UPDATE 2: The statement below has now been removed from the NARTH website. The first interview with Glatze is still available. Not sure what happened, the statement of regret was pretty shortlived (not quite a full day).
UPDATE: This statement has replaced the Glatze interview on the NARTH website:
Following the counsel of our friends at Exodus and others in the ex-gay community we have removed the Michael Glatze interview from our site. Some of his public comments have been found to be offensive to NARTH and hurtful to others. It is never appropriate to make some of the comments attributed to Mr. Glatze and we at NARTH wish to make our disapproval public.
You can see below what was there this morning. The first interview from 2007 is still available.
Yesterday, I posted about statements made by Michael Glatze on his blog about bullying being a growth experience for the bullied child. NARTH features Mr. Glatze as a possible role model for youth on their website here.
This is the second interview with Mr. Glatze that is on the NARTH website, and it is easy to see that their leaders believe he is someone who should be emulated. Given the philosophy of masculinity that he espouses with the approval of NARTH, one wonders why evangelicals continue to look to NARTH as a credible group.
While it is proposed by many in the NARTH camp that toughening up as a stereotypical male will eliminate same-sex attractions, there is little evidence to support the idea. It is not far from the “man-up” approach to the ideas of Glatze that one can “grow up” from bullying.
Here is another reminder of the real life consequences of such ideas. I call on NARTH to rethink this reparative notion, and take an unambiguous stance against bullying.
Please see the left column icon, Bullycide in America. All money from the sale of this book go to creating more awareness surrounding the need for schools to take a zero tolerance toward bullying for any reason.
Of course, he’s not obligated to clarify. I would think that he would want to. I certainly would want to make my position clear, as you have done. But that’s up to him. Maybe he is tired of explaining. Maybe he is OK with leaving the impression that he supports bullying. That’s his right.
If he is not OK with giving that impression, he could simply say so. He wouldn’t even have to have good writing or communication skills. He could use yours. It would be as simple as typing “I agree”. How could that be trouble?
If he “lacks the skills to effectively communicate” and is “careless with his writing”, maybe he could take a class or something.
My point is that he shouldn’t have to say “I agree”. He is under no obligation to say anything.
He has responded to Warren in the past. Warren asked why a racist comment was posted on his blog and he responded that he did not post the comment but that a friend posted it. Warren then wrote “Making or allowing a friend to make a racist statement on your public blog is playing the race card”. He did this without verifying the circumstances under which the friend made the comment, nor without verifying how Michael felt about what the friend did. Guess what, friends sometimes do things that you don’t want them to do. Sometimes you let your guard down and they do something behind your back and pretend it was you. Michael might be careless with his writing, but Warren is careless in his accusations.
So Michael has tried to appease Warren in the past, but it doesn’t work. Warren has accused him of leaving comments up, so he took them down, and then Warren accused him of hiding his comments. Maybe he just got tired of trying to appease Warren, put up a blog post that he is tired of people twisting his words, and just left it at that. He has no obligation to respond to anyone, especially someone who constantly twists his words. That is just asking for trouble.
Then you must have that skill. He could just say, “I agree”.
It takes great skill to be able to communicate clearly and efficiently. It doesn’t take much skill to twist someone’s words, point fingers, or bully someone else. Yes, I do think that he is being bullied. He said he thought Obama’s policies were insidious. His words were twisted to make it sound like he said anti-bullying policies were insidious. Whose fault is that? Should he have been able to predict that how his words were going to be twisted? He wasn’t even talking about bullying. Why would he even suspect that someone would interepret his post to be about bullying?
I do not think that just because someone lacks the skills to effectively communicate in such a way that will anticipate all of the possible ways that someone will ever be able to twist their words, gives anyone the right to twist their words and demonize him and hold his reputation hostage until he comes to them and proves his innocence. It is just not right.
Maybe he wouldn’t be sick of defending them if he made his words and motives clearer to begin with. Is he just being bullied and picked on? Are his critics entirely to blame? Maybe if he said something like:
Now, that’s real clear.
Maybe that is one of my biggest issues. It seems like your philosophy is guilty until proven innocent. Who do you think you are that you think Michael has some obligation to respond to you every time you slander him? According to Michael’s own words, he is sick of “finding my words completely twisted-around, and my overall motives entirely overturned.” My interpretation is that he sick of defending himself every time his words get twisted and he isn’t going to do that anymore. That is why he hasn’t responded to you. He wants to get out of this place where everything he says gets twisted and doesn’t want to deal with it any more. I applaud his decision.
Exactly. The guy has been silent.
Joshua – I dont want to belabor the point but if Michael Glatze really thought bullying was bad and he believed his words were misconstrued in some way, he could say so. He has issued several statements through me when he felt misunderstood and I have always presented what he has to say.
He has not to my knowledge given any on the record statement that of course he thinks bullying is bad. If he believes that he seems to be keeping it to himself.
Joshua. I understand. I believe you. Thanks.
Bullying is bad, regardless of the targeted group. I think we should do everything we can to stop bullying. I hope you haven’t taken any of my comments as a condoning of bullying or even an indication that bullying is anything less than a tragedy that should be adverted at all costs. I have tried to consistently say that bullying is a bad thing and should be stopped. I believe Glatze would agree.
Hey, maybe reheaded kids could get something positive out of it. Could help them to grow. Yes, I am being sarcastic. I know, that some live through it and come out strong. Some don’t. In this brutal game of tag, the targeted group may change, but the damage may still be the same.
http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=kick+ginger+day&FORM=EWRE
Besides which, if they did cave in to their critics “under pressure” it would represent a real departure for NARTH! They still have not spoken up about Schoenewolf’s slavery comments — and they still cite Cameron in support of their work. Warren and others have been bugging NARTH about that for a long time now and they have steadfastly resisted.
