Which perspectives are welcome here?

[Fan_of_Meehl]

To clarify, I take no issue with the joke made and did not misunderstand it as a joke about sexual assault. My issue with the joke is the timing, the context, and the implication that getting a laugh from a buddy is more important than having a reflective conversation about sexual assault and affirmative consent.

Fair enough. And now that you've communicated how it affected you people can take it to heart.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sanman]

Women are socialized to be aware of the feelings of others, and to acquiesce to the needs of men, which is part of what makes women more vulnerable to abuse in the first place. I hear what you're saying, and I still think it's an expectation that is too high given the current state of things. It puts people in a double-bind: some listeners won't get the message if it's not angry enough (huh, seems made up, she didn't really seem that upset), while others will be turned off by the anger. It's not about changing minds at this point in time, it's about finding a voice. It's not going to emerge pitch-perfect after being smothered for so long, because how could it possibly be?

Not saying that the movement has to or that it is particularly aimed at me as a male. However, with the corporate responses coming so quickly and policy change occurring due to the response, the conversation needs to happen somewhere. Did anyone else see the training and screensavers the VA put out in reponse to #metoo? From reading that training verbatim, we are only allowed to converse about the the weather (literally every 'good' conversation in the training revolved around the weather). That is not a useful response to this.

 

[Sanman]

To clarify, I take no issue with the joke made and did not misunderstand it as a joke about sexual assault. My issue with the joke is the timing, the context, and the implication that getting a laugh from a buddy is more important than having a reflective conversation about sexual assault and affirmative consent.

Not trying to offend or be dismissive, but an honest question to you and those in the community that agree with you... aren't we capable of doing both?

 

[GradStudent2020]

Not trying to offend or be dismissive, but an honest question to you and those in the community that agree with you... aren't we capable of doing both?

Maybe. In a conversation with close friends IRL about this topic I definitely can see a place for humor. Here? On a thread about male posters dismissing female voices? (And other things) I didn’t like it here. If I was in a small group of close friends who’d just shared a story of sexual assault, I would not make a joke. Humor may help some people feel comfortable with difficult conversations. In this context, your need to break the tension (I’m assuming, obviously), does not seem more important than reflecting on these women’s stories.

Posters have been vulnerable here. I think in any context when someone is sharing vulnerability you should reflect on your motivation to make a quick inside joke.

 

[cara susanna]

If you want my cynical take on MeToo and the derailment of it, people found it easy to label overt predatory behavior (e.g., Weinstein) as sexual assault but more and more qualms came up when women started discussing behavior that is less black and white and, sadly, far more common. Not only for men to admit that maybe they've done some of these things, but for women to face that they've experienced them. It's a lot easier to write it off as a bad date than on the spectrum of sexual assault. Yes, it's not always done with intention (social awkwardness, confusion about consent), but to me the reason we were bringing it up was to make people consider that, hey, maybe we should try to do something different in the future. I know that MeToo felt punitive--and that was often its outcome--but that wasn't my goal. I am not a fan of cancel culture, as I'm sure you all know.

For those who aren't aware, sexual assault is my clinical and research specialty so I admit that, while I believe that I have a lot of expertise on this, it is also not without strong emotion.

 

[Sanman]

Maybe. In a conversation with close friends IRL about this topic I definitely can see a place for humor. Here? On a thread about male posters dismissing female voices? (And other things) I didn’t like it here. If I was in a small group of close friends who’d just shared a story of sexual assault, I would not make a joke. Humor may help some people feel comfortable with difficult conversations. In this context, your need to break the tension (I’m assuming, obviously), does not seem more important than reflecting on these women’s stories.

Posters have been vulnerable here. I think in any context when someone is sharing vulnerability you should reflect on your motivation to make a quick inside joke.

Not going to spend time on every point. I will say this circles back to my early comments on this thread. My primary motivation here is to have fun and procrastinate at work. If I am going to do the work to reflect on everything posted here all the time, I would just leave because it would cease to be fun.

 

[cara susanna]

Btw, concerning jokes about affirmative consent, I don't necessarily find them offensive but I do find them tired. Chappelle was doing the "sex contract" joke back during his show in, what, the early 2000s?

 

[GradStudent2020]

Not going to spend time on every point. I will say this circles back to my early comments on this thread. My primary motivation here is to have fun and procrastinate at work. If I am going to do the work to reflect on everything posted here all the time, I would just leave because it would cease to be fun.

Can you see how that might cause other participants in this conversation to feel dismissed or unwelcome? *Their* conversation about #metoo, personal experiences with sexual assault, etc., is *your* entertainment?

 

[Sanman]

Can you see how that might cause other participants in this conversation to feel dismissed or unwelcome? *Their* conversation about #metoo, personal experiences with sexual assault, etc., is *your* entertainment?

Sure, this conversation and this place is something different to everyone here. So, what is your answer to how everyone feels welcomed? Someone leaves either way in this scenario correct? Either I leave because it is not fun or someone else leaves because the tone does not suit their needs, correct?

 

[calimich]

Humor is great, timing and audience matters.

My issue with the joke is the timing, the context, and the implication that getting a laugh from a buddy is more important than having a reflective conversation about sexual assault and affirmative consent.

Not trying to offend or be dismissive, but an honest question to you and those in the community that agree with you... aren't we capable of doing both?

My primary motivation here is to have fun and procrastinate at work.

