Gay/Lesbian Press Mischaracterizes My Criticism of OPUS Cartoon
June 14th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Not surprisingly, the gay press has fired back at me over my comments earlier this week in my blog post Nationally-Syndicated Cartoonist: It's Better to Have Two Moms than a Mom and a Dad, in which I criticized the OPUS Father's Day week cartoon "Davie Dinkle has two moms."
In the cartoon, which appeared in many of America's largest newspapers last Sunday, two elementary school boys discuss a classmate who is being raised by two lesbian moms. One boy says, "Makes you wonder how he'll do without a male role model in the house." Right afterwards, the drunken, idiot father angrily throws the TV out the window, yelling "Now THAT was a pitch you @$%* moron!"
I wrote:
"[Cartoonist Berkeley] Breathed's message is clear--dads are useless as role models (when they're not outright destructive), and kids have little need or use for them."
I also noted, "My commentary above should NOT be construed as a criticism of lesbians, lesbian moms or gays. As I've made clear on many occasions, I fully support the rights of gays and lesbians to live their lives as they choose. What I oppose is the idea...that kids don't need fathers, that moms are better than dads, and that having two moms is better than having a mom and a dad.)
Now the gay press--including the prominent blogs Queerty and Pam's House Blend as well as the lesbian mothers' blog Mombian--are firing back. They criticize me and conservative religious writer Jennifer Roback Morse, who had later criticized the same cartoon in a Townhall.com column. I respect Morse and her work, but her views are obviously substantially different from mine. (To pick one example, she and I clashed a few months ago over my defense of lesbian social mothers' custody rights in gay/lesbian divorces or civil union dissolutions--to learn more, click here.)
My belief is that while gays and lesbians as individuals are just as competent as parents as heterosexuals are, children need fathers and do benefit substantially from both the male and female parenting styles. When two gay men parent a child, I believe children lose something substantial from not having a mother, and when two women parent a child the child loses something substantial from not having a father.
I might have hoped that critics would deal with my argument directly. Instead, as almost always happens, they glide past my argument to find a more radical one--in this case, Morse's--and then paint me with the same broad brush. When my work is discussed on feminist sites, my critics almost always cite some stupid or misogynistic thing which some other men's issues activist wrote--and such comments are not hard to find--and link me with it.
In Cartoon Causes Controversy: Conservatives Decry "Anti-Daddy" Droll, Queerty writes:
"Conservatives have their neatly pressed panties in a twist over this Opus The Penguin cartoon. The Berkeley Breathed-penned comic appeared Sunday (aka God’s Day) and provides more fuel to the ever-raging debate over gay parenting. Rather than focusing on the alleged pros and cons of queer parents, the Right’s taking a different angle--they’re accusing Breathed of denigrating daddies...Glenn Sacks squeals, 'Breathed’s message is clear–dads are useless as role models (when they’re not outright destructive).'"
In other words, I'm an anti-gay conservative looking for a way to beat up on gays, and I used the OPUS cartoon as a way to do it. They have it almost exactly wrong. I'm not anti-gay, I'm not a conservative, and I don't like to criticize gays or gay marriage. However, I do have a major problem with the idea that fathers are useless or destructive and that kids only need mothers--an idea the OPUS cartoon clearly represents.
"));
19 queries. 0.348 seconds.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Glenn, what makes you think that they are interested in the truth? They obviously WANTED to mischaracterize you as fitting their mold of hateful-white-man, and they just picked up a tidbit that you "squealed" about and twisted it to suit their own ends.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
With gay marriage so much in the press, it's hard to think of a worse debate in which articulated views like your own would actually be heard. It's why I think that your time is best spent away from the gay/lesbian debate: that particular debate is dominated by hotheads on both sides. Can you find an issue with more exposure than gay marriage? Is anyone left who is undecided on the issue? Every hour you spend on mens' rights or fathers' rights, you bring up substantial issues that other people don't have, and you can hit the proverbial nail on its head, gaining converts, gaining airtime, which all lead to change. Those same hours, when they touch on gay rights, get you vilified by both sides, where followers are less inclined to moderation, and where most of it has been heard a million times already (even moderate voices). For the same coverage, you'd have to work ten times harder, and your message would hit already-decided ears.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Who's twisting what here? I know Berkeley Breathed routinely pushes a political agenda, but to say that Mr. Sacks and Dr. Morse aren't doing the same thing in this situation is absurd.
