

    I’m all for the war in Iraq, but I would be no more easy with this kind of thing if Bert and Ernie came on the TV in fatigues and said “Yay Iraq! Go Bush!”

    Strider (95eb36)

  45. RE: #33

    Great analogy. Bugs Bunny (hypothetically) promoting the NRA is a good comparison, and a good illustration of my comment above (#35)

    Strider (95eb36)

  46. Actus,

    Dobson doesn’t “think showing children cartoons about tolerance and against hate is a deplorable thing”. He thinks that using Spongebob in a cartoon as a way of convincing our children that homosexuality is an acceptable ‘lifestyle’ rather than a perversion is a deplorable thing. While I disagree with him regarding the significance that his religious beliefs place on homosexuality, his views are consistent with both his other views and with the scripture, so I wouldn’t afix a ‘loony’ or ‘moonbat’ label to him. His religion is mainstream and his interpretation of it is both reasonable and reasonably restrained.

    It helps in the realm of discussion if we can at least assign similar meanings to the same terms. Trying to cast Dobson as ‘fringe’ or ‘radical’ by misrepresenting his views is a direct and unmitigated assassination attempt on his credibility. You trying to do the same using what he actually said doesn’t meet my standard of correctness. In other words, it doesn’t ring true.

    I think that when you use the term ‘radical’ that the person to whom you are referring should meet a much higher level of criteria than Dobson meets. Perhaps if he said that homosexuals should be killed for the transgression of practicing homosexuality then we could agree his views were radical.

    Immolate (4a2eae)

  47. ‘Shoving gay rights (or any other ideology) on them is far more a case of “conditioning” them than debating a topic.’

    Who is shoving anything in a general message about tolerance?

    ‘Using a character that they enjoy as entertainment and have him turn to them and say “ is great!” is a shady tactic at best.’

    True, but irrelvant, as that doesn’t happen in the video.

    ‘He thinks that using Spongebob in a cartoon as a way of convincing our children that homosexuality is an acceptable â€lifestyle’ rather than a perversion is a deplorable thing.’

    Did the cartoon even mention homosexuals? No. Is that good enough for Dobson? no. He has to bring up evil ‘agendas’ and lifestyles which aren’t even in the cartoon for him to back up his attacks.

    ‘Trying to cast Dobson as â€fringe’ or â€radical’ by misrepresenting his views is a direct and unmitigated assassination attempt on his credibility’

    Then tell me more about the content of the cartoon, Oh representer of what is true.

    actus (e137d7)

  48. It bugs me that people love to pontificate upon issues on which they don’t have a clue. Dobson’s complaint had nothing to do with the “We Are Family” video, but a written pledge associated with the video that kids are asked to sign. Among the things they are asked to tolerate are the words “sexual identity.” Dobson’s first complaint was that it was totally age-inappropriate. What on earth are 6 & 7 year-olds even being introduced to such subject matters?.

    It should be noted that tolerance, just like most words, is a double-edged sword. The German people, for the most part, tolerated the holocaust. Tolerance is good only if what is being tolerated is good. I am not, however, placing a value on this particular subject.

    I would also suggest that anyone who believes that campaigns such as this one are limited to just teaching tolerance are quite nieve. The intent isn’t just to teach that we should treat homosexuals with respect, something Dobson wouldn’t disagree with, but that we should consider homosexuality as morally neutral, and thus perfectly normal.

    Reasonable people can disagree on this point, but I would suggest that national polls on the subject of gay marriage suggest that Mr. Dobson is quite in the mainstream of public opinion. And thus not extreme or fringe.

    Robert F. (c69ac8)

  49. ‘The German people, for the most part, tolerated the holocaust.’

    I don’t think its too uncomplicated to say that the holocaust was an intolerant period.