Why worry about their image now? Is this going to be their new M.O.? Cave to quickly, under pressure, with too little evidence? Hastily denounce and remove comments without first investigating what is true and what is not? And they complain they can’t get the respect of the scientific community? Come on.
NARTH itself said “some of his public comments have been found to be offensive to NARTH and hurtful to others. You expect me to believe that they didn’t look before they leaped? If so, that’s REALLY bad judgement.
Quit making excuses for them, Joshua. If they didn’t take the time to look and have since changed their minds , let them say so — and apologize to Glatze. If they did get scared and caved in under pressure, don’t blame Warren if they look pretty stupid now. This “we better denounce it now and check it out later because it might be true” stuff is pure nonsense.
Sounds like bad judgement to me! They could have gotten on the phone, contacted Glatze, clarified his statements and held their ground. Show some character, not just concern for their PR image. Now, if what you say is true, they just look weak. If they caved, it was bad judgement.
If they have since clarified that Glatzse does not support school bullying, they should say so — and stick to their guns. Doing something with “too little evidence”, “under pressure” and afraid of being seen as “acting too slow” — so they throw Glatze under the bus? Cowardly in my opinion and bad judgement on their part, not Warren’s.
I think they were lead to believe that Glatze’s comments were about bullying, where I think bullying was a side comment. I believe the statement: “Every time somebody needs to grow up, even just a little bit, the process will be painful and probably not the first choice for what that individual might want to do. Take away every one of these instances in the name of “compassion,” and you will tear out the souls and spirits of everyone you hope to control with such insidious policies” refers to one of Obama’s “policies that shame men, and make them out to be villians.” That is the purpose of his post. He was not posting about bullying.
After he was accused of being against bullying, he posted that “my words completely twisted-around, and my overall motives entirely overturned”. The accusation was specifically about bullying and Michael says his words were completely twisted. Therefore, I believe NARTH was mislead to making the accusations that they did. If Glatze was indeed advocating that bullying should be promoted, then I think they did make the correct choice. Fortunately, it seems that this was not the case, but merely an attempt to “entirely overturn” his motives.
My criticism of NARTH was not that they disassociated themselves with someone accused of promoting bullying, but that they acted too quickly on too little evidence, which later turned out to be “completely twisted around.” I understand why they would do that, because they are under a lot of pressure and if it turned out that Glatze really did support school bullying, then they would have been accused of acting too slow. So under the circumstances, NARTH probably did the right thing.
NARTH itself called the comments about bullying objectionable and hurtful. Were they demonstrating a “lack of judgement” for saying so? Do you really think they just caved in to their critics (including Alan and Warren) on this one?
If so, it doesn’t say much for NARTH’s judgement, does it? If they really thought Glatze was right on and presenteed a good example of what they stood for, they should have held their ground — and let Alan dump them. I think Exodus should do it anyway for a variety of reasons, not just this one.
From Michael’s blog:
I am personally of the opinion that this includes a twisting of a blog about the “insidious” policies of Obama to somehow being a statement endorsing bullying.
I do appreciate Warren’s war against the Anit-homosexuality bill in Uganda. I appreciate The Golden Rule on the Day of Silence. I appreciate the work he has done on Sexual Identity Therapy. I appreciate his usual prudence, wisdom and fact checking when it comes to difficult issues. I think he is a great man with good intentions, but as all humans go, at times suffers a lack of judgment. I hope that this is an isolated example of Warren’s lack of judgment. But to err is human. I still trust your opinion over most people’s opinion.
I never said my opinion of Alan or NARTH was low. I only said they were under pressure to act the way they did.
Actually, I don’t think Exodus’ and NARTH’s critics have much power to get them to do anything. They believe in their missions and are pretty immovable in their convictions. You have to give ’em credit for that — even if you disagree with them.
What we may be able to do is to annoy these two organizations (like gnats) just enough to induce them to do get kinda frustrated — and do what they knew was the right thing to do anyway — and might have done eventually — without such annoyance.
Warren,
Touché. I apologize. I was upset and I think my words got the best of me. I honestly do not think you interpreted MG’s blog about bullying correctly, but that does not give me the right to attack you or anyone else. As I said, I do have a high opinion of you. It is just this accusation about bullying that has really bothered me. It is ironic as I have tried to pass off MG’s comments as hasty, I have made some hasty accusations of my own. I apologize and retract my accusations.
And I admired Alan for speaking up quickly and decisively about it. In my opinion, NARTH should have used more “caution and prudence” regarding Glatze’s statements in the first place. If they had, they might not have needed to take the action they did,
NARTH said NARTH took them down because NARTH found them offensive and hurtful to others. I complimented them for doing that. Geez, you would think folks would be please that I finally said something nice about NARTH.
Considering (1) what it took to get them to denounce Berger’s seemingly “pro-bullying statements, (2) that they still have Schoenewolf as an “expert advisor” and (3) that they still, to this day, cite Cameron’s “research” in defense of their mission — I was frankly astonished at their “prudence and caution” in denouncing “some” of Glatze’s statements as “offensive and hurtful”.
It gave me a little bit of hope that there might be some hope for NARTH after all.
Glatze made one statement about bullying, which was “Bullying in schools is a part of life, a part of growth.” I personally agree with Glatze that bullying or any other tribulation is a growth experience, but that is my own point of view. The rest of the article was talking about “policies that shame men, and make them out to be villians.” I believe that these are the policies that he terms as “insidious”, not anything to do with bullying.
