How does it feel to be in a profession dominated by women? :p

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

I think many faculty are just indoctrinated into this lifestyle, and while it can be very rewarding, it definitely is not for everyone. The tenure clock for my university is 8 years, with the option (dept. discretion) for 10. Nuts.

Agreed. Most of the faculty I know (about whom I wrote) were reportedly borderline-manic workaholic-types in grad school as well, so the AMC workload didn't represent much of a change for them. This is particularly the case with the higher-up supervisors who were heading one or more multi-site research studies in addition to handling clinical work for an entire inpatient rehab or tbi wing, for example.

The newer-hires related experiences fairly similar to those you've described for yourself, T4C. Very rewarding overall, but a high (and relatively unyielding/unforgiving) demand for output.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

As you mentioned, it's likely program-dependent, as I can honestly say I've experienced none of what you've recounted either during my grad school days or on internship.

That's because you are the "oppressor."

When my wife was getting get teaching certification at a large state school in CA, many of her classmates turned against her when they found out that she frequented blogs, and had her own blog, that centered around how to be a proper wife, in the christian view. Apparently, this automatically made her a dishrag with "out of date" notions of marriage and relationships.

Originally Posted by erg923

That's because you are the "oppressor."

When my wife was getting get teaching certification at a large state school in CA, many of her classmates turned against her when they found out that she frequented blogs, and had her own blog, that centered around how to be a proper wife, in the christian view. Apparently, this automatically made her a dishrag with "out of date" notions of marriage and relationships.

Haha possibly, although I never got the feeling (nor heard from the few people in the department with whom I was closer friends and/or dated) that anyone felt negatively toward me. I think most of it was reserved solely for supervisors and grad school in general. After those two factors, there must not have been much disdain left to go around.

After college I worked under a female supervisor who was very direct in pointing out certain mannerisms, or lack thereof, I displayed that made her and the other female staff uneasy. Basically it came down to the fact that I dont really smile a lot, have a very dry sense of humor, and sometimes cross my arms when I sit (b/c it was comfortable, but others thought it was b/c I was pissed off). Also, she said that the way my eyebrows naturally rest on my head gives me a natural scowling look, and though its a handsome characteristic, its also intimidating. Like I said, this lady was very blunt.

So, I took her suggestions to heart - I smiled more, I made my jokes more understandable, and NEVER crossed my arms. I found that my relationships did improve and it has carried over to grad school and practica. Now every time I meet a new patient, I always tell myself to smile and raise my eyebrows - which I'm sure most ppl do naturally but apparently I do not, and I honestly believe that it helps a great deal in establishing the initial rapport.

Originally Posted by IT514

After college I worked under a female supervisor who was very direct in pointing out certain mannerisms, or lack thereof, I displayed that made her and the other female staff uneasy. Basically it came down to the fact that I dont really smile a lot, have a very dry sense of humor, and sometimes cross my arms when I sit (b/c it was comfortable, but others thought it was b/c I was pissed off). Also, she said that the way my eyebrows naturally rest on my head gives me a natural scowling look, and though its a handsome characteristic, its also intimidating. Like I said, this lady was very blunt.

So, I took her suggestions to heart - I smiled more, I made my jokes more understandable, and NEVER crossed my arms. I found that my relationships did improve and it has carried over to grad school and practica. Now every time I meet a new patient, I always tell myself to smile and raise my eyebrows - which I'm sure most ppl do naturally but apparently I do not, and I honestly believe that it helps a great deal in establishing the initial rapport.

Sounds like it wasn't bad advice and that you also took the advice well.

Now I can't imagine a male supervisor ever being able to give that type of advice to a female employee without repurcussions...just not the world we live in.

Originally Posted by psych844

I'm a dude but kind of surprising that it is so slanted. I've had a look at some programs up here in Canada and for the applications you see numbers like 60F 6M. Why are women dominating in this field? Why are females interested but males less so?

Could it be because pay in Psychology is among the lowest when you consider Graduate degrees?