    ‘Reasonable people can disagree on this point, but I would suggest that national polls on the subject of gay marriage suggest that Mr. Dobson is quite in the mainstream of public opinion. ‘

    The national polls say that there is majority support for marriage or civil union rights — ie, normalization, of gay couples. So we see where the radical clerics stand on that.

    actus (e137d7)

  50. “Dobson’s complaint had nothing to do with the “We Are Family” video, but a written pledge associated with the video that kids are asked to sign. Among the things they are asked to tolerate are the words “sexual identity.” Dobson’s first complaint was that it was totally age-inappropriate. What on earth are 6 & 7 year-olds even being introduced to such subject matters?.”

    I was going to say that I understand that parents want their children to grow gradually into sexual maturity slowly. Then I realized that parents don’t want their children become mature sexually at all.

    Like it or not, children are not sexless Barbie dolls with no anatomy. While I agree that children that young should should not be given sex education, you are failing as a parent if you pretend that their sexual identity just doesn’t exist. Children are not sexless lumps of clay and they are aware of such things as differences in gender and behavior. And as most gay and lesbian people will tell you, they were often aware they were different from an even earlier age than 6 or 7. Besides which, when did YOU decide to become a heterosexual? Can you name the exact date or at least year? Or is it something you were always aware of, even at a very young age but didn’t understand fully?

    Incidentally, whether someone steps on Spongebob or not, or whether you follow Dr. Dobson’s advice or not, there will still be gay and lesbian children running around of that age and younger. Other than practicing infanticide, there is little you or anyone else can do to change that fact. If a few thousand years of social pressure and sanctions haven’t prevented it, how do you think you going to accomplish it? And they are going to be meeting your children. How will you have taught them to treat each other?

    Patrick (bfa195)

  51. His point wasn’t to prevent it, but that as a parent, he would prefer that his children (who i assume he knows better than you do) aren’t ready for that. Or even if they are, he would prefer to handle the situation as a FATHER instead of having some teacher cram it down his kids neck.

    For me, there needs to me more of an emphasis placed on parental responsibility. Seems to me Robert gets it.

    R2.5 Rider (4819eb)

  52. I don’t disagree with your larger point, but it’s not entirely true that Focus on the Family has never made the “Spongebob is Gay” argument. Take this, for example, from their review of the Spongebob Squarepants Movie:

    It’s obvious, though I’m loath to write it, that The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie doesn’t just allude to the building mystery surrounding its characters’ sexuality (see the Conclusion for more on this), it repeatedly plays with it. It revels in adult-minded asides that fly right over kids’ heads and straight into the disbelieving stares of parents.

    “Is it just me, or do SpongeBob and Patrick act even more immature and effeminate than ever before?” asks Christianity Today movie critic Russ Breimeier. “I had to shake my head in disbelief at the site of Patrick in thigh-high leather boots and fishnet stockings—I squid you not. Do not take your kids to this if you felt that Shrek 2 was inappropriate.” Lawrence Toppman, in the Charlotte Observer, noted the peculiarities by quipping, “It took some guts to make Bob and Pat so apparently gay.”

    Not that nods to sexual uncertainty are the only trouble spots for parents to consider before allowing little ones to cozy up to Bikini Bottom. For kids, The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie presents a level of cartoon violence that, while now all-too routine, is still influential, and needs to be addressed if your family sees this flick. Will your child laugh as Plankton shrieks in pain when he’s repeatedly squashed? The answer is telling, and should guide what kind of conversation happens afterwards.

    Fred (8fa39f)

  53. ‘His point wasn’t to prevent it, but that as a parent, he would prefer that his children (who i assume he knows better than you do) aren’t ready for that.’

    Did his children watch the video?

    actus (e137d7)

  54. Aaaahh, I love Peppermint Patty, but even Marci called her “Sir”. I always thought it was a sly poke to have Marci have the hots for Charlie Brown. I’m not sure what Patty was thinking about “Chuck”. It is the oddest love triangle. What was Shultz thinking?

    Paul A. Gaddis (4f2c1e)

  55. To actus:

    My point about the word “tolerance” was pretty simple. Do you disagree or are you confused? Your response at best was a non-sequitor. At worst – dumb.

    If the majority of Americans are opposed to traditional marriage for gays, but in favor of civil marriage, wouldn’t that imply that they consider homosexuality different than, rather than equal to, heterosexuality? Just asking.

