Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Miami New Times, the outlet that broke the story about George Rekers and his Rentboy escort, has a new article looking at the kind of "therapy" Rekers has in the past used on kids who didn't conform to the gender expectations of their parents or society. And this is way more disturbing than the mere hypocrisy he is guilty of.
Rekers has a PhD in developmental psychology and he has run various clinics and research projects to "treat" those who -- gasp! -- might be gay. To give you an idea of the kind of damage he has inflicted on children and families, read this description of his methods:
In 1974, Rekers, a leading thinker in the so-called ex-gay movement, was presented with a 4-year-old "effeminate boy" named Kraig, whose parents had enrolled him in the program. Rekers put Kraig in a "play-observation room" with his mother, who was equipped with a listening device. When the boy played with girly toys, the doctors instructed her to avert her eyes from the child.According to a 2001 account in Brain, Child Magazine, "On one such occasion, his distress was such that he began to scream, but his mother just looked away. His anxiety increased, and he did whatever he could to get her to respond to him... Kraig became so hysterical, and his mother so uncomfortable, that one of the clinicians had to enter and take Kraig, screaming, from the room."
Rekers's research team continued the experiment in the family's home. Kraig received red chips for feminine behavior and blue chips for masculine behavior. The blue chips could be cashed in for candy or television time. The red chips earned him a "swat" or spanking from his father. Researchers periodically entered the family's home to ensure proper implementation of the reward-punishment system.
After two years, the boy supposedly manned up. Over the decades, Rekers, who ran countless similar experiments, held Kraig up as "the poster boy for behavioral treatment of boyhood effeminacy."
At age 18, shamed by his childhood diagnosis and treatment, Rekers's poster boy attempted suicide, according to Gender Shock, a book by journalist Phyllis Burke. Rekers, whose early experiments were the first to ostensibly demonstrate a "gay cure," resigned from the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) last week, after it was revealed the gay escort had given him nude sexual massages. NARTH, however, stands by his science.
That makes me so angry that my hands are shaking as I type this. The word "barbaric" keeps coming into my mind but it seems not nearly strong enough to convey how appalling this all is.
Politics
Comments
When I first read this I felt sick to my stomach, really nauseous. I know that decent people everywhere are (or should be) appalled by this but as the mother of two young boys, I simply cannot imagine how this woman could live with herself.
Posted by: mfb | May 20, 2010 9:38 AM
Awful, but not shocking, if you remember the kinds of "therapy" administered in the 19th and early 20th century for mental and behavioral "disorders". Shock, ice baths, drugs that rendered the patient comatose, "wet-packs", lobotomy, isolation treatment, methods that we would describe as torture if used on us by a foreign enemy -- all were part of the clinical bag of tricks (and some still are). Reason and rationality -- along with a good dose of accurate science about how the brain works -- have yet to penetrate the medical community in many ways. And yes, there seems to be an element of punishment in all these approaches -- it's all the patient's fault and he should suffer for it.
Posted by: ohioobserver | May 20, 2010 9:59 AM
I hope everybody is calmed down now, because you're not going to like this bit either...
According to an op-ed on the NY times web site (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/opinion/16rich.html) Rekers was paid a total of $180,000 for his 'expert' testimony in lawsuits in Florida and Arkansas.
So not only this piece of shit a lying bigoted hypocrite he's paying for male prostitutes with taxpayer money.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | May 20, 2010 10:01 AM
And here I thought that only cowboys, bikers and other macho low-lifes acted out self-loathing by treating others sadistically.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | May 20, 2010 10:09 AM
This man should be chained up and given repeated shocks until he admits he's an inhuman monster who deserves to be burned alive. And the same goes for the entire staff at NARTH who endorsed this barbaric idiocy. A swift death is too good for them.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 20, 2010 10:13 AM
Well, on the one one hand, having a two year old daughter, I can understand not rewarding "inappropriate" behavior with attention. The kids cry, but this isn't bad for them or anything. And they learn that you give them what they want if they ask for it instead of screaming or whatever. If they scream and cry and you immediately give in, they learn, hey all I have to scream to get what I want.
But, to think there is something so wrong with your child simple because they "act effeminate" that you need to take them to "therapy" is simply heartbreaking. And if that's what this boy experienced when he was 4, you can only imagine what he had to go through until he was 18.
This almost reminds me of a fascinating (and disturbing and truly heart wrenching) documentary I saw on PBS about Walter Freeman, who popularized lobotomy. Eventually, Freeman really believed that this technique was a cure for almost any psychological ailment or even behavioral problems. Some parents would even seek him out to perform the procedure on their young child, for being "disobedient".
Posted by: MyPetSlug | May 20, 2010 10:14 AM
In truth, back in 1974, naive behaviorism was in vogue and Rekers was far from the only researcher doing this sort of thing. I would wager that most clinicians believed that gender identity and sexual orientation were entirely learned via operant conditioning.
This was actually considered a more of a liberal or progressive view than a conservative view. Essentially, the theory was that gender roles, gender identity and sexual orientation were entirely shaped by the environment. The opposite view, that identity and behavior were mostly the product of genetic influences, was associated with conservatives and nativism.