I'm not sure why there are more women than men entering the field. Perhaps there is a bias or social expectation that women are more capable of empathy than men. I do recall something (an article?) I read awhile ago that theorized that women are possibly less willing to be assertive when it comes to pay grades as compared to males.

Men are less than a quarter of our cohort. Personally, I love being surrounded by women! The only downside is that I am already happily married with kids. I love the ladies in my class!

Hello everyone,

I'm a frequent lurker However, I just listened to an old podcast that addresses this issue quite interestingly. I just had to jump on here because I think some of you might enjoy listening to it. NPR does a podcast called "intelligence squared" where they engage in oxford style debateon a number of topics. I just listened to "Are men finished?" which first aired on 9-26-11. Very interesting debate and directly discusses the issue of more women going to college than men (and what it means and if those stats are true).

happy listening!

I'm gonna re-post this since it seems the gender-related conversation has revived itself:

“'Feminization' of Psychology: The Changing Sex Ratio and Its Implications for the Profession"
Patricia A. Ostertag
J. Regis McNamara

Abstract

Women are participating in the field of psychology in increasing numbers relative to men. This development has been referred to as the “feminization of psychology,” and it carries with it a number of implications. This article reviews statistical data relating to the changing sex ratio and discusses their implications. Participation rates of women in psychology are examined as they pertain to enrollment in doctoral programs, graduation from baccalaureate programs, and career progress within the profession. Implications of changing sex ratios for occupational prestige, income and economics, work structure, education and training, and theory, research, and practice are then discussed. In conclusion, the concept of “feminization” is challenged as questions are raised about whether the increase in the number of women in psychology is a problem, as has been alleged, or a symptom of other problems within the field.

http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/15/3/349.abstract

I think some of the related discussion on this thread addresses questions which are fundamentally sociological in nature (i.e. historically when particular clusters of socio-economic conditions re/emerge, discourses about "men in crisis" gain popular credence).

Originally Posted by IT514

After college I worked under a female supervisor who was very direct in pointing out certain mannerisms, or lack thereof, I displayed that made her and the other female staff uneasy. Basically it came down to the fact that I dont really smile a lot, have a very dry sense of humor, and sometimes cross my arms when I sit (b/c it was comfortable, but others thought it was b/c I was pissed off). Also, she said that the way my eyebrows naturally rest on my head gives me a natural scowling look, and though its a handsome characteristic, its also intimidating. Like I said, this lady was very blunt.

So, I took her suggestions to heart - I smiled more, I made my jokes more understandable, and NEVER crossed my arms. I found that my relationships did improve and it has carried over to grad school and practica. Now every time I meet a new patient, I always tell myself to smile and raise my eyebrows - which I'm sure most ppl do naturally but apparently I do not, and I honestly believe that it helps a great deal in establishing the initial rapport.

I had a similar conversation with a female supervisor once (about being too positive actually) and took the advice to heart. However, one of the problems I quickly realized is that men and women react to things differently. It was not until internship that I had a male supervisor and the opportunity to deal with issues masculinitiy and showing vulnerability, etc as female supervisors did not always understand where I was coming from on that issue. I am saddened that the opportunity took so long, but glad that it happened. There are times where a male supervisor is needed just as a male therapist may be needed and the opportunities are just not that common.

I am saddened that the opportunity took so long, but glad that it happened. There are times where a male supervisor is needed just as a male therapist may be needed and the opportunities are just not that common.

I never noted this before. But, in graduate school, I never had a woman psychotherapy supervisor. On internship, I also did not have any women psychotherapy supervisors. I did have one woman neuropsychology supervisor and 5 men. On postdoc, I had no women supervisors. As an early faculty member, my assigned mentor is a man.

Originally Posted by Jon Snow

I never noted this before. But, in graduate school, I never had a woman psychotherapy supervisor. On internship, I also did not have any women psychotherapy supervisors. I did have one woman neuropsychology supervisor and 5 men. On postdoc, I had no women supervisors. As an early faculty member, my assigned mentor is a man.