I might be interpreting his blog incorrectly, but either way I do not think his intentions are clear.
I actually do have a very high opinion of you Warren. I always have. I think this is one of the reasons why this situation irked me so much. If I didn’t think you had good intentions then I wouldn’t bring this issue up. I think you misinterpreted Glatze’s blog. In so doing, I feel it contributed to a chain of events that lead to the attack on Glatze’s character. I normally think you act with a good deal of prudence, but I think this blog post demonstrates a lack of prudence on your part. A great deal of prudence is required when you make accusations against your fellow man. You normally try to contact the person and get verification from them on what their views are, like you did with Rick Warren, before making any accusations. I was surprised that you did not do that with MG.
Michael, Uganda didn’t need prudence and caution. They very clearly want to harm gay people. I join you in applauding Exodus on that decision. I also thought Alan changing his statements to include a section on the dangers of bullying was very prudent. What I did not think was prudent was Warren’s misinterpretation of MG’s blog or NARTH publicly defaming MG on their web site. I’m even okay with them taking the interview down. It was the defaming and the shaky grounds that irked me.
Yes, they have been “hounded” and some of it (not all of it) has been very well-deserved in my opinion. From what I can tell, it doesn’t seem they exercised much caution and prudence when it came to Uganda.
And sometimes, frankly, it seems they have needed a little “hounding” by Warren and others to step up and do the right thing — “albeit late”. This time, the hounding came from Alan, in the form of an ultimatum, and from Warren on this blog.
I did not judge Glatze. Warrenn and Alan called him out on it — and even NARTH stated that they found “some of his public comments …to be offensive to NARTH and hurtful to others.” Don’t blame “anti-ex-gay groups” for that. I was complimenting NARTH, not for “judging” Glatze, but for removing statements they (NARTH itself) found “offensive” and “hurtful”.
If I recall, It took a lot more “hounding” when Berger made similar statements that sounded “pro-bullying”. Believe me, Nicolosi was VERY resistant to doing that.
Joshua:
I guess you thought I was attacking so you would get in the act?
Just several weeks ago, I was discussing the Kevin Jennings appointment on my blog routinely. I don’t think anyone at XGW or anywhere else in the gay universe thought I cared about being considered a moderate.
Joshua, I call them as I see them. Michael Glatze actually said incendiary racist remarks about the President until he was called on them and then he removed and spun them. He lectures others about love and correctness and then makes careless statements about violence. NARTH is pretty desperate for success stories when they elevate this kind of dialogue to a role model. This was the main point of the posts.
If Mr. Glatze feels he has been unfairly treated then I invite him to let me know and I will print whatever statement he would like to make, as I always have. You opinion of Alan and NARTH must be very low to think that they would do what they did just to avoid a little disapproval here.
Joshua:
Please look over my comments on this thread and point out to me any disrespect I showed to you, to Glatze or to anyone else. If I was offensive, it was certainly not my intent. If I did, I apologize.
I did not “attack”. I did not say the someone else’s experience was a “false reality”, or that how they dealt with it was “horrible” — just that “reframing” was one valid tool in healing. I didn’t attempt to make anyone feel “ashamed”. I did’t say that your viewpoint was “wrong” — just that mine differed from yours. Whether “because of” or “in spite of”, we grew. 🙂
Maybe you were speaking to Warren?
Joshua – I am having trouble following your point. Michael Glatze says something careless, Alan Chambers is offended and gives NARTH an ultimatum. For 23 hours they see his point and put up a statement that seems to agree with a common sense understanding of his words. Then you say I am demonizing Glatze?
I am persuasive at times but I have been unable to get NARTH to do much of anything. I did not get NARTH to do anything. Alan Chambers did. He has a blog, maybe you could go chat with him.
You are engaging in spin of Glatze’s words. Why, I do not know. However, he was careless with his dismissal of people who complain that bullying is harmful. He says to prevent bullying or complain about it is to “tear out the souls and spirits of everyone you hope to control with such insidious policies.”
I understand that human nature being what it is, bullying will happen. Hopefully kids who are mistreated will find some way to be resilient. However, if the stance of a purported role model is to let it happen to avoid “tearing out souls” then I will stand up and say i believe that is wrong.
Michael, I guess I’m just upset at the situation. Michael has been attacked and in my opinion has been attack unjustly. I have been following this blog for awhile, but hadn’t really made many comments until now, but this really irked me.
It seems to me that this is what happened:
1) As a side comment on a defunct blog, Glatze makes a comment on how bullying has been a growth experience. From the text it is not clear what he means by that. It is more likely that it was an instance of hasty writing than a well-thought out official position statement.
2) Warren interpreted Glatze’s statements to be along the lines of Joseph Berger, who was claiming to be an authority and whose intentions were very clear, that he thinks that educators should let peers ridicule a gender variant child. He attacks NARTH for having Glatze’s interview on their web site and promoting him as a role model, though there was no way that NARTH could have known what Glatze’s true position on school bullying really is. (Indeed, no one except Glatze currently knows what his position of school bullying really is.)
3) This convinced Alan that Glatze supports school bullying, which position NARTH should not be supporting. (Which I agree they shouldn’t be supporting, but I don’t think having an interview by Glatze on their web site indicates they support bullying because I’m not convinced Glatze himself supports bullying.) He says he has “learned the hard lesson more than once that not taking such a stand immediately is a mistake” (rather than waiting to see the validity of such accusations.) Unfortunately, I think I agree with Alan that caution and prudence are a luxury that NARTH and Exodus simply cannot afford with the never-ending hounding of anti-ex-gay groups.