    By the way, your tendency to refer to anyone with a religious viewpoint as being a “radical cleric” is cute. Stupid, but cute.

    To Patrick:

    I do happen to have a 15 year-old daughter and I have no problem with her achieving sexual maturity. When she is 35. After 10 years in a convent. Isn’t that reasonable?

    By the way, if anyone is interested, I do movie reviews
    here
    .

    Robert F. (cbea55)

  56. Robert F.,

    It seems a little early for me, but if you’re comfortable with it . . .

    Patterico (08c813)

  57. SPONGY APOLOGY – First Giambi now the Los Angeles Times!
    When is an apology not an apology? One way is not to tell anyone what you’re apologizing for, and the other is give it to everyone but the offended party.

    The SHEEP'S CRIB - Issues (6ed3f8)

  58. Shouldn’t this story be dead by now?

    From what I understand, the children’s version of the tolerance pledge does not include orientation. And even if it did, what would James Dobson have people do to homosexuals that he would not like them to do to, say, Satanists (people whose beliefs are different) or Islamic fundamentalists (people whose culture is different)? It’s OK to be intolerant of certain sexual identities in a way that it is not acceptable to be intolerant of certain beliefs or cultures? The religious right really is singling out homosexuals for ‘special treatment.’

    As for ridiculing Dobson, anyone who gets het up about cartoon characters’ endorsing this, that or the other is worthy of mockery. Speaking of Bugs Bunny, he endorses xenophobia in the old WWII propaganda videos. Somehow, I manage to direct any annoyance I feel toward the people who came up with the message, not toward Bugs.

    PG (13d404)

  59. And your evidence that Dobson directed his annoyance at SpongeBob is what, PG?

    Patterico (756436)

  60. ‘My point about the word “tolerance” was pretty simple. Do you disagree or are you confused? Your response at best was a non-sequitor. At worst – dumb.’

    I do disagree. I think you and I know that its overall incorrect to refer to the Nazi period as a tolerant period in germany. And its in that sense of tolerance that people are working for with videos like ‘we are family.’ Not in the sense of ‘tolerate the intolerant’.

    actus (e8ffe9)

  61. If allowing parents to be notified that their 6-7 year olds are being taught about “sexual identity” constitutes “tolerating the intolerant,” then dammit, maybe you should be a bit more tolerant of those who you label as intolerant. Assuming, of course, that your real agenda is in fact to promote anything resembling tolerance (as opposed to, say, irony).

    Xrlq (c51d0d)

  62. ‘“tolerating the intolerant,” ‘

    Notice is dobson’s problem? Ok, lets have notice: Warning, this video teaches your kids that we are family in a way that focus on the family is clearly not about family. The video didn’t mention sexual identity. A website did. Thats what dobson’s original complaint was about.

    According to a report in rocky mountain news, dobson was worried that spongebob may be used to ‘promote normalization of homosexuality’. You know. the kind of ‘normalization’ were we tell kids that gay bashing is wrong. The kind of tolerance that tells us to, well, tolerate rather than oppress homosexuals.

    One day these people are going to be seen just like george wallace is today.

    actus (ebc508)

  63. OK, I see. Anyone who doesn’t want his kid taught that gender is a social construct is no different than a guy who wants to keep black kids out. Meanwhile, anyone who tries to sneak that agenda in and later covers his tracks to pretend he didn’t is Rosa Parks and MLK rolled into one. Got it.

    On the off-chance that Dr. Dobson or any other religious leader is reading this thread, I have a theological question. If God is really all-powerful, can he make an analogy so bad even Actus won’t make it?

    Xrlq (c51d0d)

  64. Squarepants on Fire
    Much has been made of James Dobson’s comments about SpongeBob and the We Are Family Foundation. The media and much of the blogosphere (including me, I blush to admit) mocked him for supposedly thinking SpongeBob himself was gay. The Dog Trainer had t…

    damnum absque injuria (38c04c)

  65. ‘OK, I see. Anyone who doesn’t want his kid taught that gender is a social construct is no different than a guy who wants to keep black kids out’

    Anyone who thinks homophobia is nonsense is just like the apologists for the terror of jim crow, who excused violence as a just and deserved backlash against the ‘uppity’ who dared to question a ‘peaceful’ social order.

    actus (ebc508)

  66. I take it that means no.

    Xrlq (c51d0d)

  67. ‘I take it that means no. ‘

    Of course it does. We can’t expect Dobson to get into the differences between gender and sex.