John Money (at Hopkins) was at the peak of his fame and influence at this time. It’s a virtual certainty that Rekers was picking up on the methods Money was using to influence gender identity and sexual orientation. At the time, Money even blamed the political right wing for criticisms leveled at him. The right wanted to believe that we are entirely or almost entirely the product of inherited traits. This actually served as a justification for discrimination. And, just speculating, but my guess is that Rekers went into developmental psychology motivated by a need to learn how he “became gay” and how to change his sexual orientation.
When Money's patients were older, many came forward to reveal that their lives had been destroyed by his work. His most famous patient, David Reimer, had been put forward as an example of gender identity malleability. When David went public as an adult, we learned that he was seriously damaged by Money's team.
Virtually every clinician and researcher has since accepted that the allegedly progressive beliefs of the 1970s were badly mistaken and the source of great harm. It’s inconceivable that Rekers doesn’t know what happened with Money's patients, which makes his continued adherence to a discredited theory all the more disgraceful.
Posted by: Dr X | May 20, 2010 10:16 AM
I've heart about these de-gay treatments, but this is the first time I actually read some details about the methods they use. Can anybody recommend a good book about this subject?
Posted by: Roland | May 20, 2010 10:18 AM
Dr X:
David Reimer committed suicide a few years ago. He was a damaged person, indeed.
I was a gender-variant child in 1974. Reading this makes me realize how fortunate I am to have been raised by my parents, and not by people who subscribed to Rekers' thinking.
Posted by: Martin | May 20, 2010 10:23 AM
Roland @ #8:
1984 by George Orwell.
Imagine a boot stomping on a human face, forver. That is the world these sick child-abusing death cultists want. Torturing children to enforce conformity.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 20, 2010 10:24 AM
The entire concept of "reversion therapy," or even the idea that gays can (read: "should") change is fundamentally abusive. It's a rejection of a child's true nature, which is emotionally and psychologically damaging. And, of course, it doesn't work.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 20, 2010 10:38 AM
This is exactly how I am training my puppy not to chew on my pantleg.
Posted by: rob | May 20, 2010 11:00 AM
This is why I tend to bristle at the phrase, "pray the gay away." It utterly fails to capture the true vileness of most these programs. The methods utilized by folks like Rekers amounts to psychological manipulation of the worst kind, brainwashing as wicked as anything dreamed up by Anthony Burgess.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 20, 2010 11:07 AM
Yep. Cult.
Posted by: Captain Mike | May 20, 2010 11:11 AM
Wicked and vile when committed by asswipes who believe that being gay is abhorrent. How much worse it is when committed by a self-loathing homosexual like Rekers.
Posted by: MikeMa | May 20, 2010 11:32 AM
THIS is why I have little pity for Rekers right now as he endures public shaming. Emotionally abusive pseudoscience that harms children cannot be excused.
Posted by: Angie | May 20, 2010 11:40 AM
Barbarians would probably feel insulted by the comparison. Looting the towns of the ennemy, stealing their cattle, enslaving their youth, ravishing their woman... this is a barbaric behavior. Mind-raping a 4 years old kid of your own "tribe", this is the kind of sadistic fantasy produced only by "civilized" (and most definitely heterosexual) men.
I would go even farther than ohioobserver: the element of punishment is the dominant one here. It is a kafkaesque experiment, where the child is tortured for reasons he cannot comprehend, and I'd say that Reker is not only an hypocrite, but also a sadistic freak.
Posted by: Laurent Weppe | May 20, 2010 11:44 AM
#17 Laurent Weppe
"...this is the kind of sadistic fantasy produced only by
"civilized" (and most definitely heterosexual) men."
Heterosexual? Not really. They are heterosexual only on the surface. They despise themselves for homosexual feelings, for not being truly straight, and take it out on others.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | May 20, 2010 11:56 AM
@Reverend Rodney:
I was being sarcastic here.
Posted by: Laurent Weppe | May 20, 2010 12:09 PM
What, exactly, gets a FOUR-YEAR-OLD boy classified as "effeminate" in the first place? How "manly" can a boy be when he's only FOUR? What specific behavior were the parents reacting to, and what were they expecting from a boy of FOUR? That's the sickest part of this whole sick affair.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 20, 2010 12:11 PM
@ Laurent Weppe
Sorry, my bad for not thinking before speaking.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | May 20, 2010 12:40 PM
Is it wrong of me to want to beat this man and others like him within inches of their lives? Any time I hear about people mistreating children like this, it makes my blood boil...to put it lightly.
These people are fucking idiots. They're selfish assholes that don't give a shit about other human beings because they're not their little screwed up version of perfect.
My parents still believe that being gay is a taught behaviour or one learned by misinterpreting things in day-to-day life that changes the development of the brain. Since the brain has plasticity, they maintain anyone who is gay can return to the sexual orientation they had at birth (which is obviously heterosexual) because it's something akin to a developmental...something. I don't know what they would even call it.
Through similar reasoning, they never bought me most of the (affordable) toys that I wanted because they were for boys (namely legos, micro machines, transformers, and army men). When I wanted to play with x boy, they said "why don't you go over x girl's house?". Didn't want me to turn out to be a dyke or somesuch. I vaguely remember being conditioned to play with "girly" toys. By the time I was in elementary school though, it became second nature to play with dolls and the like. Even with all the steps they took to make sure I was feminine (my entire wardrobe consisted of almost nothing but dresses. And I hated dresses!!), and all the physical and psychological abuse I suffered, guess what? Still a tomboy. Still not straight.