4) NARTH not only removes the interview, but accuses Glatze of making offensive and hurtful comments. They publicly make their disapproval known.
5) You congratulate NARTH on making such a hasty decision without verifying the facts, which only encourages them to make similar mistakes in the future.
I find the whole process scary. I do not think there was enough evidence to attack Michael. Is it more the fault of Alan and NARTH who are under so much pressure to act quickly rather than prudently that they bi-pass the fact checking stage, or is it the fault of Warren, who wants so badly to be viewed as a moderate that he intuitively takes sides with ex-gay watch, or the ex-gay watch which routinely makes elaborate claims based off of insufficient evidence, or those who applaud such a process?
In my view, applauding NARTH for attacking Glatze is just as bad as if you attacked him yourself. You say we can agree to disagree, and that you did not attack Glatze. If you really mean that, can you advocate prudence in judging Glatze until we can verify his intentions, rather than applauding NARTH in their hasty judgment?
Hold on Joshua. Given the opportunity to read the “interview” it would seem that Michale Glatze incriminated himself and proved through his own words, actions, deeds and thoughts what he himself thinks about bullying. Warren had nothing to do with MG’s reputation – only Glatze is in control of that.
I did not attack Glatze. I said NOTHING about him. Warren did. And I don’t think that what you have experienced is a “false reality”. Of course, it’s real! It’s your real life, your own valid inner experience. You think of the bullying as creating resilience. That’s OK. I see it as revealing it. It was there all along.
There is nothing “horrible” about finding peace — and I never suggested that there was. Yes, of course we can agree to disagree on the “in spite of” or “because of”. We grew. That’s what matters.
I wouldn’t give the bullying any credit either. Bullying is bad, and I think we should do all we can to stop it. I give 100% complete credit to God, because I “know that all things work together for good to them that love God.” (Romans 5:4) Because of my trials, I have been able to help many of my friends through hard times. I have gained a sensitivity and a maturity that could only come through passing through something horrendous myself. That doesn’t mean that what I passed through ceased to be horrendous. If I hadn’t gone through what I have gone through, I would not have had that maturity and sensitivity. It was because of, not in spite of tribulations. I join with Paul in saying “we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope: and hope maketh not ashamed.” (Romans 5:3-5)
You are trying to make Michael Glatze ashamed for glorying in the hope he found through the experience and patience developed by going through trials.
Let’s go with your scenario. Let’s say tribulations really don’t create experience and patience, but that Glatze and I would have had the same sensitivity and maturity whether or not we had any trials growing up. Through going through psychologists, we have learned to reframe what has happened to us to give it a meaning of a growth experience, though the growth actually happened in spite of, but not because of our bullying.
We have found peace through our false reality and hope that others can find the same peace that we have. Is that such a horrible thing to do? Is that a bad enough that you feel justified in attacking Glatze?
Can’t we just agree to disagree? Does one have to be right and the other wrong? Why can’t you believe that growth comes in spite of adversity and Glatze believe it comes because of diversity, and we can leave it at that? Why do feel like you are justified in attacking those who disagree with you?
You’re gonna kill me for this, but had I to post one more time.
I think this discussion points out the wonderful quality of human resilience and, more importantly, of God’s lovingkindness towards us. The wounds caused by bullying can heal. It is remarkable that we can grow in the midst of adversity — whether we frame it as “because of it” or “in spite of it”.
We survived and grew. For that experience, I am proud of myself and grateful to God. I am just reluctant to give the bullying itself any credit.
OK, so I can’t just leave it at that. I can see where the “other side” is coming from on this. Viewing the abuse as having some growth-inducing result is indeed one valid way to cope with a very negative experience.
Whether or not the bullying actually helped cannot be proved — I certainly don’t think it does — but giving a different meaning to the painful experience might help. In psychotherapy, it’s called “reframing”.
http://www.projectresilience.com/reframing.htm
Joshua, that is certainly one way of dealing with it. Some survivors of abuse choose to view it as a growing experience — and that may best for you. I choose to view it as a serious set-back, but I grew anyway. We are back to the “because of” or “in spite” of discussion. I view the growth as “in spite of”.
You say you “would not change a thing”. Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe you would if you could see what your life would have been like without the bullying. You might be further along than you are now. Who can say for sure? If I had go back and stop it, I would. But I can’t. So, who cares really, as long as we grew? We can’t prove it one way or another… And in to avoid becoming tedious, I will leave it at that.
Warren,
You say that this discussion was “tedious”. Do you understand the gravity of this situation? You just demonized Michael Glatze. Not only that, but you got NARTH to jump on board. To ruin a man’s reputation like you have done is a serious offense, and I hope that you will be able to back it up. In the old days in France, to call in question a man’s honor was a serious enough offense were the offended man could challenge the offender to a duel to the death. Do you realize how serious it is to challenge someone’s integrity?
I have really appreciated your work Warren. I think you provide a good balance between modern research while recognizing the real need several SSA people have to live in accordance with their values. I agree with Rainer when he complimented your prudence and scientific reservation of judgment. I also agree when he said that you “ought not to diminish [yourself]”. I have never thought highly of people that attack other people. I think it is a coward’s position. Especially attacking someone over something so trivial as a difference of opinion of a side note on a defunct blog page. My opinion of you just dropped.
My main issue is that I think you did not have sufficient evidence to demonize Glatze. Glatze has a habit of being sarcastic on his blog, and I want to understand what he really meant by his statements before anyone attacks him.