The angry father in the cartoon, as hundreds of emailers have undoubtedly let you know, is Steve Dallas, a character (and single father, incidentally) who has long has his fair share of personal problems. It's not as if he was created as a prototype for What's Wrong With Fathers Today. And besides, Berkeley Breathed, who is a Libertarian (read--fend for oneself, live and let live), is also a married father of two. Hardly the type of person to have a dad-bashing agenda. Not to mention that if one wanted to be a proponent of gay parenting, how could male-bashing be an adequate argument? Wouldn't that be somewhat problematic for, say, gay dads?
The trouble with what both Sacks and Morse have said is that it's obnoxiously essentialist--in order to support same-sex parental units, one must oppose heterosexual ones. You're accusing the gay activists of being knee-jerky, and yet that's exactly what you've done. The cartoon is funny because it's situationally ironic. That's what cartoonists do. And if it's trying to promote any idea at all, it's that Mom+Mom/Dad+Dad is not automatically bad, any more than Mom+Dad is automatically good. Heaven forbid.
I'd like to point out one more loophole in this proclamation that the creator of Opus is some sort of heterosexuality-hating, man-maligning extremist. (And for the record, the vitriol has come more from Dr. Morse than Mr. Sacks, although Mr. Sacks is certainly patting himself on the back for his smug appraisal of the situation.) Of all the lesbian couples I know who have children, not one of them hasn't had grandfathers and/or uncles and/or sperm donors and/or male friends--of varying sexual orientations--who spend copious time with the kids. Do you think Mary Cheney and Heather Poe's son, for instance, isn't going to have Grandpa Dick at his side instructing him in the ways of life from now until Dick breathes his last? Viewing same-sex couples as gender separatists is, again, ridiculously essentialist. Being gay doesn't mean one shuns all association with the opposite sex, and it certainly doesn't mean one flagrantly rejects all gender roles and belief in role models.
I have a father who is intelligent, strong, and loving, and without him I would not be the person I am today. I am a gay man, and though I have no interest in becoming a parent, I think all children benefit from having loving, caring men AND women in their lives. But even though I understand that, in this era of single moms and deadbeat dads and angry teenaged boys demanding paternity tests on Maury Povich, this society has its fair share of cynicism toward family units and fathers, I think this argument is ridiculous--almost to Falwellian proportions.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Clearly the gay blogs have hit the nail on the head. You are a moron for not getting the irony of the cartoon and blowing it out of proportion. IT IS A CARTOON! Why aren't you picking on Blondie for showing Dagwood the father as a lazy glutton. Or Peanuts which as I recall shows parents not at all.
It is obvious that you have never read Bloom County or Opus or you would know who the players were, and who the "father" in the cartoon is. Mr. Breathed's books are available at any book store or library. You can even get a good idea of what is going on by doing a simple Bloom County search on Yahoo! or Google.Next time you want to further some neo-con agenda item, at least have the decency to do a little homework.
You are trying to ride the coat tails of a popular cartoonist and nothing more. I think you should apologize to America for being dimwitted and failing to have sense of humor what so ever.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
What do you expect, Glenn? You're a heterosexual white male, hence you have no standing to criticize oppressed folks such as gays, women, etc. But they do have the right to criticize you , as you belong to the (perceived) group oppressing them.
I have gay friends who feel the way you do about parenting, and about joint custody, etc., but they would never voice those opinions in an open forum. Such is the hypocrisy of the gay liberal today.
June 14th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Get a sense of humor or get off the web. Now.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
[...] least two conservative writers [updated based on Sacks' statement that he doesn't consider himself a conservative], Glenn Sacks of the American Chronicle and [...]
June 15th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Lamb Cannon - I'll wait for the feminists to develop their sense of humor first.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:03 am
"Get a sense of humor or get off the web. Now."
I offer my most heartfelt single-digit solute to those who offer “It’s just fun!” as the jackboot of gender oppression grinds marriage, men, husbands, and fathers into the margins.
DanH
June 15th, 2007 at 2:13 am
I really don't have a problem with gays either but they seem to have a problem with everyone who is not on their bandwagon. They don't understand neutrality at all. Let me state for the record the most vocal opponents of our movement in Iowa have been gays. I don't know why they are against Children Need Both Parents and IowaFathers.com but it is foolish to ignore the fact they are against us. I can only guess as to why they are against us but it seems they are very liberal and don't care much for heterosexual fathers trying to see their kids. If anyone has a better idea why they continually come out against the father's movement feel free to enlighten me.
