National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Scientific Advisory Board member James E. Phelan has some peculiar views. In the second edition (2011) of his book, 
Practical Exercises For Men In Recovery Of Same-Sex Attraction, he has a section called “Allying your wife or girlfriend,” in which he writes:
If you are married or dating, in most cases, your wife or girlfriend has not struggled with SSA and will not understand your recovery process. It is up to you to help educate her about your needs.
And what does this education entail?
Tell her, also, “I need to be the man of the house. Let me be the man of the house.” Dominant women only demasculinize men. (emphasis mine) A man has got to be the lion of the den. Not in an abusive manner though. (p. 61)
Former presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan — along with current president Barack Obama — would be shocked to know that they have been demasculinized by their wives. Both Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush were famous for being strong-willed women who took no guff in the West Wing. Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama are both accomplished women and lawyers who have a commanding presence. I can’t imagine George H.W. Bush telling Barbara that he has to be the lion in the den. My point here, is that powerful men can still be lions with a lioness in the den — and such family structures have zero to do with one’s masculinity or sexual orientation. Insecure men like Phelan and his clients need to understand that being a man comes from within, not by suppressing or putting down talented women.
The public must realize that NARTH’s therapy involves much more than failed attempts at sexual conversion. To pursue NARTH’s plan, clients must abandon modernity and adopt the group’s anachronistic worldview that includes submissive women who know their place. What this group is really after is the creation of a Leave it to Beaver world that never really existed. Once the public understands what NARTH truly stands for, their already shaky support with evaporate.
Phelan’s views cannot be separated from those of NARTH because he is a key member who is central to their defense of reparative therapy. For example, when the American Psychological Association came out with a landmark report in 2009, Phelan released a bogus and widely ignored “study” to preempt the APA’s findings against “ex-gay” programs. In other words, NARTH’s go-to guy is the one claiming that “dominant women demasculinize men.”
And we are supposed to take this group steeped in male chauvinism seriously? Are we supposed to believe that this organization cares one iota about science?
I don’t think so.
I’ll end this post with a bizarre little poem by Phelan that appears on page 87 of his silly handbook. It is called “Changed.”
If I had not changed…
Then where…where are my chains?
If I had not changed…Where is death’s sting?
…If I had not changed a thing.
I would not be here, but there
…In that dirty, stinking, filthy, polluted city, with only my soul to pity…
…If I had not changed!
I could not say, “I love you.”
…nor could I.
…If I had not changed
I would not be able to explain…what was meant by the sorrow…the pain
…If I had not changed
Then where…where are my chains?
Hahahahahahaha — yeah, pretty funny stuff. Somewhere, Robert Frost is spinning in his grave. Don’t you just love when wingnuts try to be artistic?
Note to Phelan: Have you checked the Eagle’s dungeon for your lost chains?
It’s always amused me that the definition of manhood for so many men seems to be “anything not a woman.” There was a great book written about 30 odd years ago called “which way out of the men’s room.” It was all about the link between misogyny and “manhood.” great read.
“I need to be the man of the house. Let me be the man of the house.” Translation, “It’s YOUR fault I have same-sex attractions, and it will be YOUR fault when this sham therapy fails”.
This really shouldn’t come as a surprise coming from a religious fundamentalist. Women being submissive and men has head of the household is a HUGE thing in American fundamentalist Christianity. There are lots of books only about that subject. All the big-shot con men preach it. It’s just good old fashioned patriarchy, though they often try to sell it with terms like “complementarianism”.
This isn’t any different from morons like Doug Wilson saying that men conquer and “colonize” and women need to surrender and be penetrated:
http://rachelheldevans.com/gospel-coalition-douglas-wilson-sex
They really do think this is 1956, don’t they?
They just can’t handle the fact that everyone does not conform to “Ozzie & Harriett” gender-norm stereotypes.
I think that they need these strictly delineated gender perameters as their tiny wee brains wont allow for a more complex sexual spectrum. It gives them a headache.
All I could think of was Austin Powers: ‘They stole my Mojo!’
If you need to keep women down in order to consider yourself a man, you aren’t a man. At best, you’re just a little boy.
It amuses me the extent to which they construe “alpha” to be a necessary component of “male.” “I have the largest male genitalia in this house, so I am the man” – until you go to work and have to sort out whose is bigger and therefore gets to be CEO…
…which makes it look like all those hetero- man- is- the- boss- fundies are really all just a bunch of size queens.
Well said Emma.
It seems that NARTH is turning otherwise healthy gay men into little boys with no respect for women. It’s disgraceful, really.
I like that: “Ask her to LET YOU be the man of the house.” Sure, ask your intended bride for permission to be what you should be already. How humiliating! If you are that much of a wimp, you better not go through with this marriage thing. Be who you are; it’s much easier on the psyche.
Well, isn’t he quick to confirm the fragility of his “masculinity, now…One is forced to question whether he was “masculine” at any time in his life…
“It is up to you to help educate her about your needs.” I’m sure Phelan means that the guy should lie. Honesty would mean he’d say, “I really, really need a man, but I also need to be accepted by my church and other bigots in our community, so I’ve decided to try to make a go of a sham marriage to you, and occasionally get some man-sex on the side.”
“I need to be the man of the house. [PLEEEEEZE] Let me be the man of the house.”
O.M.G., this is all just too hilarious!
This is pure idiocy. My mother was an independent woman with her own opinions (which she loved to share LOL), and at one point she made more money than Dad did, but it certainly did not make me view him as less of a man. In fact he was a real man all the way; the quality I associate most with him is integrity. I loved him and he loved both my brother and me. We loved Mom, too, but when it came to any decision they were truly equal partners long before the idea of such a marriage became popular.
Therapist? Are they offering certificates and degrees in Cracker Jack boxes, or as prizes in cereal?
No doubt, his training was via an online course at some, also no doubt, disreputable, fly-by-night sham “college”.
Either that or he found some old musty psych tomes in a delapitated cardboard box at a garage sale and upon reading them, determined he was now “trained”.
I love your comment, Emma. Men who just want to dominate and control women are bullies. And bullies are weak. A strong man is one who loves himself and doesn’t need to control other people in order to feel strong.
Did this guy date Bea Arthur? hahaha
Anyone who has ever watched Animal Planet knows that it’s the female lions who do most of the work, while the male lion lies around looking really really cool.
What does that mean, to be the man of the house? Does that translate to, “I’m the Boss?” Yeah unless you find a real wimpy woman, that’s not gonna fly.
[...] industry is posing as victims when they are actually the victimizers. They are about enforcing rigid gender norms, restrictive stereotypes, and portraying homosexuality in the worst possible light. Far from open [...]