I think bullying is bad and should be avoided at all costs, however, I do agree that it can be a growing experience. I consider myself optimistic, and I divide my life events into blessings and growing experiences. Everything that happens to me happens for a reason. If some tragedy, like bullying, were to happen to me, I have two options. I can bemoan my fate and adopt a victim attitude that I have been damaged beyond compare and there is no hope for me, or I can try to learn from the experience and move on. I chose to view the bullying I underwent in high school as a growing experience. I look back on my life and see what brought me here and I can honestly say that if I had an opportunity to go back in my life and stop the bullying I underwent in school I would not change a thing. I might not have enjoyed it, but the lessons I learned were invaluable.
That doesn’t mean that we should encourage bullying or refrain from doing everything in our power to stop it. I believe there are enough “growing experiences” to go around that we don’t ever have to worry about someone not getting enough, which allows us to spend all of our energies seeking to lighten the load of our fellow human beings. However, when those growing experiences happen, as we all know they will, I still honestly think we should make the best out of it, and view them as growing experiences. That would included all trials, whether bullying, sickness, death and so on. I have heard many cancer survivors say that having to go through cancer has helped them appreciate life. Does that mean we should stop all cancer research? Of course not. Most of the cancer survivors advocate cancer research. Does one have to preclude the other? Can one find bullying to be a growth experience while still going against it?
Warren said:
“People may grow despite bullying but there is no scientific work I know that would support the notion that people grow stronger because of it.”
I do not think it is fair to judge Michael from a scientific stand point. He never claimed to represent a scientific standpoint. That simply is not fair.
If you want a Christian support of the notion, all you have to do is study the scriptures. I have previously included some references. I also think the notion of God refining his people through a refiner’s fire is a good analogy. I have always been taught that God tests his people to make them stronger, just like metal is heated up to separate the impurities.
You don’t have to agree with this. Just simply see that this is a valid point of view.
No, I was not trying to sugar coat it. I just think he was weary of the discussion, not you. Like you, I can
That’s the way I took it anyway. I don’t think he thinks you are full of crap. He’s just tired.
OK. I get it. I just didn’t want you to think that I could not see a certain logic in your posts. If we wanted to, I suppose you and I could get into a big (and pointless) linguistic game over the phrases “because of” and “in spite of” — while actually be describing the same experience of becoming stronger in or through adversity.
Didn’t want you to think I was dissing you. Hey, in light of how rude I can get sometimes, some might think that learning to “sugar-coat” or “dance around my feelings” was a sign of maturity… 🙂
Michael–
I believe you are sincere…and my comment was only addressed to you in the sense that you were trying to sugarcoat what Warren said. He said ‘tedious’; he meant ‘tedious’. The ‘doublespeak’ is in trying to make it like he meant something else.
I even understand ‘tedious’…especially in light of the somewhat complicated new post that he presented…that took a lot of work to research and another lot of work to present cohesively. I can easily imagine Warren being up to his ears in the research and writing and thinking “this conversation is tedious; I’ve got far bigger fish to fry”.
Besides, I think you know by now that I am not one to “dance around my feelings” on these issues. I tend to say what I believe. Telling someone they are “full of crap” doesn’t sound very grown up to me — especially since I don’t think you are. Honest. 🙂
I may be wrong, but I am guessing that this comment was meant for me. Eddy, it’s not a “game”. Not “doublespeak”. Not trying to talk anyone “out of the truth”. Not being dishonest or “dancing around”. Just stating my own opinion and sharing my own experience –as you have.
And, no, I don’t think you’re tedious OR “full of crap”. You obviously turned out fine. I just think you (and other bullied boys) might have even more masculine, more self confident and more grown up than you already are — without the bullying — and maybe sooner.
I meant no offense. And yes, I do “mean well” and wish you well. Whether we grew because of it — or in spite of it — who knows? You survived it. You grew up to be a good and strong man. That’s what matters. I will let it drop.
Sorry, Michael, but I’m really weary of doublespeak. I realize you mean well but we can’t talk ourselves out of the truth. Rainer made one comment…I made several. Warren finds that tedious. I can live with that. I’m not always thrilled with him and how he thinks either. But, really, there’s no reason to play the linguistic game…he finds it (that notion) tedious…and I’m trying to explore that notion…tedious is as tedious does.
I’d rather have a person honestly tell me they think I’m full of crap than to dance around their feelings with doublespeak. It’s part of being a grown up.
I don’t think he meant you, personally Eddy. I agree that “it” — “the question of whether bullying is a ‘growth experience'” — is pretty tedious too.
That’s the poing I was trying to make. I emerged as a strong person, but I think the bullying set me back a couple of decades in psycho-social development — especially when it came to things like trust and what it meant to be a man.
It took years to cast off the internalized message — that I got what I deserved.
Ditto! Never said or implied otherwise. Sorry to be judged tedious.
Right.
No one can tell the outcome or the response of a person to constant bullying. When it’s bad – it’s bad and should be avoided.
scientific – an approach to inquiry and knowledge using the scientific method of hypothesis testing.
You test a causal relationship by holding as much constant as possible and varying one variable to test the effect. With bullying, the difficulty is that you cannot simply create bullying and test the effect on a random sample of people. It does occur naturally and so you ask people who have been bullied and those who have not their reactions. In addition, you can measure important variables (e.g., school performance, pathology, well-being, self-esteem) among those who have been bullied and those who have not.
Certainly it is possible that someone somewhere will say “bullying was just the thing I needed to be a whole human being.” However, the vast majority will not and if they developed strengths within in a context which included bullying, there is no reason to think that those strengths would not have emerged anyway.