I can't even imagine what they would have done if I was male. I'm not so sure that I'd even be alive anymore.
A big fuck you to all the vile perverts that would try to change one's gender and sexual identity. I hope you get what's coming to you. And I hope it's excruciating. I want them to suffer.
/rage
Posted by: Bethistopheles | May 20, 2010 12:44 PM
It seems to me that even if the techniques described weren't deeply traumatizing, all you'd get is a masculine "jocky" gay guy.
Posted by: JoeB | May 20, 2010 1:50 PM
JoeB, hardly. You'd end up with a "family values" Republican.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | May 20, 2010 1:53 PM
JoeB, hardly. You'd end up with a "family values" Republican.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | May 20, 2010 1:54 PM
Twice? That's too many!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | May 20, 2010 1:56 PM
A little off topic, but I was a young, single mom in the seventies. I still remember how the propaganda machine was working over time to try to drag women back into the kitchen.
Oh, I remember the way the powers that be tried to guilt us.
I left my husband as his girlfriend and I didn’t see eye-to-eye.
It was my fault I couldn’t hold my man, why didn’t I just read “The Total Woman”, and beg his forgiveness. (I won’t repeat the names I was called)
I had a son who was diagnosed with a chemical imbalance as a teen. However, his behavior as a child was attributed to “bad mom”
Rumors were still flying around that sure, you can work if you want to, but remember every household and parenting chore was still your responsibility. And if the kids get in trouble, it the fault was entirely yours for not becoming a martyr . Males weren’t expected to perform such mediocre tasks.
Anyway, I didn’t mean for this to be a rant, it’s just that I remember a time when only “bad moms” let their boys play with dolls.
Posted by: Owl700 | May 20, 2010 2:03 PM
Urge...to...kill...rising.
Four years old? Are you fucking kidding me?
My 4 year old boy likes "Dora the Explorer" so by this fucktards standards he's queer. Right. Or he has a thing for girls who can use a map.
Boys that age are total mammas boys. Of course they're gonna emulate mom. They grow out of it. Only some homophobic xtian fucktard with a one way ticket on the failtrain to sucky parenting gulch would be worried.
FUCK! NOW I HAVE TEH RAGE!!!!ONE111!
Posted by: ian | May 20, 2010 2:25 PM
So Rekers is a self-denying gay man who thinks the "cure" for gayness is being ignored by your mother.
Yeah, no mommy issues there.
Posted by: Taz | May 20, 2010 2:49 PM
On the on hand, I appreciate the outrage this is generating. On the other hand, I'm filled with the desire to point out, just WTF did you think was happening? There's a reason (largely lost) that the big parties at the end of June are called "Pride". This falls under the heading of common knowledge among those of us who survived through the 80s (and was probably endured by those born earlier).
And you do realize it's still going on. That there are still mostly unlicensed programs usually organized through religious organizations who will, for a moderate fee, haul your kid out into the wilderness and take them to the edge of death (and occasionally beyond, but that's just unfortunate and obviously God's will) in an effort to get the gay out of them. Programs for other manifestations of disobedience are also available in the same general structure of brainwashing and physical abuse.
Posted by: usagi | May 20, 2010 3:08 PM
Behavioural psychology isn't a science, it's a cult. In no other field of science, even mind-science, are proponents so hostile to any criticism, except criticism by other behaviourists saying they aren't being 'behavioural' enough in their interpretations. The idea that people actually have thoughts beyond 'X = positive consequence Y = negative consequence'.
Seeing as in most civilised places it's now realised by most that this is an abominable way to treat people for real or speculated sexuality, they're moved on to experimenting on and making money from Autistics, the mentally ill and others who are marginalised.
Posted by: Lucas | May 20, 2010 4:03 PM
The mind boggles at the idea of punishing a four year-old for not living up to some standard of manhood.
Even so, it shouldn't be anything to get bent out of shape about if he didn't. I know I consider my wife to be a wonderful person for a child to grow up emulating.
Posted by: DaveL | May 20, 2010 4:11 PM
That's probably a fair response. I don't know wtf I thought happened. I probably would have guessed it was very bad and I'm not exactly surprised, but it's still incredibly upsetting to read an account of it happening to a child. Especially because I hadn't heard the specifics before. Before today, I would have described it as cruel even without knowing the details. But now that I've read this account, "sadistic" seems like a better description.
And I'd guess I'm not the only one here who hasn't heard the specifics. I never had to live through it and I'm only vaguely familiar with the history of behavioral therapy. The only first-hand accounts of ex-gay therapy that I've read were from adults who willingly entered programs of their own accord. They were sad, but also somewhat humorous because of the sheer ridiculousness of it.
Now that I've stopped crying I'm going to click on the link someone posted above.