    I wonder how Dobson feels about keeping gay kids and gay kids’ clubs in school, or what kind of counseling should be available to kids who are victims of gay bashing.

    actus (e8ffe9)

  68. Xrlq: It is completely irresponsible to suggest that the issue is as simple as people being opposed to the teaching of ‘sexual identity.’ The problem, as any actual gay person will tell you, is this:

    Gay students get verbally and physically assaulted in droves compared to the rest of us. Parents and many churches are great at teaching that homosexuality is wrong, but not so much at teaching that it’s NEVER ok to attack or harass gay people. Consequently, gay teens suffer much verbal and physical harassment at the hands of their peers, and have far higher rates depression and suicide than the rest of us as a result. I tend to believe that if anti-alternative lifestyle adults (or whatever you want to be called, instead of “homophobic” or “anti-gay”) were honest with themselves, they would already accept this to be true.

    This may come as a complete shock to you, Xrlq, but believe it or not, there are actual safety issues involved here–it’s not simply shrill, mandatory leftwing indoctrination of the gay agenda!

    Of course, if parents were willing to take some responsibility for their kid’s actions and actually teach their kids love, compassion, and respect for others, none of this would even be an issue, as gay kids would otherwise be left alone, instead of inordinantly burdened and stigmatized by everybody else on the playground.

    Tom (4a3c50)

  69. Actus: I can’t wait to hear what you think the difference is between “gender” (as applied to the sexes, as opposed to, say, grammatical genders) and “sex” (as applied to male vs. female, as opposed to, say, nookie). There is none.

    Tom: meanwhile, perhaps you can explain why you think gay bashing poses such an “imminent” threat as to require the indoctrination of prepubescent kids without their parents’ knowledge and consent. Then you can explain what that has to do with lying to kids and telling them their sex/gender is a cultural construct, and then lying to the public about the fact that this was ever part of one’s agenda in the first place.

    Xrlq (c51d0d)

  70. Xrlq, regarding the difference between gender and sex: None? That’s your opinion. If you delve a bit into gender identity politics, you’ll quickly learn that the working definition of “gender” is the natural-born gender one possesses as he/she becomes self-aware of it, while “sex” merely refers to parts, nothing more. There IS a difference. (If this isn’t a valid definition to you, well, at least you’ll understand where the disagreement lies.)

    As to your bizarre accusations about all the “lying” about the “agenda” of “indoctrination,” well, it’s too bad that you can only frame things in a good/evil perspective, with the assumption that if you don’t presently understand the nuances of an opposing position, then it must be a deliberate falsehood. That’s the way of the angry pundits, not thoughtful people engaging in constructive political dialogue. I’m not impugning your motivations for your beliefs, nor your methodology in working for them, and it’d be nice if you could show the same courtesy–especially in an anonymous forum where our online personas are all we’ve got.

    To reiterate: this is a safety issue. Would you feel safe if you thought you could be gay? How would your family and friends treat you? What about other students, if you were at school? By the way, one of the kids I know who got the most anti-gay harassment back in high school was a somewhat dorky conservative kid, who dressed pretty…well, gay. Having protections against harassment because of sexual orientation are not part of some “agenda” other than to ensure that kids know that they can’t harass people and get away with it.

    At the very least, it would be marvelous if you didn’t constantly make the assumption that the people opposing you are acting in bad faith.

    P.S. You responded as if I didn’t cite a study on the physical and emotional effects of anti-gay discrimination at schools. I did. So we can stop dancing around the real issue at stake, here’s a simple, honest question: are you willing to agree with me that gay youth in general face more verbal and physical harassment on campus than do their hetero peers? I will postulate that this goes across ethnic and socio-economic lines, that is, black gay kids usually face more harassment than straight black kids, etc.

