From Florida comes an article that flew under the gaydar here at Ex-Gay Watch, but the Miami New Times piece, published last July, is still worth noting.
In Scared Straight, Joanne Green profiles Worthy Creations, the Fort Lauderdale-based ex-gay ministry that promises the gay struggler (in a phrase borrowed directly from Exodus) “the freedom to grow into heterosexuality.”
The article is at its most effective when gays, ex-gays and ex-ex-gays are speaking for themselves. Randy Thomas of Exodus is interviewed, for example, as is Worthy Creations dropout and critic Jerry Stephenson.
However, the article is also very strong on opinion, and likely to infuriate ex-gays. Unfortunately, Green’s style is very unsubtle, and relies heavily on innuendo. For example, the description of Worthy Creations counsellor Joe Alicea painfully overdoes the suggestion that he’s still as camp as a row of tents:
[The] immaculately groomed Joe Alicea — a self-described former homosexual — leans back, kicks up a shiny black shoe, and crosses one starched navy pinstripe pant leg neatly over the other.Bowing his clean-shaven head, he flutters his dark eyelashes and nods reassuringly toward the effeminate, lanky Miami Beach man seated across from him.
“Exactly!” Alicea beams, palms open, arms outstretched toward the heavens. “You are not homosexual.”
Lowering his hands, he purses his lips, raises a tweezed eyebrow, and pensively taps a manicured finger on his cheek.
Green does the same posturing with Sarah, a participant in the program:
A slender, tan young girl in hot pink shorts jogs past Sarah. She pretends not to notice, but the slight tilt of her chin belies her stab at deception.
As she wanders back to the construction site on a blustery afternoon, a raven-haired girl passes by on Rollerblades and smiles. Sarah smiles back.
This all seems like what we Brits call “over-egging the pudding.” When the substance of the interviewees comments in many instances appears to speak so well for itself, one wonders why Green felt the need for such embellishment.
The article also suffers from some unfortunate generalizations and inaccuracies. For instance, early on Green writes that “for God to love her, Alicea teaches and Sarah believes, she must live righteously.” I needn’t look at the Worthy Creations website to know that this is a gross oversimplification. No mainstream evangelical ministry actually teaches that God doesn’t love you until you become straight (or repentant or righteous); they explicitly teach the opposite. All things considered, the reality may be nuanced, inconsistent or even self-contradictory, but “Alicia teaches x” is certainly the most simplistic and least accurate way to describe it.
Later on, Green gives the impression that the typical therapy supported by Exodus includes electric shocks to the genitals, exorcism or physical restraint. She also says that the ex-gay movement has “one steadfast rule: Same-sex strugglers are prohibited from spending time together alone.” While this may be a rule of some programs (perhaps including Worthy Creations), this is not a “steadfast rule” of the ex-gay movement as a whole. The problem here is that Green treats the ex-gay movement as unrealistically monolithic, when the size and scope of the article warranted a more nuanced approach.
There were also a couple of factual errors in the article. Robert Spitzer’s ex-gay study was peer-reviewed (all documented in Drescher and Zucker’s 2006 volume Ex-Gay Research, and Michael Johnston was exposed by Southern Voice in 2003, not 2002.
But it is not these factual errors that are the most bothersome. The problem here is that Green simply tries too hard to paint a particular picture of the ex-gay movement, instead of letting the facts do the work. She may ultimately be right in her analysis, but wrong in her delivery. Without a more reasoned, less theatrical approach to the subject, she makes it far too easy for ex-gays to demolish her report.
David,
I don’t neccessarily disagree with your analysis of this article. You didn’t note some panicked postings by Randy Thomas on his website after he discovered the actual direction that this article was going.
I would ask what your suggestion would be for describing an interaction with an ex-gay leader who acts like a very stereotypically gay man who emphatically states to another stereotypically gay man, “Exactly! You are not a homosexual.”
On TV, the audience can see the immediate disconnect between the verbal and non-verbal cues that come from some of these ex-gay leaders. A print reporter has a dillema: just print the words that come out of the ex-gay person’s mouth, which may not honestly communicate the full context of the interaction, or describe the context of the interaction and be accused of being unfair to the ex-gay interviewee.
Hi, John. It wasn’t that Green shouldn’t have described Alicea’s manner at all, but this was just bad writing. It was milked for every last drop. It loses its effectiveness when the writer tries so hard – less is more, as they say.
Thanks for the hat-tip on Randy’s comments. I’ll go check it out. (Update: If you have a link for those comments, I’d be grateful!)
Dave,
I don’t have a link. I know that it was made a few days before the story came out.
Well…I thought it was pretty decent writing in that she used great words to paint a picture and “show rather than tell”. You are right, though, that it may have added too much ‘slant’ to the article when it might not have needed it.
I thought that the piece was actually really good. Sure, it was highly descriptive, but it was also human. There were overt personal judgments of the people interviewed, but I thought that made the piece more interesting. As someone already said, it is very hard to convey a true sense of the the experience in print media. Ultimately, Greene did a good job highlighting the obvious futility of the ex-gay racket – true “change” is truly elusive, even for the highly motivated.