Posted by: Leni | May 20, 2010 4:18 PM
I AM TYPING THIS IN CAPS SO IT JUST MIGHT BE NOTICED. I AM A PROUD 73 YEAR OLD GAY MAN. I WAS TROUBLED WITH MY SEXUALITY WHEN I WAS IN MY TEENS... I EXPERIMENTED AT THE TIME AND DIDN'T CONSIDER MYSELF GAY (QUEER AT THAT TIME). I MARRIED, PRODUCED 3 CHILDREN, AND THEN EXPERIMENTED A BIT MORE WITH THE OTHER SIDE OF LIFE. I REALIZED AT THAT TIME THAT MARRIAGE WAS A MISTAKE AND WE FINALLY SEPARATED. THIS WAS THE SADIST PART OF MY LIFE. MY POINT IS THAT THE REST OF MY LIFE WAS FILLED WITH WONDEROUS THINGS. I TRAVELED THE WORLD, MET THE MOST INTERESTING PEOPLE BOTH STRAIGHT AND GAY AND ACCUMULATED SOME WONDERFUL MEMORIES. THAT BEING THE CASE, I AM A PROUD GAY SENIOR CITIZEN, RAISED BY WONDERFUL UNDERSTANDING PARENTS AND HAVE EQUALLY WONDERFUL ACCEPTING FAMILY MEMBERS. STOP TRYING TO CHANGE YOUR CHILDREN....LOVE THEM, ACCEPT THEM AND SUPPORT THEM. ENOUGH SAID AND GOD BLESS.
Posted by: RIKKI B | May 20, 2010 4:50 PM
Bethistopheles: On the flip side, my parents didn't buy into rigid gender roles and wanted to raise two independent children. My parents most got me and my brother the same toys, legos, matchbox cars, dolls, etc. and taught us both how to fix cars, build stuff, cook, and tend a flower garden. I was a tomboy and still am, my brother likes broadway musicals, we're both straight. Gender and sexuality aren't as rigid as many people seem to think they should be.
Posted by: Noadi | May 20, 2010 5:24 PM
I'm not a behaviorist, though I certainly studied theory and treatment from a behavioral perspective as one part of my clinical training. I don't share the same dim view that you express here. For one, behaviorists in the U.S.long ago abandoned the strict behavioral X>Y analyses of behavior to which you refer. Essentially, all behaviorists are now cognitive-behaviorists. That has been true for at least 25 years, since the advent of cognitive schema theories in social psychology and cognitive psychology.
Again, I don't use behavioral treatment and I've only used CBT on a few occasions (very successfully, I should add), but it does have proven value. It's used a great deal in health psychology and sports psychology with documented, measurable evidence of success. It's also used in the treatment of depression and anxiety disorders. The efficacy for those purposes has also been demonstrated.
There are a variety of approaches to dealing with children's difficulties. Behavioral approaches have time-tested positive effects when they're applied in the right circumstances. Anyone whose ever seen the TV program, The Nanny, has seen the implementation of behavioral treatments for children and families that are coming apart at the seams. I don't know what that woman's real background is, but she's doing cognitive-behavioral family therapy. Ignoring a tantrum, while attending to constructive engagement is, for example, an effective way to help children who have difficulty with self-regulation. That's a behaviorally-based intervention. It relies upon the extinction of the tantrum behavior and the reinforcement of alternative ways to deal constructively with emotional distress. Left untreated these kids grow more and more unhappy and their problems dealing with the world escalate. Everyone has surely heard of "timeouts." Timeout is also a behavioral intervention.
I feel in an odd position defending behavioral therapy because it is not the route I've chosen to go for a variety of reasons, but I have seen it used humanely and very effectively.
Posted by: Dr X | May 20, 2010 5:25 PM
Ung, I don't care how gay or old you are, if you want to be noticed, the way to do it is with clear writing, not all caps.
Anyway, the people who do this stuff are vile. They have a stunted, warped vision of human sexuality. No amount of girly behavior will make a strait boy gay, just like no amount of girly behavior will make a gay girl strait.
And its worse than that. Some gay boys are manly, and some gay girls are girly. SHOCK!
Dan Savage has a good question for whenever he meets a ex-gay nonsense advocate. He asks them if they would want their daughter to marry one.
Watch them balk. Even they know, deep down, its bullshit. But no amount of human misery is too much for their sad little rigid belief systems.
Posted by: debaser | May 20, 2010 5:43 PM
If you go to Good As You.com, you will find the link to a 1974 article about Rekers and another "scientist", a "Dr." Luvass (I kid you not), who were having prepubescent boys that were effeminate brought to them for "therapy" at UCLA. They were using cattleprods on them!
Posted by: KEW | May 20, 2010 5:56 PM
This extreme form of therapy is only a more intense version of what happens to children in society all the time. I've seen it in action at my daughter's nursery. Boys who play with dolls are ignored, girls are interacted with. The staff don't even realize they're doing it. I've seen it when my daughter's birthday comes round: she expressed an interest in construction toys (cranes and stuff) and dressing up costumes. Result: 6 princess dresses. It's interesting that some kids seem more able to go with that flow than others. Maybe a lot of them are potentially 'bi-genderal' and just go with whatever works. I never heard of anyone taking deliberate gender role reinforcement steps before.
Posted by: Pen | May 20, 2010 7:13 PM
Dr X, does the Judge Rotenberg Center use CBT?