About 80-90% of my supervisors from the beginning to end of graduate school/internship/postdoc have been women.

Originally Posted by wigflip

I'm gonna re-post this since it seems the gender-related conversation has revived itself:

“'Feminization' of Psychology: The Changing Sex Ratio and Its Implications for the Profession"
Patricia A. Ostertag
J. Regis McNamara

Abstract

Women are participating in the field of psychology in increasing numbers relative to men. This development has been referred to as the “feminization of psychology,” and it carries with it a number of implications. This article reviews statistical data relating to the changing sex ratio and discusses their implications. Participation rates of women in psychology are examined as they pertain to enrollment in doctoral programs, graduation from baccalaureate programs, and career progress within the profession. Implications of changing sex ratios for occupational prestige, income and economics, work structure, education and training, and theory, research, and practice are then discussed. In conclusion, the concept of “feminization” is challenged as questions are raised about whether the increase in the number of women in psychology is a problem, as has been alleged, or a symptom of other problems within the field.

http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/15/3/349.abstract

I think some of the related discussion on this thread addresses questions which are fundamentally sociological in nature (i.e. historically when particular clusters of socio-economic conditions re/emerge, discourses about "men in crisis" gain popular credence).

I don't view the fact that most psychologists/psychologists-in-training are women as a problem. But as with any majority group, there are always issues for those who are not a part of the majority. Psychology is unique in that we have many subspecilizations and areas where gender stratification is different, but on the whole, there are just more women, period. Problem? No. Could it be if people act inappropriately? Yes.

Originally Posted by Pragma

Now I can't imagine a male supervisor ever being able to give that type of advice to a female employee without repurcussions...just not the world we live in.

I don't know, I got some pretty concrete feedback similar to what was described above from my male social work preceptor--no not psychology, but still.

On another note, I have to say, I'm disturbed by the essentialist leanings expressed on this thread. The "men and women react differently" discourse is just a stone's throw away from that Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus silliness. That kind of essentialist statement would never fly in most other contemporary social science contexts.

Originally Posted by wigflip

On another note, I have to say, I'm disturbed by the essentialist leanings expressed on this thread. The "men and women react differently" discourse is just a stone's throw away from that Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus silliness. That kind of essentialist statement would never fly in most other contemporary social science contexts.

This isn’t really my area, so I’m gonna have to ask what that is and why it is "bad" that people acknowledge that men and women react differently to things? I thought we were kinda well beyond that debate now?

Originally Posted by erg923

This isn’t really my area, so I’m gonna have to ask what that is and why it is "bad" that people acknowledge that men and women react differently to things? I thought we were kinda well beyond that debate now?

Yes, we are beyond that debate, but in the other direction.

Originally Posted by wigflip

I don't know, I got some pretty concrete feedback similar to what was described above from my male social work preceptor--no not psychology, but still.

On another note, I have to say, I'm disturbed by the essentialist leanings expressed on this thread. The "men and women react differently" discourse is just a stone's throw away from that Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus silliness. That kind of essentialist statement would never fly in most other contemporary social science contexts.

It really isn't all that and anywhere I have trained, I have learned the importance of diversity and different points of view. Men and women are socialized differently. Women tend to more easily accept and give social support. Men, as a group, do not. While I may be socialized one way within the psychology and therapy community (a largely female community), I am socialized in completely different ways as a young man in society. Finding a way to integrate those to parts of myself was some of the work I needed to do in growing as a therapist and having male therapy supervisors was a large part of that. I am many things other than male as well and have many other perspectives. I am not better than any person, but being a man, a minority, and even having a physically imposing physical build all play into who I am and what I bring to the table. For example, I had a supervisor of the same ethnicity as me. However, she had never considered how things such as the way I dress affect my life and not hers. A 20-something, large male, with dark skin color gets treated very differently walking down the street in a t-shirt and jeans than in a shirt and tie. Not so for a tiny woman in her 30s. At the end of the day, every part of who we are informs how we react to a situation.