    Tom (301b86)

  71. ‘Actus: I can’t wait to hear what you think the difference is between “gender” (as applied to the sexes, as opposed to, say, grammatical genders) and “sex” (as applied to male vs. female, as opposed to, say, nookie). There is none.’

    Looks like you didn’t get the benefit of the lesson plan. I think the rough outline is that sex is you physical features while gender is in the mind.

    Oh, and why this focus on ‘imminent threat’ and ‘indoctrination’? no need to throw hissy fits. We’re just trying to get people to stop gay bashing, by telling them some nice stories of tolerance.

    actus (e8ffe9)

  72. Tom, I think any agenda as far out there as “gender is a social construct” borders on lying, and when pushed without parents’ knowledge or consent, it pushes it to the limit. Where it clearly passes the limit is when the head of the organization appears on national television denying the group had any agenda at all having to do with gay rights, and then attempts to cover its tracks by deleting all of the files on its server that prove that it does. If they had come back with an honest, stand-up defense of what they had promoted, I wouldn’t be calling them liars. But given that they have unambiguously lied about their agenda after the fact, I’m not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt about what came before.

    I don’t doubt that kids suspected to be gay are likely to get beat up more often than kids not suspected to be gay, all other things being equal. The reason I didn’t respond to your hyperbole on that subject before is because it has nothing to do with the portions of the agenda Dobson et al. are objecting to.

    Actus, there is no “benefit” to a lesson plan that teaches that “gender” (presumably everything about the sexes beyond genitalia) is all in your mind. That is an extremely whacked ideology that destroyed David Reimer’s life when put into practice, and should not be taught as fact (or, for that matter, even as a scientifically viable theory) in any classrooms today. If such a goofy ideology is going to be considered at all, it should at least be subject to an open debate, not smuggled into some general curriculum that purports only to advocate tolerance.

    Xrlq (c51d0d)

  73. ‘Actus, there is no “benefit” to a lesson plan that teaches that “gender” (presumably everything about the sexes beyond genitalia) is all in your mind’

    Please don’t take my rough sketch as determinative. ‘all in your mind’ is, now that i see it, quite misleading. Socially created things still have very strong social force. More accurate would be to tell us that its all in our collective minds. Of course the clear benefit of such a lesson plan is to get us to try to understand and challenge improper gender roles or stereotyping.

    The tale of David is as sad as those of others who go through gay ‘conversion’ programs. Gender is a social construct, which doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to force a child into a particular gender.

    actus (ebc508)

  74. “Improper” according to whom? The “Tolerance” Police?

    If gender were a mere social construct, David Reimer would have done fine as a girl. His parents never told him he was a boy, nor did anyone around him have reason to suspect it, so any constructs that were either “all in his mind” or “all in society’s collective mind” should not have affected him. Everyone’s collective mind had him pegged as a girl. The only problem is that he wasn’t one.

    Xrlq (6c76c4)

  75. ‘“Improper” according to whom? The “Tolerance” Police?’

    Improper among the people who think barbie saying ‘math is hard, lets go shopping’ isn’t very good for the development of young girls into adults.

    ‘Everyone’s collective mind had him pegged as a girl.’

    And they were also pumping him full of hormones. There was more than ‘all in the mind’ going on here. There were physical changes that impact someone’s mental health being forced upon the guy. I don’t thikn its accurate to say people treated him like a girl — the article mentions that his appearance was male.

    I think you’ll find that the ‘tolerance police’ doesn’t want people pumped full of hormones in order to satisfy their parent’s views of what sexuality that person ought to have.

    The fact that gender is a social construct doesn’t lead to the idea that I can all of a sudden choose to be just like the woman sitting across the table from me.

    actus (ebc508)

  76. I disagree that gender is a social construct–how we’re supposed to act as members of a given gender, that’s the social construct. For example, the idea that men are better at math than women, and that women are better around the house: social construct.

