Parham, Patterson Discuss Role of Women on Fox News

August 13, 2007

Ethics Daily ran my latest article today, which is entitled "Parham, Patterson Discuss Role of Women on Fox News." It covers a discussion this morning on FOX & Friends (you can watch the segment below). The wildest part comes early on as Patterson claims that he believes that it is okay for women to choose what they want to do and that he has never said that women should stay home and take care of their husband and children. In the piece I point out some of Patterson's past comments that seem to suggest otherwise. After reading through some of Patterson's statements about women, Parham's final line in today's segment seems quite appropriate: "We should not impose on women a false biblical model."

6 comments

  1. Brian,

    Perhaps it can be blamed on the lack of time in the segment, but Patterson appears open and supportive of women's roles inside and outside the home, while Parham comes across cold and rigid.

    Does he--and do you--feel a stay-home mom is a victim of some fundamentalist's false biblical model?

    That's how the segment sounds. I wouldn't be showing it off.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chuck: You are correct that it was insanely short. Also, confusion might come because I think Patterson was less than forthright about his position.

    I believe that a woman should have the choice to stay at home or not, and that it is a matter between her, God, and her family. However, I do not think Patterson actually feels that way. I do not think he truly believes in allowing choice.

    As for your take on the segment, it may be that you are reading your bias into it. Many other people are coming up with the opposite opinion; that is, that Patterson is the one who lost here (see for example here or here).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chuck6:44 PM

    Brian,

    I refer only to the Fox segment--I've not kept up with the undergraduate homemaking course stuff.

    The opinions you link seem to be directed at the whole matter, not particularly the Fox segment.

    In that segment--fair or not--Parham comes across as saying that homemakers are victims of some false biblical model. Patterson comes across supportive of your stated belief.

    Since America watches Fox, Patterson leaves the better impression--in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chuck9:56 AM

    Brian,

    Laying aside the biblical debate for the moment, let's think practical and pragmatic:

    Wouldn't women staying home rather than working be a practical, positive step toward halting the horrible global warming, oops, climate change crisis I keep hearing about? Imagine all the CO2 emissions that could be halted by reducing, say 40%, the commute traffic all across our great land--or the world for that matter!

    I expect you, Parham and others to be a bit more tolerant of Patterson's cause now that I've pointed this out to you.

    ;)

    Have a good weekend!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chuck: Thanks for the comments. As to your belief that Patterson came off better when looking just at the interview, I would disagree. Part of the issue here may be bias. For instance, research shows that people watching presidential campaign debates generally think the winner was whoever they were already supporting. You think Patterson came off better, but I and many others thought he did quite poorly.

    As for your global warming joke, I am afraid you are thinking way too much about this (but it was clever!). Of course, Patterson would never list global warming as a justification for his program.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Chuck4:34 PM

    Brian,

    I may have my opinion, but I'm a realist-pragmatist when it comes to evaluating a performance.

    I developed this from being a life-long avid Aggie supporter. Most years, I wanted my team to win, but certainly didn't watch many games expecting it to happen. Hedging is a fine art, you know!

    As for my global warming tongue-in-cheek, I dont' take it seriously at all, but it may not be too far-fetched to believe it could cause a real crisis of belief for some envirofundamentalists (my own original word).

    :)

    ReplyDelete