Originally Posted by wigflip

Yes, we are beyond that debate, but in the other direction.

?

I was curious too and now think I must be misunderstanding. I wasn't aware there are any fields out there still arguing that men and women don't react differently (in a general, across the board sense). Is that what you are saying? That seems a very 1950's worldview..for a long time we had no safety data for a lot of medical procedures because all testing was done in men and just "assumed" to be the same in women, which was true in some cases but not all. It actually became a major ethical issue, and federal action was taken to resolve it.

Its exceedingly well-established that they do in some circumstances, and don't seem to in many others. As usual, the devil is in the details. As for what portion of these things is due to society versus biology, that is still a very open question, but I'm amazed at the notion that there could be legitimate academic field where the broad belief is that men and women react identically in all situations. Heck, there are whole subfields devoted to studying the differences.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

?

I was curious too and now think I must be misunderstanding. I wasn't aware there are any fields out there still arguing that men and women don't react differently (in a general, across the board sense). Is that what you are saying? That seems a very 1950's worldview..for a long time we had no safety data for a lot of medical procedures because all testing was done in men and just "assumed" to be the same in women, which was true in some cases but not all.

Its exceedingly well-established that they do in some circumstances, and don't seem to in many others. As usual, the devil is in the details. As for what portion of these things is due to society versus biology, that is still a very open question, but I'm amazed at the notion that there could be legitimate academic fields concluding men and women react identically. Heck, there are whole subfields devoted to studying the differences.

I am assuming that wigflip is using the term "essentialist" to mean that we are assuming women react in a particular way by definition. Now, I think wigflip is dangerous to assume that others are assuming that, but history would be on her side.

That said, it works the other way as well, and that is part of why I point out the fact that men within this field get stereotyped by the women just plenty.

Originally Posted by Pragma

I am assuming that wigflip is using the term "essentialist" to mean that we are assuming women react in a particular way by definition. Now, I think wigflip is dangerous to assume that others are assuming that, but history would be on her side.

That said, it works the other way as well, and that is part of why I point out the fact that men within this field get stereotyped by the women just plenty.

Is in, react that way in absolute terms? If so, then its a fair point - though I didn't get the impression anyone was attempting to argue that, just that characteristic responses differ across genders (which is pretty indisputable for many things). In other words, distributions overlap, but certainly differ.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

?

I was curious too and now think I must be misunderstanding. I wasn't aware there are any fields out there still arguing that men and women don't react differently (in a general, across the board sense). Is that what you are saying? That seems a very 1950's worldview..for a long time we had no safety data for a lot of medical procedures because all testing was done in men and just "assumed" to be the same in women, which was true in some cases but not all. It actually became a major ethical issue, and federal action was taken to resolve it.

Its exceedingly well-established that they do in some circumstances, and don't seem to in many others. As usual, the devil is in the details. As for what portion of these things is due to society versus biology, that is still a very open question, but I'm amazed at the notion that there could be legitimate academic field where the broad belief is that men and women react identically in all situations. Heck, there are whole subfields devoted to studying the differences.

Except for perhaps in sociolbiological circles, essentialism is very out of vogue in other social sciences disciplines. If you are part of an interdisciplinary team, I'd refrain from making sweeping generalizations about how men and women are essentially different. Research certainly indicates that men and women are treated differently, but in terms of actual behavior, there's more within-sex variability than concrete essential differences between men and women (not to mention the intersection of other situationally relevant identities, as noted above).

Originally Posted by Ollie123

Is in, react that way in absolute terms? If so, then its a fair point - though I didn't get the impression anyone was attempting to argue that, just that characteristic responses differ across genders.

I started to address this, as well as Pragma's caution against making assumptions, then realized that I gotta actually get some work done, so it's just not worth going down that rabbit hole, at least not right now.

I'm not trying to pick on anyone or label anyone. But most people in my discipline and others with which I work closely read a statement to the effect of "Social Category A and Social Category B do X differently" as essentialist. It's a fair reading.