This is actually such a tedious discussion (Ann, not your question, it was a good one), but whether bullying is a growth experience or not. I will stipulate that some people exhibit resilience in the face of bad situations, but I will do everything I can to prevent mistreatment. So on the practical point, bullying should be prevented, right?
Dr. Throckmorton/Warren
I have seen various usage of the term “scientific” on this blog – research, work, studies, etc. – can you tell me in a simple way what this means? How does it compare to other research, work, and studies?
Please Don’t. You made me think. 🙂
Fair statement. Maybe a boy finds an inner toughness. I supose the same could be said of my experience. I just think the growth might have happened sooner without the bullying. Was not trying to start an argument.
Please don’t make assumptions from my comments. I cited areas of growth and learning because that was Rainer’s point…that it’s a generalization to say that NO growth can happen. There were areas where I grew as a result but other areas where I was stunted. Somewhere between 8 and 10 muggings in my adult life caused me once again to draw on some of the things I learned via the childhood bullying.
Sorry, I won’t be playing the challenge. The game of political correctness would preclude the possibility of a study called ‘Positive Responses to Bullying;. And, surprise, surprise…you don’t often see what you aren’t looking for.
And again, I am NOT supporting or defending bullying. I just happen to think that Rainer made a valid point that, if examined, could broaden our perspectives. But, as is becoming customary here, only black and white is tolerated.
Ironically, I just spent an hour and a half chatting with a guy named John who was taunted and teased mercilessly in grade school…even adult neighbors called him “Jo Ann”. One of the only commendable features I find in his personality is that he now champions for the little guy…something he attributes to the fact that he ‘knows what its like to be picked on and put down’.
But, it’s not worthy of debate. Just another perspective. Obviously unwanted and unappreciated. I’ll shut up now.
Guess it’s possible that some boys, like Eddy, do get stronger because of the experience. I guess some people can, and do grow in spite of all kinds of terrible experiences. Eddy may have been lucky in that regard. He may have already had an inner resilience that was up to the task.
I can’t say it helped me any. Yeah, I survived and I grew — but it has been a long, hard road to self-respect and a sense of security in my own “masculinity”. Growing up with frequent bullying and beatings — and then having an attack on your life (and watching your friend die at the hands of bullies) can set you back a bit.
I agree,Warren. We can learn and grow in spite of bullying, but I think we could have learned the same lessons without it.
I agree, the bullies think they are doing us a favor.
People may grow despite bullying but there is no scientific work I know that would support the notion that people grow stronger because of it. Again, it there is any evidence for that beyond a Johnny Cash song, bring it.
Perhaps I’ve missed something but I did not take rainer’s comment as a defense of bullying, I thought the essence of his comment was here:
Even if I hadn’t been a victim of bullying well into my adult years (hey, I’m 5′ 1″ and speak my mind), I’d still be against bullying BUT I agree with rainer that the statement ‘bullying is not a growth experience’ is a generalization in the sense that it is not always true. He cited anecdotally the stories of some boxers who took up the sport in response to being bullied; I have heard some of those stories as well. He cited the song “A Boy Named Sue” which was quickly discounted but, you’ve got to wonder how that song made it to the radio so many years ago and why we didn’t have to look it up to remember the gist…if it had NO connection to any reality, I doubt it would have endured.
Again, I’m not defending bullying. I detest it! But I don’t see what’s to be gained by pretending that some don’t grow through bullying. I didn’t learn to fight back–not physically–but I grew. I learned that size and might were not the measure of a man. I learned to appreciate and spot character strength. I learned how to use my brain to outwit the bullies (sometimes) and my personality to engage others in my defense and support. Sure, it would have been great not to have needed that learning but bullying happened and so did growth. In retrospect, knowing that I learned and grew takes some of the sting out of the victimization I experienced. The bullies thought they were in complete control…that they had dominated and suppressed me…but I knew different.
Anyway, I think rainer may have been trying simply to address the generalization as being unscientific. Realizing that some victims do grow should not/does not change our anti-bullying message. Intimidation of those who differ from you or are weaker than you is not a social skill to be desired; it should not impress anyone…not your parents, not your peers, not potential dates. Bullying should not make a person look bigger in anyone’s eyes; instead, it should make them appear smaller.
(I wondered myself what brought that statement out and it appears it’s rooted in my firm belief that our anti-bullying reasoning and rhetoric, for all of its merit, is usually lost on the perpetrators themselves. {Believe me, I learned long, long ago that one thing bullies don’t respond to is reasoning.} Our message needs to reach those who the bully/bullies is/are trying to impress.)
I know, multiple posts. But wasn’t the “masculine” role model in that song pretty much of an alcoholic, irresponsible mess of an absent “father” who put his kid through total hell? That kind of “masculinity” did it teach the kid in the story?
.
Just what we need — more dead-beat dads, bar-fighters and boxers to teach our boys how to be real men.
Pretty big “IF” Ranier. So what IF the bullied boy doesn’t learn to fight back? Or can’t? What if he’s already a troubled kid, already feeling pretty worthless — and this pressure sends him over the edge?
Besides, I think the bullied boys who did “learn to fight back” would have found their self-respect and “maculinity” anyway, without the “help” of the bullies. They already had that inner resilience. Many victims of this kind of abuse just don’t.
Bullying to “provoke growth in masculinity?” What kind of “masculinity” are you talking about?
What not masculine role modeling? Why not love from a gentle, consitent, kind and wise man? A courageous one? A hard-working one A spiritual and faithful one? Why not strong, supportive, loving parenting? And heroes to look up to?
Personally, I would not raise my son to be the kind of man who believes that “masculinity” that needs regular bullying to help it grow.
