That sounds bad, doesn't it? ANOTHER man? Yeah, I already know what you're thinking. But, it's meant to be tongue-n-cheek and no, don't even take that expression literally.
When I went in for an interview a while back regarding a book of mine, my gut instinct told me not to get into any discussions about politics. I came to find out that day, as usual, my gut was correct and thank God I didn't talk or debate politics during the interview.
A name the interviewer kept bringing up was that of James Dobson. She asked me if I had heard of him and I hesitated, thought for a moment, and then nodded and responded with a yes. That summed up my knowledge of the guy. I had heard his name before, but didn't know much about him. Oddly enough, I started hearing his name more and more over the following couple weeks and it always seemed to be something involving politics.
At the time, I resided in the fourth most conservative state in the country, Nebraska. The only states that were more red than the cornfield state were possibly Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. I, on the other hand, am not conservative when it comes to politics. Only once in a great while will I take what is referred to as the "conservative" position on an issue. So, when I discuss politics, especially when I lived in Nebraska, I try/-ied to watch my mouth and appear(ed) to play the devil's advocate by asking simple questions, as opposed to attacking another's position through a vulgar debate of some kind.
After some research I did on this James Dobson, I am grateful that I didn't start talking politics with my interviewer. I gave her a free signed copy of the book as a show of thanks for conducting the interview and allowing the story to be in the paper. But, I can only imagine how long it'll be until she burns that free copy.
James Dobson appears to be another Pat Robertson, just less loony with some of his statements. Either way, he's pretty extreme. When I say extreme, I mean it in reference to the political spectrum, as in EXTREME right.
Pat Robertson comes across many times as loopy. One example is when he claimed that he leg-pressed 2,000 pounds when he was a young 73. So, when I hear about Robertson or even see or listen to the guy speak, I giggle, a similar reaction to when I hear Bush speak.
But, Dobson doesn't give off that same loopy impression to me. I can't see him saying next week that he heard from God that it'll be a crazy year weather wise or that he can squat 15,246 pounds. I can't see that happening. His statements are more frightening than humorous, in my opinion.
Dobson is very much pro-life and you know what? I don't really have a problem with that, but he brings religion and The Bible into it and that, I do have a problem with. When someone takes a moral stance on an issue and strongly speaks out on it by interpreting a book that they didn't write as being the grounds to prove the issue is moral or immoral, I find it to be truly ignorant.
Dobson is also very old-fashioned when it comes to his view of a "traditional" family. He very much believes that this is a patriarchal society, that men are the superiors and women are the inferiors. He believes that no female should hold a job of authority (ex: teacher, priest, high government position, boss). If Hillary Clinton ran for president, Dobson may not support her anyway, for the fact that she's a Democrat, but, the most important issue to him would not be political affiliation; it'd be gender. Men are here to rule and women are here to support and nurture, is his logic. He doesn't speak out against interracial dating, but doesn't necessarily support the idea either. That's a very positive stance compared to his outlook on gays. He believes that homosexuality is more of a danger than terrorism. Oddly enough, he doesn't believe it (homosexuality) to be a choice, but that it can be cured. In other words, he looks at homosexuality as a curable disease. What are ways to "prevent" homosexuality, in his mind? For fathers to partake in "macho" activities with the son, right when he comes out of his mother's womb basically. Right then, it's time to start playing catch and with matchbox cars, and who knows what else. That's not even the funny theory. I've heard that one before. He also believes that at a very young age, the father should take his son into the shower with him, so that his child notices his "manhood" and therefore, knows what it is to be "masculine." Dobson isn't one to believe in divorce. He doesn't believe much in environmental laws. He's not a fan of civil liberties programs and laws. He believes that there should be more state executions. Doctor-assisted suicides should be illegal according to him. As can be expected, he thinks that religion should be infiltrated more into the public school system. He also believes that Christian teachings should be a basis for our public policy. Dobson believes in the morality of spanking and has gone off the deep end with the notion of stem-cell research, comparing it to concentration camps in Nazi Germany during World War II.