"Difference" is political precisely because historically (and contemporarily) it's been used as a means of institutionalizing discrimination. That's not unrelated to why many folks get twitchy about essentialism.

Originally Posted by wigflip

Yes, we are beyond that debate, but in the other direction.

denying gender differences??? what do you mean.

"Can't we all just get along?"

20yr anniversary (April 2012).

Anyone feel old yet?

I get twitchy when people use double negatives...

While "difference" can be used pejoratively, that does not mean we should ignore the differences between gender behaviors that exist in the research literature. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the argument that is being made; it is baffling me.

Originally Posted by wigflip

I'm not trying to pick on anyone or label anyone. But most people in my discipline and others with which I work closely read a statement to the effect of "Social Category A and Social Category B do X differently" as essentialist. It's a fair reading.

Fair enough. I certainly agree differences are far from absolute and certainly not inherent to one gender or another. I was just under the impression the argument was that "There are no differences", which is a hugely different statement (and a wildly incorrect one at that) than saying that differences aren't absolute.

Regarding the use of language...perhaps I'm just too quick to give the benefit of the doubt to folks in this field, since I find it hard to believe anyone with significant behavioral sciences training could think in such absolutes. Oh how much easier my research life would be if human behavior worked like that...

The perspective most in psychology take is far from essentialism but it's also unscientific to contend that the genders are identical with regard to many biological / psychological constructs.

It's not a fair reading to call any data that suggest statistically significant differences as essentialist. People in the other disciplines should bother to examine the actual distributions which show small but significant differences. If the distributions mostly overlap you are still going to want to explain why they don't overlap perfectly. If people take small but real differences and extrapolate that people are saying men are from mars etc then it's their own damn ignorance that's driving them not a fair reading of the evidence.

edit: And it's willful ignorance if they've ever taken a stats class :/

Originally Posted by roubs

The perspective most in psychology take is far from essentialism but it's also unscientific to contend that the genders are identical with regard to many biological / psychological constructs.

It's not a fair reading to call any data that suggest statistically significant differences as essentialist. People in the other disciplines should bother to examine the actual distributions which show small but significant differences. If the distributions mostly overlap you are still going to want to explain why they don't overlap perfectly. If people take small but real differences and extrapolate that people are saying men are from mars etc then it's their own damn ignorance that's driving them not a fair reading of the evidence.

edit: And it's willful ignorance if they've ever taken a stats class :/

This is an important general point, at least IMO. The intra-groups difference within most groups of people, when examining segments of society (e.g., ethnicity, SES, geography/region), is likely almost always going to be greater than the inter-groups differences. But that doesn't mean the between-group differences aren't significant, and that they should be ignored because of the large amount of variability within each group (which could indicate, among other things, that the groups are rather poorly-defined; then again, if the group definitions are based on common beliefs/assumptions/practices/etc., then they're probably worth examining for that reason alone). I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting we ignore those differences, mind you, although we may be speaking a few different languages, or at least coming from a few significantly-different viewpoints.

I do obviously agree that the differences need to be interpreted, and reported, with caution, though. Those kinds of findings can be easily swooped up and potentially distorted by a variety of outlets.

I don't think the labor it would take to try to come to some kind of cross-disciplinary understanding is worth the effort at this point. I'm going to climb out from under this dogpile and get some actual work done (on an empirical paper related to purported gender differences, no less).

I'm going to jump in and offer that psychology really is different than other social sciences in this regard. Here we have a discipline, our discipline, which was very strongly male in its development and which turned into one that has now heavily female (I won't say "dominated"). We are not just observing or studying people, we are an applied field that is actually in the mix as interventionists. And so we have a field that is saturated with women, so the culture of gender affects the professional delivery of services as well as the study of the actual subject. Where else does that happen?! I think it must be much more complicated to discuss gender, as a result.

Originally Posted by wigflip

I don't think the labor it would take to try to come to some kind of cross-disciplinary understanding is worth the effort at this point.