Moderator Action (10/9): Comment removed as being completely off topic, full of straw man argumentation and spammed links for the commenter’s website. The commenter is invited to correct his arguments, support his claims, and post to a recent open thread where topic is not as important. Also, XGW is not a place for free advertising — the site link you provided in your identity details is quite enough. And please, separate long comments into paragraphs.
Thank you.
It seems that the “gay talkspeak moderater” of Ex-gay Watch has made his presence known. I guess George Orwell must have been off by only 20+ years. I hope that I can find a website that allows all voices to be heard…(sic)…..
Anthony, there was a warning posted several hours before your comment was deleted, and you were invited to repost your comments on an ‘Open Forum’ thread. It was deleted from that thread for being off-topic. So far as I know, you are still welcome to repost on an open forum topic… However, comments like the one above are not likely to help!
If taht’s true then I respectfully ask you to repost my comments on your open forum and i apoligize if I jumped to a conclusion that you are not fair in having all positions represented. As a former homosexual I have personally witnessed many gay publications, etc. “editing” our not allowing ex-gay honest dialogue. Thank You. I will continue to contact Ex-gay Watch IF you are truly interested in honest dialogue…
Anthony, you could always start your own blog and carry on the “honest dialog” there. Comment threads aren’t the only place to be heard and XGW, or any blogger for that matter, isn’t required to give a place for everyone’s voice to be heard on their blog.
If you have time to write up a long comment you have time to blog. It’s pretty easy…and free at wordpress.com
That said, about this article, I have no idea where she got that I said 200 except if that quote came from an interview I did with Bay Windows during the time I was at Living Hope or if Bay Windows misquoted me.
Anthony, as was mentioned hours before removing the comment and resulting OT thread, you are welcome to comment to an open forum – we don’t do that for you and your original comment is now gone. If you have germane points to discuss, please do so.
Please take note of the issues I pointed out concerning your original comment if you decide to post again. This is not your personal soapbox, so please stop spamming your site. As Randy mentioned, you can create your own blog for that.
Moderator Action 10/10: Commenter continues to post off topic rants. Anthony, this is the last warning before banning.
Mr. Falzarano~
I’ve never heard of you before catching your comments here on this forum. I haven’t taken the time to track down your story. Neither do I know the folks on the XGW site other than by reading what they post. That being said, your assertion that gay people are immature sounds an awfully lot like my 9 year old after he’s gotten in trouble. You may wish to believe that gay people are immature and hypocritical, but when you post something that sounds like Margaret from Dennis the Menace, you’ve pretty much sunk your own ship. Talk about immature AND hypocritical. Pot, meet kettle!
j.
Anthony,
Wow, you’re back. Interesting. And, thanks for the encouragement about how Exodus is shaping up these days. Your criticism reassures me that I am doing what is right.
And, let’s be clear, you didn’t “choose” to leave Exodus. You were removed from Exodus. Not a moment too soon, either.
It’s not often that Alan Chambers makes my day, but that comment made my day. Thanks, Alan.
Alan Chambers wrote:
I am no fan of Mr. Falzarano. What little I have gleened from him makes me cringe.
But don’t most former employers say nothing more than: Mr. Falzarano worked for us from xx/xx to xx/xx.
I suppose they do unless the former employee states something contrary to fact about the nature of their departure? Posting such on a blog takes things beyond a regular reference check, or so it would seem.
Actually, John is right, at least when it comes to answering inquiries from a reference check. In fact, in such a situation, giving the inquirer any information beyond an individual’s hire and separation dates is grounds for a formal complaint and lawsuit. The only exception is when the previous employer has received expresss written permission to say more from the former employee. And such permission usually has to spell out what additional information may be given.
I doubt the laws at work apply to a conversation on a blog, though it’s not a gray area I’d want to test if I were an employer.
But this clearly wasn’t a “reference check” on the part of XGW or AF. So would the guidelines discussed here be appropo given the setting?
As I said, I suspect it’s a gray area. After all, if Mr. Falzarano goes to a prospective employer who happens to read Alan’s comment and chooses not to hire Mr. Falzarano, Mr. Falzarano might argue that Alan indirectly provided said potential employer with information he shouldn’t have. Would such an argument hold up in court? I’m not a lawyer, so I wouldn’t have the faintest. But again, if I was someone’s employer, I might think twice before opening myself to the possibility of finding out the hard way.
If a potiential employer found this comment on the web, it is even more likely that they would find all the stuff that Mr. Falzarano has posted himself. All in all, I am sure that Mr. Falzarano has probably done himself far more damage than Alan Chambers did with his one comment.
I am the one that initially raised the issue. The real point that I was trying to make was that it was both unwise and unusual for a former employer/superviser to put out something like that so publicly. I have been convinced for quite soem time that this national level ministry (Exodus) isn’t being run in the most professional manner. This was just another example that I wanted to call attention to.
As far as I know, Anthony was never an employee (paid or volunteer) of Exodus. Anthony claimed to represent the whole of Exodus a few times in interviews but he never did so in an official sense or with permission
Anthony’s official departure from Exodus (what … almost ten year’s ago?) was anything but secret and didn’t have to be. It was serious differences in opinions, vision and approach. Sometimes it is best for both parties for people to go their own way.
Since the topic has been hopelessly abandoned, I’ll close this one.