    The David Reimer story, with which I’m already well familiar, is proof to me that gender exists in the mind, independently of what the body parts are. Usually, thank God, our genders and sexes are lined up just fine. But this is not the case for everyone, and they know who they are. Who is anybody else to determine that for anyone else?

    (Incidentally, this is where I depart from the non-believers: I don’t believe that it is up to me to determine the validity of someone else’s gender–as with homosexuality, why in the world should I disbelieve what so many others truly purport to be, just because I’m not that way? It would be completely out of line for me to tell someone else that how they feel isn’t true. Anyway.)

    Xrlq, if you’re willing to concede with the David Reimer story that sometimes people have fixed genders that are different from whatever their body parts happen to be, surely you’ll understand that when people are born with different body parts than their minds tell them are right, it is necessary for them to transition. I’m certainly not in a position to judge whether people should do this or not–but if someone wants to because they believe that’s who they are, why should they be subjected to ridicule, harassment and assault simply because you’re opposed to your kids learning that transgendered people exist? Explain that one to me, if you would please.

    The same goes for gay and lesbian people. Why should they be subject to a more physically unsafe environment simply because you’d rather your kids not have to learn about gay people?

    Tom (fc1352)

  77. Buster the Bunny and Spongebob
    The LA Times has issued a correction of their claim that Dr. James Dobson said “Spongebob was gay” but 45 PBS stations are planning to run the controversial Buster the Bunny “lesbian episode”….

    The National Debate (d85b52)

  78. Actus, if it were a “fact” that gender is a social construct then we probably wouldn’t be arguing about it, would we? Reimer was pumped up with hormones, sure, but only the same ones a girl would have pumped herself up with naturally. I also think it’s a bit of a reach to assume that men being better at math than women (or even more likely to be interested in the subject at all) is purely a social construct. Sure, there are women who are extremely good at math, and there are men who suck big rocks at it, but we’re talking about the overall distribution curve, not any particular individual. That split along sex/”gender” lines is far from 50-50, and it’s not because every little girl’s Barbie doll told her math was hard (though it obviously doesn’t help). Quite the contrary: Barbie says math is hard because so many girls think it is, and feel better after hearing someone else say so. Even if were to assume men’s comparative advantage in math, women’s in foreign language, or any of the other differences in aptitudes were all the result of social constructs, this still would not justify defining “gender” itself that way. I’m multilingual myself, demonstrating a skill that is more closely associated with women than men, but it never occured to me or anyone I know to associate that with being any less male/masculine/whatever than a man who doesn’t speak a foreign language.

    Tom, transgenders only make my point even further. No social construct would ever given any individual the idea that he/she is an XX trapped in an XY’s body, or vice-versa. That such a thing happens – ever – is pretty strong proof that one’s gender identity is NOT a social construct, but an integral part of who the individual is from birth. If gender confusion truly did arise as a result of some kink in a social construct, the solution would be psychological counseling, not surgery would never be appropriate (which I do believe is the case, sometimes).

    The physical safety non-argument is a red herring and will not be debated further. No one is objecting to a school lesson discouraging kids from beating up other kids, whether it is for their suspected gayness (whatever the hell that even means for a prepubescent kid) or for any other reason. The reason for this controversy is that the lessons in question go far, far beyond that.

    Xrlq (ffb240)

  79. Actus, I really don’t believe that gender is a social construct. I think Xrlq’s point about David Reimer illustrates why not perfectly: why would Reimer or anybody else believe him/herself to be in the wrong body if gender was purely socially nurtured?

    I do however believe that our ideas of what constitutes masculine and feminine behavior are largely (though not entirely) social constructs. I don’t buy the math thing. Sorry. But I’m willing to concede that certain behaviors, such as sexual desires/agressiveness, even-temperedness and so forth tend to vary depending on testosterone/estrogen levels.