Posted by: Lucas | May 20, 2010 7:50 PM
There's a lot of that unconscious behavioral training. Girls that explore the room are called back to mother's (or the teacher's) side; boys are allowed to explore. By adulthood, most women will explore only a fraction of the areas they are allowed into.
My parents, thank Ma'at, believed that both boys and girls should know how to cook, clean, and repair things.
Posted by: Monado | May 20, 2010 7:55 PM
Dr X: I think the tv series you meant was either "Supernanny" or "Nanny 911". "The Nanny" was an awful sitcom with the awful Fran Drescher.
Posted by: wrpd | May 20, 2010 8:02 PM
Don't forget for a minute that the people most responsible for this barbaric behavior towards others are CONSERVATIVES.
They're filthy subhumans who scream out for extermination.
Posted by: DINO | May 20, 2010 8:10 PM
Lucas, that situation is not remotely representative of what cognitive-behavioral psychologists across the United States are doing. You made a sweeping assertion that behaviorism is a cult that has "moved on to experimenting on and making money from Autistics, the mentally ill and others who are marginalised." The average behaviorist is treating smoking, weight control, phobias, depression and anxiety.
Those who are using aversives of the sort being employed at Rotenberg are ultra-extreme outliers, in no way representative of behaviorism as it's taught and practiced in the U.S.
Posted by: Dr X | May 20, 2010 8:15 PM
wrpd @42,
Yes, you're right. It's Supernanny.
Posted by: Dr X | May 20, 2010 8:19 PM
OK, I'm having a hard time seeing why this is suddenly considered so very dreadful. Rewards for choosing the socially approved toys for one's gender? And the punishment being lack of attention and/or a spanking?
This. Is. Normal.
Today.
Children grow up with this sort of treatment all the time. So why the outrage here, and not for normal child-rearing practices? I grant I've seen anti-spanking threads, but the gender role stuff is totally normal behaviour today. Except among those of us who are whacko feminazi librul moonbats.(Or is it wingnuts? I forget which insult applies to which side.)
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | May 20, 2010 8:35 PM
Rewarding and spanking children based on the gender association of the toys they choose? Not remotely normal in any family I've ever known, Cath. And if it were, I'd definitely speak up about it.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 20, 2010 8:50 PM
I'm calling Poe on Cath the Canberry Cook.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 20, 2010 9:11 PM
Seconded!
Posted by: aratina cage | May 20, 2010 10:53 PM
In no way a Poe.
Cultural amnesia. It's really amazing at times.
Now some of you young whippersappers may be growing up in an era where corporal punishment is out, but judging by the arguments that rage aboput it, that's nowhere near a unanimous position. There's plenty of spanking supporters out there today. But in my day (and I am very little older than poor Kraig), spanking was considered normal. The wooden spoon, the belt, the strap - and from teachers, not just from parents. *Not* spanking was some weird hippie idea.
As to rewarding and punishing for gender by withholding attention, buying toys, etc - I will still claim that this is totally normal NOW. How many people are horrified when you dress a little boy in pink? A lot! It seems that some of you would not believe the shit one of my friends got for letting her 4 year old boy choose pink gumboots and play with a toy kitchen set (in the 80s).
My friends with kids deal with this crap from relatives and teachers all the time, and it's not always the older relatives. Aunties try to swap dolls for trucks, try to make girls dress "sweet" and boys dress in a way that can't be seen as girly. Fellow playgroup mums take toy trains away from the girls and give them to the boys, and vice versa with dolls. They usually suggest that the child will be teased by the others if they don't conform, but it's the adults enforcing it. The nicer ones do it exactly by giving or withholding attention and approval. And if you doubt that spanking is still a part of it - think again. Hey, how do YOU think those people over on worldnutdaily are bringing up their kids right now?
Look at some of the stories people have told above! Look at the psychological studies on how differently boys and girls are treated from infancy. (And before infancy these days. Now people often know the sex of their fetus, so movements in utero are now "the little bruiser kicking" or "butterfly fluttering" depending.)
Of course I think this is dreadful and wrong, but just go take ONE look at the children's toy aisles, or a children's birthday party, and tell me it's not still happening all the time. Pinkification looks even stronger now than it was way back when I was a girl being cross at getting dolls instead of moon rockets. Gay and girlyman and effeminate are still insults.
It's kind of sweet that you think this is in the past. Sweet, but seriously deluded.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | May 20, 2010 10:55 PM
So you're going to support your claim with speculation about how people at Worldnutdaily raise their kids, and use that as evidence that it's the "norm"? Umm, sorry Cath. Nobody denied that homophobia, encouragement of the acceptance of gender roles by children, or spanking continue to exist. The claim is that such encouragement by use of direct and deliberate reward and punishment is not the norm. And nothing you've offered remotely counters that.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 20, 2010 11:06 PM
@ Cath 50,
There is nothing sudden about the criticism of these "treatments." Clinicians are not supposed to subject patients to thoroughly discredited, extremely destructive programs of treatment. Undoubtedly, there are plenty of parents who still become alarmed by behavior that is not gender stereotypical. That in no way excuses men like Rekers who should know better.
Posted by: Dr X | May 20, 2010 11:08 PM
Dr X, I'm very glad that you spotted that my emphasis is supposed to be on the "suddenly", not on the "dreadful", which which I heartily agree. And of course I'm not trying to defend Rekers.