I am sure pretty much everyone here has taken sociology and social psychology classes before; even in those disciplinary fields it is not as black and white as your posts seem to suggest. But, perhaps I just misunderstood the objective of your posts...

Originally Posted by Jegg

I am sure pretty much everyone here has taken sociology and social psychology classes before; even in those disciplinary fields it is not as black and white as your posts seem to suggest. But, perhaps I just misunderstood the objective of your posts...

Thanks, Jegg. I think you're right. Clarifying that to the satisfaction of people who imagine that I contend that women and men are identical in every single regard is where the labor-intensive part comes in.

But I did get a good chuckle out of someone else's suggestion that I and/or my colleagues are willfully ignoring that great god Data when this thread has steered clear of referencing any, at least of late. Now that I think of it, the article (directly addressing the OP's initial proposition) that I linked to earlier didn't generate any interest. Hmm...

Now I'm going to make good on my promise to vamoose (was actually on my way out when I got a PM).

For my part (can't say for others), I think we are on the same page now and I just misunderstood what you were saying. It seems to be a language difference since the "x and y are different" is quite widely accepted in psychology, and I'd never heard of anyone even suggesting the notion that men and women might not react/behave differently in certain situations (at the mean level). If you'd like enough citations for that to keep you busy for the next year or two, let me know Yours has been added to my list.

Now that I know its just about whether they are, by definition, distinct (i.e. not overlapping), what you said makes perfect sense. At least for me, it just got me going a bit since it reminded me of when I make similar statements about clinical populations (e.g. depressed individuals have flattened affect), and my students attempt to counter it with things like "Well that isn't true because my uncle is depressed and..." and I have to spend half a class reviewing what a bell curve is and arguing that differences DO exist even if we can't say that every person is different...blech (can you tell this came up recently?). The extent to which we can use averages to makes inferences at the individual level is a perfectly valid point, and an important one in these discussions.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

For my part (can't say for others), I think we are on the same page now and I just misunderstood what you were saying. It seems to be a language difference since the "x and y are different" is quite widely accepted in psychology, and I'd never heard of anyone even suggesting the notion that men and women might not react/behave differently in certain situations (at the mean level). If you'd like enough citations for that to keep you busy for the next year or two, let me know Yours has been added to my list.

Now that I know its just about whether they are, by definition, distinct (i.e. not overlapping), what you said makes perfect sense. At least for me, it just got me going a bit since it reminded me of when I make similar statements about clinical populations (e.g. depressed individuals have flattened affect), and my students attempt to counter it with things like "Well that isn't true because my uncle is depressed and..." and I have to spend half a class reviewing what a bell curve is and arguing that differences DO exist even if we can't say that every person is different...blech (can you tell this came up recently?). The extent to which we can use averages to makes inferences at the individual level is a perfectly valid point, and an important one in these discussions.

Reading through this page again I still get the feeling he/she was suggesting that overall there are no meaningful differences between the sexes because there is greater within sex variability than between sex variability. I was trying to get a more cogent explanation, but he/she continues to be evasive. I dont see the conclusion following from his/her premises.

Originally Posted by wigflip

But I did get a good chuckle out of someone else's suggestion that I and/or my colleagues are willfully ignoring that great god Data

Data was just a Soong-type android, he has his strengths and weaknesses like everyone else. He was only a God for one episode, an ep with liberal use of the holodeck at that.

Originally Posted by roubs

Data was just a Soong-type android, he has his strengths and weaknesses like everyone else. He was only a God for one episode, an ep with liberal use of the holodeck at that.

Certainly Lore was more powerful, especially with the crystaline entity in tow....

Originally Posted by Jegg

Certainly Lore was more powerful, especially with the crystaline entity in tow....

This thread just took a turn for the awesome.

Originally Posted by PhilAwesome

This thread just took a turn for the awesome.

Yeah and speaking of gender differences...

Disclaimer: I know that there is plenty of within group variability when it comes towards one's sex and attitudes towards Star Trek. But come on...just sayin'

Originally Posted by wigflip

Thanks, Jegg. I think you're right. Clarifying that to the satisfaction of people who imagine that I contend that women and men are identical in every single regard is where the labor-intensive part comes in.