June 15th, 2007 at 4:23 am
Some people will see what they want to see rather than what is there. Sad, true ...
Some in the gay/lesbian media have a very strong anti-father attitude and it wouldn't matter what you say or how you say it, you'd still be wrong. That too is true.
Unfortunately, politics has come down to the lowest possible level of meanness.
June 15th, 2007 at 6:37 am
The gay/lesbian movement is becoming much more powerful thanks to strong political activism and recent gains by Democrats who are beholden to them. That does not mean they should make unnatural enemies though. What do they gain by making the father's movement an enemy? I understand why militant feminists and the NOW gang like to stick it to fathers whenever possible as it is in keeping with their anti-male perspective. But why do gay men go so crazy over us? If anything, they should be our natural friends since many of them have custody issues from previous relationships.
I have worked for gay bosses before and never had one situation to complain about. I have lived next to gay neighbors and found them to be fantastic neighbors. So why in the world does the political wing of the gay movement launch heat seeking missles at every opportunity at us? There is something more sinister at work to be sure. Regardless, those in their movement taking opportunity shots at those in our movement are harming themselves. Glenn Sacks has been a gay apologist if there ever was one within our movement. And this is how they reward him for his many articles sympathizing with their issues by attacking him?
Until recently I didn't have a problem with the gay lobby but unwarranted responses by that movement in my own state may make me reconsider my apathy to their cause. Thanks to their activism and antagonism I am quickly moving towards a similar view of their movement.
June 15th, 2007 at 10:38 am
It's a shame.
Essentially, the gay marriage and father's rights movements are fighting for the same thing:
Gays to be recognized as family with the person they've partnered with -- fathers to be considered family with the children they raise.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Mmmm ... Tim O'Brien, I take some exception to your comment. I do not think the parallels are there. From "...fathers to be considered family with the children they raise" excludes one of the largest, possibly THE largest, issue of fathers' rightists--- the fact that fathers are excluded from their childrens' lives, and cannot actually raise their own children. "Fathers to be considered family with the children they raise" morphs easily into feminists who sometimes fall back on "I picked a better father figure for my child than the biological one," which is downright hateful to the ears of fathers who had contributed a lot up until getting served. Equating "time spent raising" as an equivalent for family could also let teachers or other government agencies become parents.
Being a biological father, participating in a child's life, to then see your child raised by someone else without your consent and despite your willingness and ability to do a fine job, is heart-rending. Having it then thrown in your face that someone else has somehow "earned a right" to keep raising your child because you have been prevented from doing so (perhaps a restraining order, perhaps "just" a limited visitation decree), throws salt on the first wound.
That may not have been what you meant, but I see big differences between the movements, especially when reading your last statement.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I suppose I could've worded it differently.
Simply -- for fathers to be considered family with their children.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I am curious as to why you have always maintained that children need parents of both sexes. Most of the research says that it is the number of parents (2 parents vs. one parent), not the sexes of the parents that affects the adjustment of children.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Harq al-Ada, you've restricted your research to the radical faminists. Try a broader, more scientific approach and it will become clear to you and you wouldn't have embarassed yourself with your "Most of the reasearch says..." nonsense.
DanH
June 16th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Aarg al-Ada
I would have said you’ve soiled yourself peeing in the Public Information Pool with your “Most research indicates…” nonsense but I’m too classy a guy to go that low on you…
DanH
June 17th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
My contention is supported by this statement by the APA, as well as a host of other relevant organizations cited in the same document:
http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/adoption_coparenting121802.pdf
If I used radical feminists as my source, I would be saying that children are better off without a man in the home, which I am not.
I'm glad you are classy enough not to have said what you said, DanH.
June 21st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
To Harq al-Ada
Sorry for hitting "A" instead of "H" earlier. Typing and proof reading skills underperforming again. Bad fingers, bad!
One oblique five year old press release from an organization that is getting the reputation of being pushed around by minority groups is underwhelming to support your statement "Most of the research..."
I tend to belive people and what I read but my critical reasoning skills are constantly being pressed into action when dealing with family issues. Far too many don't have a brain in their head or are pushing an agenda either openly or covertly. This is a total jungle.
It's quite rare Glenn's blog talks about adoption. Wall-to-wall egos and agendas. Stay a million miles away from any discussion of adopiton from anyone in the triad or you'll greatly prefer the gas-pipe express to the Promised Land to any more of it.
DanH