Perhaps I'll try my point expressed as drama.
-----
Act 1 Scene 1:
Cath: Punishing girls for liking boy things, and vice versa, is WRONG!
Chorus: Shut up, you stupid little girl.
Act 1 Scene 2:
Cath: Punishing girls for liking boy things, and vice versa, is WRONG!
Chorus: Shut up, you stupid hippie.
Act 1 Scene 3:
Cath: Punishing girls for liking boy things, and vice versa, is WRONG!
Chorus: Shut up, you stupid ugly dyke.
Act 1 Scene 4:
Cath: Punishing girls for liking boy things, and vice versa, is WRONG!
Chorus: Shut up, you stupid feminazi.
*curtain*
Act 2 Scene 1:
Chorus: Punishing girls for liking boy things, and vice versa, is WRONG!
Cath: Wait, what? Since when? Huh????
THE END
----
And to Gretchen, are you seriously saying that nobody spanks their children any more, and gender differences are never reinforced by the giving or withholding of parental approval? Can I come live in your world please? PLEEEEEEASE!!! I wanna live there! Is the sky a pretty colour?
Or if your claim is just that they do it unthinkingly, and not as a deliberate plan, well, meh. That could be so, but I don't think it helps much.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | May 21, 2010 12:17 AM
I think Cath is being misunderstood. And I think in general she's right that the kinds of gender stereotypes and the negative response of parents to deviation from those stereotypes is still very similar to what is being described here. What makes this story worse, I think, is that someone with real academic credentials is reinforcing it and telling parents that not only are they right to respond negatively, they should withhold attention and love from the child in order to shame them into changing.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 21, 2010 12:25 AM
Slightly OT, but my 6 y.o. girl, familiar with the idea of a tomboy from books and whatnot, came up with the term "elizabeth girl" for boys who like girly stuff. I don't think either that term or tomboy has a negative connotation to her, just different ways of being.
The socialization process of kids is interesting. It's also a pretty good mirror. Look closely.
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | May 21, 2010 12:42 AM
Cath said:
No; in fact I specifically noted that nobody here has claimed that. Try actually reading what people say?
Again no, and again I noted that nobody here has claimed that. What I'm saying is that there is an enormous difference between saying that parents give or withhold parental approval according to how much their children conform to gender norms and saying that parents actively and intentionally reward or beat their children based on their tendency to do so. Certainly many parents do the former. Is it the norm? No idea. Certainly at least there are some parents who do the latter. Is it the norm? I'm highly skeptical, and your strawmen arguments claiming that equates to a denial that parents spank or reinforce gender differences sure as hell don't help.
Ed said:
On the contrary, I think she's misunderstanding everyone else-- whether accidentally or deliberately is unclear. Reading someone's rejection of the idea that parents normally spank their kids for not choosing toys which are "inappropriate" for their gender as a statement of belief that no one spanks their children anymore is outright delusional.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 21, 2010 12:46 AM
I certainly don't say "meh" to the difference between buying pink dresses for your daughter and giving her a spanking if she wants to play with a truck. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 21, 2010 12:54 AM
It's certainly true that psychiatrists and psychologists in 1974 were more like barber-surgeons of the mind than science-based doctors.
However:
is all you need to know about NARTH.
Posted by: Mithrandir | May 21, 2010 1:12 AM
Gretchen @57:
To be fair, Cath seemed to be saying "Meh" at the difference between parents who subconsciously/consciously punish their children for acting "inappropriately" rather than between punishment methods.
On-topic: It's like why you shouldn't trust a dentist with bad teeth. You'd have thought Rekers' exposure would have proven that not only is his method for curing gayness deeply cruel and damaging, it also doesn't work.
It's also very annoying the way people classify certain behaviors as "girly" or "boyish". My mother is always telling me I should stop playing video games because "girls don't play video games". Cue eyeroll. I wouldn't mind a husband who exhibits stereotypically feminine tendencies, myself, if only because I'm terrible at cooking and hate kids ^_^
Posted by: axilet | May 21, 2010 3:48 AM
I agree with Ed: what Cath is saying is evidently true, and present everywhere. I really cannot see how what she says can be considered controversial. It's about as controversial as claiming that there is a very high probability that if you look out the window you will find that the sky is blue.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | May 21, 2010 4:39 AM
Apart from Nazi "medical research", I can't imagine anything more unethical than this. What happened with this "clinic" Rekers set up at the UCLA ? Did it get closed, and its managers sacked from the university, as should happen in a normal world ?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | May 21, 2010 6:16 AM
Dr X, I'm on the spectrum so please forgive me if I seem to be generalising with a huge brush but to my knowledge: the kind of behavioural therapy you're assuring me is the norm in the US is not the kind that is frequently promoted for use on Autistics.