But I did get a good chuckle out of someone else's suggestion that I and/or my colleagues are willfully ignoring that great god Data when this thread has steered clear of referencing any, at least of late. Now that I think of it, the article (directly addressing the OP's initial proposition) that I linked to earlier didn't generate any interest. Hmm...

Now I'm going to make good on my promise to vamoose (was actually on my way out when I got a PM).

As you have alluded to time limitations yourself, I haven't had time to track down a full text version of this article via my institution's library (your link goes to a pay site), read it, and reflect on it yet. But I will when I get a chance. I use SDN typically to procrastinate in small doses

.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

The extent to which we can use averages to makes inferences at the individual level is a perfectly valid point, and an important one in these discussions.

I think Ollie hit on the crux of the matter here and the reason why feathers get ruffled in discussions about differences between demographic groups. When one falls at one end or the other of a group's distribution--where generalizations about the mean no longer apply--the knee jerk reaction is to point out how the statement is unfair and invalid. It can get pretty heated for emotionally charged topics. For example, I love sci-fi, dammit .

I wonder what the gender disparity will mean for gender role distribution in psychology. People have been talking about it as a profession that is friendly toward the "mommy track," and I have to wonder what that means for women who have no intention of being on that track...or of filling the feminine gender role at all for that matter. Will it be easier for them than for men simply because they are women, or will gendered expectations on the part of employers make it more difficult for them to secure the higher prestige jobs?

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

I think Ollie hit on the crux of the matter here and the reason why feathers get ruffled in discussions about differences between demographic groups. When one falls at one end or the other of a group's distribution--where generalizations about the mean no longer apply--the knee jerk reaction is to point out how the statement is unfair and invalid. It can get pretty heated for emotionally charged topics. For example, I love sci-fi, dammit .

I wonder what the gender disparity will mean for gender role distribution in psychology. People have been talking about it as a profession that is friendly toward the "mommy track," and I have to wonder what that means for women who have no intention of being on that track...or of filling the feminine gender role at all for that matter. Will it be easier for them than for men simply because they are women, or will gendered expectations on the part of employers make it more difficult for them to secure the higher prestige jobs?

The article wigflip linked seems to imply/argue the latter, although it's also a couple decades old, and came out at a point in time when the increasing-propotion of women doctorate-olders consisted of a larger degree of early-career professionals.

Just based on my own anecdotal experiences in applying for formal neuropsych postdocs, I can say that probably half (or perhaps slightly more) of the sites where I interviewed had females as training directors. How that generalizes to the field as a whole, if at all, I've got no idea. Also, simply because the supervisor is a woman doesn't necessarily mean "family-minded" females, or perhaps females in general, will be lower-tier tracked any less often, of course. Although without having looked at any recent data, I'm basically just shooting from the hip and going on pure conjecture.

Also purely anecdotal here: I've been dinged by previous supervisors because I don't "act according to the stereotypical female gender norms" and should be more nurturing, caring, supportive, hold your hand through absolutely everything, here's a tissue, let me cry with you, namby, pamby bs (I'm oversimplifying here to get the point across). On the other hand, I also had a supervisor who commented with similar feedback, but then acknowledged my style seemed to work well for me, so I should go with it.

There was some interesting I/O research (probably 8-10 years old now) that found women who are promoted to a senior/management position are less likely to promote a female to an open position. Prior to this research there was an assumption that women would stick together against "the Boys Club".

More recent research supports a greater assimilation (to the dominate male culture) by females in senior management positions. Additionally, research has found that women in senior level positions (and also academia*) are less likely to be married, have children, etc. As for the "Mommy Track"...I think it depends who you believe.

Originally Posted by paramour

Also purely anecdotal here: I've been dinged by previous supervisors because I don't "act according to the stereotypical female gender norms" and should be more nurturing, caring, supportive, hold your hand through absolutely everything, here's a tissue, let me cry with you, namby, pamby bs (I'm oversimplifying here to get the point across). On the other hand, I also had a supervisor who commented with similar feedback, but then acknowledged my style seemed to work well for me, so I should go with it.