    Xrlq, it’s a surprising pleasure to finally find some common ground with you, on not only one but two separate things! (Somebody check the weather in Hell!) I’m glad you agree that kids need to be taught that beating up gay people isn’t ok. Unfortunately, groups ranging in scope from Dodson’s Focus on the Family to members of my hometown schoolboard actually oppose things as benign as signs on the wall that say the same. Case in point: they are opposed to the inclusion of the words “sexual orientation” in anti-discrimination rules and/or laws, making the absurd case that to do so would provide homosexuals with “special rights.” They do this willfully (and I argue irresponsibly), ignoring the safety issue–which, like it or not, is not a “red herring” in the life of a gay teenager.

    As a final Post Script, why is it easier for you to accept that people could be born in the wrong body as far as gender is concerned, but not be born gay? I’m not trying to bait you here, I’ve honestly never encountered anybody who believed in the validity of transgendered people but not gay people…just asking.

    Tom (f861e4)

  80. I think part of the problem is that X, and perhaps because I haven’t been clear, keeps thinking that ‘gender is a social construct’ means we can make a man out of a woman, and vice versa. It doesn’t. David was being made into a third gender, against his wishes, and clearly against the wishes of society. Gender is more associated with sexual identity and sexual roles. And that is socially constructed, which does not mean that the individual has no inputs into it. The lesson is that we ought to be doing less david type stuff. Less telling people how to behave in order to shape them into a particular social role.

    Oh and X, please try not to be so obtuse. David had male and female hormones in him.

    As to why debate this, here is a clear benefit. We otherwise wouldn’t hear such brilliances: ‘Quite the contrary: Barbie says math is hard because so many girls think it is, and feel better after hearing someone else say so.’

    As to the red herring, I think tom handled it well. I’ll add that the link X provided has Dobson adding ‘homophobia’ to his list of ‘nonsenses.’ Sometimes with kids you have to tell them that its not ok to hate or pick on people based on sexual identity.

    actus (e8ffe9)

  81. Tom, I never said people aren’t born gay, nor do I believe it. I think it may be a learned trait for some, but is immutable for most.

    Xrlq (c51d0d)

  82. Xrlq, don’t you think you’ve taken enough wind out of my sails as it is? Stop saying things I agree with, dammit! This is freaking me out!
    ————

    P.S. Nice blog–which brings us to another point of common ground: the idiocy of Alan Keyes. Amen, brother.

    Tom (301b86)

  83. OK, Tom, just one more thing: I’m a Democrat.

    Kidding!

    Xrlq (6c76c4)

  84. Spongebob is gay!He should be out of television,Im not that religious,but he is gay,look at the way he walks,his voice,and his friend Patrick!

    Lan (390886)

  85. I agree with Mike C. He has it on the button.

    “I really fail to see the nontriviality here. The distinction between saying that a cartoon sponge who lives in the sea “promotes the homosexual agenda” and that a cartoon video in which said sea-dwelling sponge appears “promotes the homosexual agenda” positively embodies triviality. Absolutely equivalent levels of wingnuttery/moonbattery involved in formulating the “logic” behind both statements.

    Let’s flip it around: suppose Sandals J. Longhair of the National Association of Godless Commies came out with a press release decrying Claymation Christmas as a “transparent propaganda device intended to indoctrinate children into rigid Judaeo-Christian morality,” and the Washington Times responded with an editorial mocking Mr. Longhair for “calling Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer a propagandist.”

    Is there any substantive difference between the original statement and the hypothetical Times editorial? I would submit that no, there is not. I also somehow doubt that many righties would have their panties quite so indignantly bunched in the second situation.

    Comment by Mike C — 2/10/2005 @ 9:38 pm”

    Trivia is right. Rightwingers are always trying to wriggle out of what they say – and what they MEAN – by making small differentials… “ah yes but I didn’t SAY THAT but this…”

    I’m sure they did it in the American South over black voting all the time.

    Most rightists are too FRAIDYCAT to come out with what they really mean nowadays anyway, because of political correctness. But public figures still manage to be so BIGOTED with regard to ONE OR TWO disparaged groups in the States today – gays, illegal aliens. They would never DARE do the same openly with blacks, for instance.

    Wikipedia should get itself better editors – something I’ve thought for a long time. I’d like to post Mike’s comment there but I bet it’d get deleted.

    Liz (49d431)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1072 secs.