Leave aversives aside for a minute, if the JRC didn't use them then there would still be big ethical problems with what they do. There has never been any research into adult outcomes from Applied Behavioural Analysis/Discrete Trial Training and yet behaviourists focused on Autism never fail to state the tired old canard of how 'proven' it is to be effective. 'Effective' being frequently defined by quoting Ivar Lovaas: "indistinguishable from their peers". It's strange because one of the issues with Autism is how often individuals actually are indistinguishable from anyone else 90% of the time. In Canada, proponents of behavioural therapy assert that it is 'medically necessary' for ALL Autistics, which if accepted by society at large would put parents that don't use it in the pickle of parental negligence for withholding necessary 'medical' treatment from their children. They are backed by the very large US organisation Families for Effective Autism Treatment(FEAT). The attitude of many seems to be that to actually test the efficacy of behavioural intervention in proper trials would be unethical because the control group would not be getting this therapy that is a zillion percent 'proven' to work. Lovaas' 1987(the study used aversives so has technically never been replicated despite some claims) paper is the one most frequently cited. So it's 'proven' but we can't test it otherwise we'd be denying children a 'proven' treatment, but when asked for the evidence there's nothing but a very small number of papers. Much of the studies into ABA-Autism focus purely on parental satisfaction and the development of skills in children; it is never considered that Autistic children without behavioural intervention seem to learn skills anyway, nor is the ethics of 'parental satisfaction' considered. All the feminine boy projects were also focused on measuring success by 'parental satisfaction' without the slightest bit of curiosity about adult outcomes.
My main point is that whatever anyone thinks about those experiments in the 60s and 70s; they're still being done, the attitudes remains the same, only the targets have changed and aversives are only the beginning of what is wrong with it.
Posted by: Lucas | May 21, 2010 6:26 AM
So glad that this issue is a long last being put to rest. So many
well-meaning but frightened and uninformed people have been
ill treated by snake oil salesmen like Rekers. I have heard the
most peculiar and trumped up theories from the right wing about
the etiology of gayness. People like Limbaugh and "Dr Laura" pander
to vulnerable parents and children, when it has been clear to most
mental health clinicians since way back when I got my degree (1973),
that there was no basis for this hopeless and twisted treatment.
Speaking out, quoting studies, etc, as usual does no good with
the often wrong but never in doubt right wing-- even at the cost
of the lives of these sometimes suicidal young people.
Posted by: pat | May 21, 2010 7:03 AM
Roland @8: I've heart about these de-gay treatments, but this is the first time I actually read some details about the methods they use. Can anybody recommend a good book about this subject?
I can recommend As Nature Made Him, which is the story of John Money and the aforementioned David Reimer. It's not really about the anti-gay treatments of NARTH per se as it is about the entire psychology of the day, and what Money thought he could accomplish.
Money had the perfect situation in David Reimer: a pair of identical twin boys, but David's circumcision was botched (it was done electrically, and his poor little penis was basically burned off). His parents were offered the opportunity to raise David as a girl (Brenda, IIRC). Money was delighted because you can't ethically create that kind of situation, but it had spontaneously and accidentally happened. It was the perfect way to prove his theory that gender and sexuality were purely social constructs, and had no inborn components. There was an identical twin as a control, and the children were being raised in the same family. A scientist's dream.
Unfortunately for David and his family, they found out the very hard way that he really was born a straight male, and no amount of makeup, clothing, toys, or surgery was going to change that wiring. It's a sad and fascinating story.
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | May 21, 2010 10:07 AM
I agree with Ed that you are misunderstanding Cath, that when she speaks of what was 'normal and approved' when she was growing up, you all thought she was saying that she thought it should have been normal and approved. Instead, as she made it obvious, she was pointing to two attitudes -- spanking and 'gender normalization' -- that she's been fighting all her life, and she's merely remarking on how 'different' it feels to find the majority here finally agreeing with her, and pointing out that there are still parts of society where they are considered normal.
It would be as if I were to tell stpories about some of the problems I ran into with interracial dating in my youth, mentioned that I would have been breaking the law in several states when I first had sex with a black woman, and then said it was 'normal' even today for parents to disapprove of interracial dating, or ask when it had become 'suddenly' acceptable that hardly would imply that I approved of the attitude, just that it still existed and was more prevalent that people here seemed to think.
Somehow I don't think I made things clearer, but if you fight your way through the brambles of parenthetical and subordinate clauses, you might get the point I think we were both trying to make.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | May 21, 2010 10:57 AM
Prup,
Yeah, I get that. And no, I never thought she was saying that she approved of gender training or spanking. What she said was that the kind of thing described as Rekers' "gay cure" program is normal (i.e. widespread), which it isn't so far as I know. Gender normative parenting and spanking, however, are....and I think we all know that. That is no way to justify gender normative parenting or spanking, but I do think the difference is important. And to be honest I've been hearing people decry both gender normative parenting and spanking for the past twenty years or so, so to me it seems strange to treat the commentary in this thread as somehow novel. But I guess to Cath it is.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 21, 2010 12:17 PM
When my now-seven-year-old son was three and four, he liked dolls, chose a Barbie toothbrush when we were out shopping, and asked for a Little Mermaid costume for Halloween. Fine, I said, whatver makes you happy. I can't imagine how this mother could go along with Kraig's "treatment."
P.S. Three years later, my son thinks things girly are "gross" and plays exclusively with trucks, "Army guys," and swords/bows and arrows--but either way, I'd love him just as much.