The question is definitely whether a person's style works for a client / patient in question. Not whether it fits with 'stereotypical gender norms.' I mean, really? WTF.

Originally Posted by JeyRo

The question is definitely whether a person's style works for a client / patient in question. Not whether it fits with 'stereotypical gender norms.' I mean, really? WTF.

Maybe it was an issue of working in a geographic region/with a patient population in which "typical" gender norms are strongly-entrenched and widely-ascribed to, and so by not adhering to them, difficulties were being had with multiple patients?

Not saying whether it's right or wrong, but if our patients expect us to behave a certain way and we subsequently don't to adhere to that assumed behavioral script, we may put them ill at ease. This can be beneficial with some individuals/in some cases, and possibly detrimental with/in others.

Originally Posted by paramour

Also purely anecdotal here: I've been dinged by previous supervisors because I don't "act according to the stereotypical female gender norms" and should be more nurturing, caring, supportive, hold your hand through absolutely everything, here's a tissue, let me cry with you, namby, pamby bs (I'm oversimplifying here to get the point across).

Wow, I hesitate to think how I would have handled that feedback.

Originally Posted by Therapist4Chnge

There was some interesting I/O research (probably 8-10 years old now) that found women who are promoted to a senior/management position are less likely to promote a female to an open position. Prior to this research there was an assumption that women would stick together against "the Boys Club".

Ariel Levy definitely has some things to say about this in her book "Female Chauvinist Pigs." I read it several years ago now, but I remember finding it quite thought provoking.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

Maybe it was an issue of working in a geographic region/with a patient population in which "typical" gender norms are strongly-entrenched and widely-ascribed to, and so by not adhering to them, difficulties were being had with multiple patients?

Not saying whether it's right or wrong, but if our patients expect us to behave a certain way and we subsequently don't to adhere to that assumed behavioral script, we may put them ill at ease. This can be beneficial with some individuals/in some cases, and possibly detrimental with/in others.

Now I am not a therapist, but I recall being trained to be "genuine" so not being myself would not work for me. Not to say I would act how I normally act outside of work all the time (but who does anyways), but I wouldn't undergo a complete personality change because some client expects me to be completely masculine.

Originally Posted by Pragma

Now I am not a therapist, but I recall being trained to be "genuine" so not being myself would not work for me. Not to say I would act how I normally act outside of work all the time (but who does anyways), but I wouldn't undergo a complete personality change because some client expects me to be completely masculine.

I feel the same way, trust me. I'm just trying to figure out types of situations in which a supervisor would basically say, "you're not acting feminine/masculine enough and it's causing problems."

In quite a few of the places where I've worked, I could definitely see perhaps a significant minority of patients bucking to some degree if they met with a therapist who didn't grossly adhere to the patient's pre-conceived notions of masculinity and femininity. Then again, maybe that's something which could become the focus of treatment at some point, depending on how much (if any) discord it's causing in the patient's life.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

Maybe it was an issue of working in a geographic region/with a patient population in which "typical" gender norms are strongly-entrenched and widely-ascribed to, and so by not adhering to them, difficulties were being had with multiple patients?

Not saying whether it's right or wrong, but if our patients expect us to behave a certain way and we subsequently don't to adhere to that assumed behavioral script, we may put them ill at ease. This can be beneficial with some individuals/in some cases, and possibly detrimental with/in others.

I can see where you're coming from and I actually do tamper my style slightly for certain clients. However, as most of my clients are males and/or court-mandated, it works oh, so dandy for them. I don't think crying with my clients would go over so well for some reason.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Wow, I hesitate to think how I would have handled that feedback.

Yeeeah, I really had to bite the tongue because I'm already known to be a bit argumentative... Then I would have been criticized for being closed to feedback. There are males in our program who had/have similar styles; no such feedback for them. That is likely what irked me most.