Rainer – I can probably find several studies on the results of bullying. Can you find any that support your hypothesis?
A Johnny Cash song does not count. Besides at the end of the song, he pretty well decides not to do the same thing to his own son.
Bullying can do a lot of different things to boys. If the bullied boy learns to fight back, it can provoke growth in masculinity. That’s a process which is often described in biographies (e.g. of successful boxers). Its also depicted in a well-known song called “A boy named Sue”.
(In fact I would ask the reverse question: Isn’t a growth in masculinity mostly or regularly provoked by bullying?)
So the generalization “Bullying is not a growth experience” is wrong.
Warren Throckmorton has had a reputation for his prudent and scientifical reservation of judgment. He ought not to diminish himself.
David,
Thanks – that makes a great deal of sense!!!
As a victim of almost daily bullying in elementary school, I can attest that this is true, at least it was for me. But it didn’t just impact how I felt about men. I had trouble feeling safe with any peer relationship. Luckily, I had a strong and loving father who helped to counteract this feeling.
.
@ Jayhuck,
Angry men (or boys) who are violent and coercive create powerful emotional bonds (negative) and expectations about what it means to be close to some men.
Some victims of that violence forgo close contact with all men as a way to avoid remembering those painful bonds, or being re-traumatized.
Their defensive detatchment interferes with experiencing men as safe, compassionate and capable of self-restraint.
I think that’s a bad thing.
Huh?
Excellent 🙂 🙂
Really? How did that happen? Gee, I would have been willing to give some PR advice for free… I guess I already have been, but not always (OK, seldom) in a constructive or polite manner.
Sometimes, we push when we think the other person is not listening or doesn’t care. I get frustrated and rant on endlessly. I clog the blogs with complaints. They get defensive. I get more frustrated and so it goes…
Encouragement and praise may work better… I am working on that. In recent days, it is very nice feeling to have more things to encourage and praise them for. I imagine it feels better for them, too. A very constructive week. They deserve some kudos.
The Michael Glatze story has to be one of the most intriguing stories on this blog. It might have been the first story I was moved/provoked to comment on, back a couple years ago.I just don’t know what the take-away here is.. I do have 5 billion questions though (lol).What quality of advice was his magazine providing gay youth back in his pro-gay days? Can you imagine?How much Chutzpah does it take to launch a pro-gay magazine, when he himself had doubts about his sexuality/life-path? How common is this?What is up with the swing from one extreme to another? Paging David Horowitz…Michael wrote:
^ Does this make sense to anyone? I’m not a believer, but I have never met a preacher of any faith who wasn’t kind and sincere (at least to my knowledge).
What is going on here!? (lol)
If Michael Glatze really is supportive of bullying, then I agree with the approach being taken. But the quoted source isn’t very clear to me. I am not trying to defend bullying. All I am saying is that we should make sure that this is actually Michael Glatze’s view before we jump on the band wagon and start pointing fingers at him. He might be supportive of bullying. If that is the case, then yes, we should write blogs defaming him and put our disgust on the front page of our web site so everyone can publicly mock him. Put him in the scaffolds like in the olden days. However, unless we are 100% positive that is what his position is, then we shouldn’t jump to any conclusions. His blog is down, so I can’t check for myself, but from what Warren included, I’m not 100% positive that he supports bullying. Consider similar pieces of text taken out of context:
“But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.” (1 Pet. 4: 13)
“When they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.” (Acts 5:40-41)
“Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake. ” (Luke 6: 22)
The author of these passages also sounds like they are in favor of bullying. Rejoice to be part of Christ sufferings? Be glad that you are worthy to be beaten up? Blessed are you when men hate you? Can you imagine some counselor in a high school telling a victim of school bullying some of this stuff? Doesn’t sound right. It almost sounds like the author is romoting torture and saying people shouldn’t complain if they are the victim of it. They sound very similar to Micheal’s statement. However, if you get the full scope of what the book is trying to say, it is very much a message of peace and love, nowhere close to promoting being a victim of violence.
All I am saying is that I want to hear from Michael that he supports bullying before I start pointing my finger at him. I want to hear it from the horse’s mouth.
@ Michael,
Hmmmm….why didn’t I think of that 4 years ago?
Oops, I did. Rejected, out of hand.
Not saying this is, in fact, what happens (or happened) — just how it appears from the viewpoint of one who really would (honest to God) like Exodus to look good. It just looks reckless.
Lately, they seem to be doing a much better job of this — and I am very pleasantly surprised. Also pleased that NARTH took Exodus’s wise counsel. I had about given up hope on NARTH. Maybe it’s a trend of some sort. 🙂
So does heading up an organization. I think what happens is that organizations like Exodus and NARTH (groups that believe gayness can and should be changed), are so grateful to have someone on their side that they make the mistake of welcoming just about anyone who agrees with them.
In their zeal and enthusiasm, they don’t do their homework, or listen to the advice of friends and critics. They don’t seem to ask, “How could this backfire on us? How could this hurt the image we are trying to portray?
They cite Cameron or Lively, and then have to remove references, do damge control and issue belated apologies of some sort. It comes across as reckless, to say the least.
The need to slow down — do some background checks, search the internet, ask for and listen to advice. All organizations need to do this, not just them.
Why not take the money they have spent in the past on lobbying and spend similar money on a Public Relations consultant? I think they need someone who could say, “Hold on, guys”, let’s really look into what this Lively or Cameron or Berger, etc., is really all about. What do our critics say about them? Are they right? They need to do a a better “cost-benefit analysis” — how could this afilliation help or hurt us?