Oh boy, where do I begin? There are some things I noted above that I can understand. I can understand someone being pro-life, someone not believing in doctor-assisted suicides, someone who believes in spankings once in a while (although, I could never spank a child, but, that's just me). I can even understand how a man deeply affiliated with a religion believes that religion should play more of a part in the country's education system. I don't agree with that, but I can understand why a person in his position would believe that. But, some of his other beliefs seem to be at the deep end, so deep, that they're not visible to any species. Comparing stem-cell research to Nazi camps? Again, I can understand someone not agreeing with stem-cell research, but to compare it to Nazi camps? That's a bit EXTREME. The two beliefs that bother me the most are that of marriage and society being patriarchal and of homosexuality being a disease that can be prevented or cured. His theories for "preventing" it were, well, how do I say it? Nuts. That word about sums it up.
While the majority of women are better natural nurturers than men, there are some women who are not and there are some men that make very good stay-at-home fathers. Also, I don't see why women shouldn't have the opportunity to put their strengths and talents to use outside of the household. Women should have equal rights as men, regardless of the position (even if it's a position of authority). Why should men have the right to be president and not women? Why should men have the right to teach and not women? It sounds like Dobson has a bit of an inferiority complex, fearful of the opposite sex showing him up in one manner or another. Also, what's with that outrageous theory on preventing homosexuality in kids? By the father taking the child for showers with him, so that the child can see the adult male exposed? I'm sorry, but is that sick or is that sick? Yeah, I'm only giving one option here. How long does this go on for? What, does the father say, "Hey son, come take a shower with me, so you can see the adult manhood. I want you to observe to reinforce your masculinity, so that you're not gay."
Can you imagine if Dobson did this with his child for years?
"Come here son, let's take a shower together. I have to make sure you're not gay."
"But dad, I'm 15!"
Yeah, sick! His theory sounds even more sick than Freud's theories regarding the Oedipus and Electra complexes. It sounds like Dobson's created a complex and will probably infuse his poor son with a complex after being forced to take showers with his dad. I think Dobson's still living back in the '50's, except for that sick shower theory. I don't know what planet or era that came from.
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/dobson.html
When I went in for an interview a while back regarding a book of mine, my gut instinct told me not to get into any discussions about politics. I came to find out that day, as usual, my gut was correct and thank God I didn't talk or debate politics during the interview.
A name the interviewer kept bringing up was that of James Dobson. She asked me if I had heard of him and I hesitated, thought for a moment, and then nodded and responded with a yes. That summed up my knowledge of the guy. I had heard his name before, but didn't know much about him. Oddly enough, I started hearing his name more and more over the following couple weeks and it always seemed to be something involving politics.
At the time, I resided in the fourth most conservative state in the country, Nebraska. The only states that were more red than the cornfield state were possibly Utah, Idaho and Wyoming. I, on the other hand, am not conservative when it comes to politics. Only once in a great while will I take what is referred to as the "conservative" position on an issue. So, when I discuss politics, especially when I lived in Nebraska, I try/-ied to watch my mouth and appear(ed) to play the devil's advocate by asking simple questions, as opposed to attacking another's position through a vulgar debate of some kind.
After some research I did on this James Dobson, I am grateful that I didn't start talking politics with my interviewer. I gave her a free signed copy of the book as a show of thanks for conducting the interview and allowing the story to be in the paper. But, I can only imagine how long it'll be until she burns that free copy.
James Dobson appears to be another Pat Robertson, just less loony with some of his statements. Either way, he's pretty extreme. When I say extreme, I mean it in reference to the political spectrum, as in EXTREME right.
Pat Robertson comes across many times as loopy. One example is when he claimed that he leg-pressed 2,000 pounds when he was a young 73. So, when I hear about Robertson or even see or listen to the guy speak, I giggle, a similar reaction to when I hear Bush speak.
But, Dobson doesn't give off that same loopy impression to me. I can't see him saying next week that he heard from God that it'll be a crazy year weather wise or that he can squat 15,246 pounds. I can't see that happening. His statements are more frightening than humorous, in my opinion.