Posted by: Kirsten | May 21, 2010 12:47 PM
When my older daughter was 12 years, 8 months, she thought the entire world revolved around athletics (competitive swimming) wore blue jeans all the time she wasn't in a tank suit, and swore she'd never, ever wear a skirt. For her 13th birthday, I bought her a dress. Flowered. With a ruffle. She adored it. What can I say? Her hormones had kicked in.
She's now happily married, 2 kids, trim and healthy, probably from all that swimming.
If we'd tormented her for her "tomboy" ways, I can't imagine it would have helped her self esteem. And it would have been for what? It turned out she's straight-- without hangups from being told her natural interests were bad.
(And if she'd turned out lesbian, would that have been so bad? Of course, I'd probably have pressured her for grandkids, regardless. But that's doable.)
Posted by: hoary puccoon | May 21, 2010 3:57 PM
For her 13th birthday, I bought her a dress. Flowered. With a ruffle. She adored it. What can I say? Her hormones had kicked in.
I'm distressed that you seem to feel that performative gender is a matter of "hormones." I'm also distressed at the number of people on this thread who seem to be confusing performative masculinity/femininity with sexual orientation. It's perfectly possible to be a masculine gay man, or a masculine straight woman, or a feminine gay man or a feminine gay woman; the basic problem is that we have this set of behaviours and social performances which have been gendered male or female, and by behaving or performing in those ways, you are coding yourself as one or the other, and society has a mandate to enforce a one-to-one match between the two (females are supposed to be feminine and males are supposed to be masculine). That's not even getting into what happens with genderqueer or transgender individuals.
As a heterosexual female whose gender performance virtually never gets more feminine than "ambiguously dikey graduate student" (and yet, I have a boyfriend and crewel curtains along with my sensible shoes and non-sexy shirts), this gender essentialism stuff drives me up the wall. Knock it off.
Posted by: Interrobang | May 21, 2010 4:40 PM
Interrobang--
Lighten up, kiddo. My daughter is one individual. I found it amusing that her clothing choices went from stereotyped "boyish" to stereotyped "girlish" in just four months-- with no pressure within the family. Maybe it had nothing to do with her hormones (although I kind of doubt that) but ask any parents of young teens, and they'll tell you I'm probably right, that she was a raging cauldron of them at that age.
Now, as an adult, with freedom to make her own choices, her wardobe consists mainly of blue jeans, t-shirts-- and flowered dresses. To me, that's an example of why freaking out over gender stereotypes is insane. What can they possibly prove, when my kid's identity of "masculine" or "feminine" changes with the day and the hour?
Posted by: hoary puccoon | May 22, 2010 8:18 AM
Interrobang--
Rethinking what I just posted, I'd also like to say I sincerely hope you aren't getting criticized for your personal style, because-- aside from taking my post more seriously than I intended it-- you sound perfectly okay to me.
I was first in graduate school in the South, way back in the previous millenium. "Masculine tendencies" was a term used, basically, to mean a woman was more intelligent than a male professor or student-- and, believe me, it was not intended as a compliment. I was once told to my face I was "displaying masculine tendencies" for pointing out the logical flaw in a male student's argument. And I was eight months pregnant at the time! What I was so prominently "displaying" was certainly not "masculine tendencies." If that doesn't blow out the bizarro-meter, I don't know what would. (It also demonstrates the absolute impossibility of looking *less* intelligent than the men at that institution.)
So I sincerely hope the world is a little less judgmental for you.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | May 22, 2010 10:19 AM
"Dan Savage has a good question for whenever he meets a ex-gay nonsense advocate. He asks them if they would want their daughter to marry one."
Dan Savage is awesome, but I think he's overestimating how much ex-gay advocates care about anyone's happiness. I mean, their daughters are women, not people who count.
Posted by: kb | May 22, 2010 11:39 AM
Posted by kb: "Dan Savage has a good question for whenever he meets a ex-gay nonsense advocate. He asks them if they would want their daughter to marry one."
Dan Savage is awesome, but I think he's overestimating how much ex-gay advocates care about anyone's happiness. I mean, their daughters are women, not people who count."
A little OT, but here goes...I recently got into a discussion with my parents (by that I mean mother and step-father) about the roles or jobs that men and women play in a relationship (this being a strictly heterosexual hypothetical relationship as my mother is uber-evangelical christian and cannot entertain the possibility that "the gays" are in actual relationships). My mother and step-father have been taking this marriage class at our church (I use the term "our" rather loosely). The teacher of the class (a man) had been teaching recently that the role of the woman in a marriage is to submit. My mother vehemently disagreed. During the course of the discussion my step-dad recited many verses from the Bible in favor of the teacher's view, but my mother just would not accept that interpretation.
So she eventually turned to ask me (I had been sitting there silently laughing to myself at their absurdities). I just said that I don't see any need to discuss what the wife's "role" may be in a marriage. I simply explained that I saw a happy marriage as a partnership, one in which the husband and wife share responsibilities and roles. I explained the reasons why I believed this to be a more mature relationship than one in which one person must (ordained by god or otherwise) submit to another in a relationship.
I wish I had recorded that long conversation in some way as to shed light on your assertion that, according to many christians: women don't count. Honestly, misogyny is not dead by any means. It certainly reminded me of one of the many reasons why I left the church.
Posted by: amyc | July 9, 2010 5:56 AM