In the early days of Exodus, we had all sorts of questionable folks who wanted to align with us — Anita Bryant, Lou Sheldon, John Briggs, publishers of hateful tracts, neo-nazis — all kinds of haters and nutjobs. We took the time to really think about it, prayed, listened to the advice of others — and said NO. Easier to prevent the mess than have to clean it up after.
@ Joshua…
Agreed…but he was being presented as an example of ex-gay thought and perspective…
Blogging brings responsibilities.
Are we sure that Michael Glatze supports bullying? His statement sure seems to indicate that, but I know a lot of things I write don’t come off across the way that I want it to. Like all of us, he is human and subject to error. Especially on blogs, I have often said things off the cuff that just don’t come out correctly.
For me, I try to look at all of life’s trials as an opportunity to grow. Bad things that have happened to me have been “a part of growth”, as Michael puts it. That doesn’t mean that I advocate that bad things should happen to people, but to be able to look at the bad things that happen to us and try to find the good in it is a healthy approach to life. I don’t know for sure if that is what Michael is trying to say or not, but I think we should assume good faith and give him the benefit of the doubt. Him following up by saying “Take away every one of these instances in the name of “compassion,” and you will tear out the souls and spirits of everyone you hope to control with such insidious policies” seems to indicate that we should not take measures to stop bullying, but I can’t be sure. I certainly don’t like that statement, but it isn’t direct enough for me to get a clear understanding of what he wants to say.
Anyway, I reserve my judgment for Michael until I have some more details.
Yes it was, Alan. You deserve some appreciation and a little rest. 🙂
Personally, at the risk of sounding prideful, I think we all did very well this week. The Facebook group topped 5,000 today — a lot more than some people expected — and still growing.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=198541255168&ref=mf
BTW: The Sisters have requested a reprise. Who could resist at a time like this? I understand Eddy has a great voice… 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdO3R5MlbxA
A productive week! Whew.
Bravo to Exodus for it’s statements on Uganda and Bravo to NARTH for this:
Wow, I never thought I would say “thanks” to Exodus and NARTH in the same post. And they seem to be doing it a little more quickly and clearly. Are we getting somewhere? Perhaps we are. My goodness, indeed!
I would consider that self-defense. 🙂 There’s a time to turn the other cheek and a time to be like little David and brush up on your slingshot skills…
:)!!
Wow. That’s a powerful statement. And the “I was asking for it” mentality? Not altogether unlike that following childhood sexual abuse, as I well recall from my own youth.
There is nothing good about bullying. Period. (Well, except maybe for when the bully gets his own face shoved in the dirt, she says with a malevolent little grin).
Hmmmm
I think I have commented before that I have been on the receiving end of narcissistic devaluing (bullying).
I am a pretty resilient guy.
Deep down, I still fear these kind of men.
I was pretty small as a kid, learned to run fast, to defend myself with humor, to avoid the unsupervised parts of the playground.
On some days, the walk home from the bus was terrifying.
To protect myself, I came to the conclusion that I was in some way “asking for it.”
For many men, this kind of interaction becomes their most intense and pervasive experience of what it means to be emotionally connected to another man.
Are we getting somewhere?
My goodness!
Michael – It appears that NARTH has responded. See the intro to the post above; they removed the newest Glatze interview. We shall see if they remove the first one. It remains as of now.
I too appreciate Alan jumping on this. I contacted NARTH a couple of days ago with nothing in response. I believe the inherent problem remains but at least this issue has been partially addressed. And significantly, I am hopeful that Alan can make some headway on the issue of masculinity and bullying in his NARTH presentation.
MB – We’re cool.
:)OK, now I feel shame. 🙂
Mary, I jumped to conclusions and got defensive without clarifying which Mary and Michael were being addressed. Please disregard the part of my message directed to you. 🙂
I still encourage Alan to take his strong stand against bullying to NARTH — just as he has taken a strong stand against the Uganda bill. I also pray that if NARTH does not respond, that he will follow Warren’s wise example and disengage from NARTH entirely.
Sorry, I am getting Marys and Michaels all mixed up. 🙂
MB – I was talking about Michael Glatze. I should have made that clear. I apologize. We are all working on this together.
Alan: Maybe if NARTH won’t listen, you should disengage from them? Warren did, and I commend him for it.
Mary: I have no “deep-seated shame”, and I don’t think any of my recent statements have been outrageous. I have no desire for “public adoration”. Far from it.
I catch hell from “one side” when I criticize Exodus — and I catch hell from the “other side” when I commend them. Today, I commend Alan and Exodus — and I have desire to pick apart what they have done, when or why. They did a good thing.
Oh well, I can’t seem to please everyone and I dont’ really care. I have said what I believe based on my own deeply held convictions — not out of shame or a desire for “publicity”. That’s the “real” me.
I am grateful to NARTH for taking such a stand. I have learned the hard lesson more than once that not taking such a stand immediately is a mistake.
This morning when I saw the interview on their site I knew I couldn’t speak at NARTH tomorrow if it remained. I never had to make such a choice—they removed it when I told them of the comments Glatze had made.
I am speaking at NARTH tomorrow and amending my normal talk to include a portion on bullying. Thanks, Warren, for hammering this stuff home. The stories of these poor, sweet, beautiful kids have broken my heart.
I can’t help but think that this Michael guy is going so far in the opposite direction of his past life that he must feel a deep seated shame and wants to do anything to get far from it including making some of the outrageous statments as of late. He also seems the type to want public adoration regardless of the issue. It’s hard to cypher out what is real with him and what is maufactured for the sake of publicity.
I just don’t get how anyone can justify bullying. Being called on your own crap is one thing – being bullied is another.
Why, indeed?