Dobson is very much pro-life and you know what? I don't really have a problem with that, but he brings religion and The Bible into it and that, I do have a problem with. When someone takes a moral stance on an issue and strongly speaks out on it by interpreting a book that they didn't write as being the grounds to prove the issue is moral or immoral, I find it to be truly ignorant.
Dobson is also very old-fashioned when it comes to his view of a "traditional" family. He very much believes that this is a patriarchal society, that men are the superiors and women are the inferiors. He believes that no female should hold a job of authority (ex: teacher, priest, high government position, boss). If Hillary Clinton ran for president, Dobson may not support her anyway, for the fact that she's a Democrat, but, the most important issue to him would not be political affiliation; it'd be gender. Men are here to rule and women are here to support and nurture, is his logic. He doesn't speak out against interracial dating, but doesn't necessarily support the idea either. That's a very positive stance compared to his outlook on gays. He believes that homosexuality is more of a danger than terrorism. Oddly enough, he doesn't believe it (homosexuality) to be a choice, but that it can be cured. In other words, he looks at homosexuality as a curable disease. What are ways to "prevent" homosexuality, in his mind? For fathers to partake in "macho" activities with the son, right when he comes out of his mother's womb basically. Right then, it's time to start playing catch and with matchbox cars, and who knows what else. That's not even the funny theory. I've heard that one before. He also believes that at a very young age, the father should take his son into the shower with him, so that his child notices his "manhood" and therefore, knows what it is to be "masculine." Dobson isn't one to believe in divorce. He doesn't believe much in environmental laws. He's not a fan of civil liberties programs and laws. He believes that there should be more state executions. Doctor-assisted suicides should be illegal according to him. As can be expected, he thinks that religion should be infiltrated more into the public school system. He also believes that Christian teachings should be a basis for our public policy. Dobson believes in the morality of spanking and has gone off the deep end with the notion of stem-cell research, comparing it to concentration camps in Nazi Germany during World War II.
Oh boy, where do I begin? There are some things I noted above that I can understand. I can understand someone being pro-life, someone not believing in doctor-assisted suicides, someone who believes in spankings once in a while (although, I could never spank a child, but, that's just me). I can even understand how a man deeply affiliated with a religion believes that religion should play more of a part in the country's education system. I don't agree with that, but I can understand why a person in his position would believe that. But, some of his other beliefs seem to be at the deep end, so deep, that they're not visible to any species. Comparing stem-cell research to Nazi camps? Again, I can understand someone not agreeing with stem-cell research, but to compare it to Nazi camps? That's a bit EXTREME. The two beliefs that bother me the most are that of marriage and society being patriarchal and of homosexuality being a disease that can be prevented or cured. His theories for "preventing" it were, well, how do I say it? Nuts. That word about sums it up.
While the majority of women are better natural nurturers than men, there are some women who are not and there are some men that make very good stay-at-home fathers. Also, I don't see why women shouldn't have the opportunity to put their strengths and talents to use outside of the household. Women should have equal rights as men, regardless of the position (even if it's a position of authority). Why should men have the right to be president and not women? Why should men have the right to teach and not women? It sounds like Dobson has a bit of an inferiority complex, fearful of the opposite sex showing him up in one manner or another. Also, what's with that outrageous theory on preventing homosexuality in kids? By the father taking the child for showers with him, so that the child can see the adult male exposed? I'm sorry, but is that sick or is that sick? Yeah, I'm only giving one option here. How long does this go on for? What, does the father say, "Hey son, come take a shower with me, so you can see the adult manhood. I want you to observe to reinforce your masculinity, so that you're not gay."
Can you imagine if Dobson did this with his child for years?
"Come here son, let's take a shower together. I have to make sure you're not gay."
"But dad, I'm 15!"
Yeah, sick! His theory sounds even more sick than Freud's theories regarding the Oedipus and Electra complexes. It sounds like Dobson's created a complex and will probably infuse his poor son with a complex after being forced to take showers with his dad. I think Dobson's still living back in the '50's, except for that sick shower theory. I don't know what planet or era that came from.
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/dobson.html
Comments
Post a Comment