Either I leave because it is not fun or someone else leaves because the tone does not suit their needs, correct?

I think this gets to the heart of the matter and what I was trying to communicate last week. What kind of a public community board do we want? Which voices / perspectives / topics do we want more of? which do we want less of?

I appreciate @PsyDr starting the "Friday thread" -- it's a dedicated spot to talk about the weekend. Perhaps we also could use a "Have Fun & Procrastinate thread" ?

 

[GradStudent2020]

Sure, this conversation and this place is something different to everyone here. So, what is your answer to how everyone feels welcomed? Someone leaves either way in this scenario correct? Either I leave because it is not fun or someone else leaves because the tone does not suit their needs, correct?

I’m not sure. Do you feel unable to participate in these types of conversations without making jokes? I’m not suggesting you leave. I do wonder if you ever reflect on your motivation for choosing *this* thread as your place to “have fun.” Especially as it has now been brought to your attention that your “fun” might be tiresome/hurtful to other posters attempting a respectful conversation about a difficult topic.

 

[Sanman]

I’m not sure. Do you feel unable to participate in these types of conversations without making jokes? I’m not suggesting you leave. I do wonder if you ever reflect on your motivation for choosing *this* thread as your place to “have fun.” Especially as it has now been brought to your attention that your “fun” might be tiresome/hurtful to other posters attempting a respectful conversation about a difficult topic.

Again, it is a case for case basis. If I got tone policed often and it got tiresome, then I might leave. If the occasional joke got called out I might attend to my behavior in those instances. That said, this is a small sub-forum and pretty much the only active thread here. That joke was made in between writing session notes and treatment plans. I really am not attending to a lot of what is here in a given moment. Work is getting more of my attention right now.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

Is there a questionnaire I can fill out to determine my 'dominance score' in society based on my gender, sex, sexual orientation, religious status, income level, degree of educational attainment, age, geographical region of birth, marital status, trauma history, military (or veteran) status, pet owner vs. non-pet owner, size of biological family (living relatives), and so on ad infinitum?

Isn't everyone a member of a disadvantaged ('victimized') class on one or several of these types of classification variables? Isn't the same person also a member of a privileged ('oppressor') class on other variables? Should we use these demographic/history variables to give individuals a score on some 'disadvantaged' vs. 'privileged' dimension and weight their expressed opinions based on this score? Or maybe we should establish a cutoff score and just prevent those below a particular score from posting.

When I went into psychology, there was an emphasis on studying and trying to understand people as individuals, not as 'oh yeah, Bob over there is a white, heterosexual, Christian male with a decent job so he's obviously a privileged member of an oppressor class' so his view can be discounted merely on the basis of these demographic characteristics (most of which, by the way, are: (1) not chosen and (2) not modifiable). I mean, I guess Bob could quit his decent job, renounce his religion, and seek out a 'gender affirming' surgical procedure.

I think a lot of the back and forth and, ultimately, strong emotions that are being exhibited in the thread are the result of people having different underlying assumptive frameworks. And, as it looks to me, the 'dominant' assumptive framework in professional psychology in 2019 is not 'masculine' in any respect (literal or figurative). That's part of what makes all of this so fascinating.

I mean, is it as simple as: 'If you're a male psychologist then you're a member of the dominant class?' Really? So a first-year male graduate student in a clinical psych class cohort is 'dominant' over--say--Marsha Linehan who heads up the program?

Picking a single non-modifiable and non-chosen (male/female) demographic characteristic and making it the basis for deciding who is 'privileged' vs. 'victimized' is an inherently divisive assumptive framework. Men (as individuals) are obviously going to object to being arbitrarily labeled in that manner.

Hey @Fan_of_Meehl , I have been musing on your post for a while now. I thought of it/you tonight when I read this book review by Judith Butler. Among the countless topics that I want to better understand in a nuanced way, the excerpt below makes me realize that I know very little about the philosophical frame of intersectional theory and how it is popularly (mis-?) understood.

“Weiss brings a similar misunderstanding to bear on a critique of intersectional theory. She takes “intersectionality” to be a framework that reverses conventional hierarchies, endowing the most oppressed groups with special access to truth, authority, and judgment, and silencing those identified with dominant forms of power. And yet she does not deeply engage the positions of thinkers like Patricia Hill Collins and Kimberlé Crenshaw who launched the development of intersectional theory—and whose work explicitly opposes the notion of a hierarchy of oppressions. Intersectionality theory does have much to say about the possibility of being oppressed in one respect and responsible for oppression in another respect—a part of that theory that Weiss does not address.”

I share this link with the group not to start a political debate about Israel (please please please), but because it seems germane to this larger discussion about nuanced thinking on this thread about identity factors. I hope that we can collectively engage with each other as real (albeit largely anonymous), complicated people and avoid relying on tropes about “social justice warriors” and the scourge of liberalism.

As it specifically pertains to this community, I agree with Jon Snow that this thread has been fruitful. Perhaps it will continue to bear more/different kinds of fruit.

I was asked a few pages ago what my goal was in starting the thread. If it’s not clear at this point (sincerely), I hoped to get feedback on whether I was alone in feeling bad about forum dynamics that may — or may not! — be influenced by gender. The thread has generated interesting evidence for both possibilities, with the truth (if it actually exists) likely being a grey shade in the middle.

Speaking only for myself, I hope in particular that the thread has raised awareness of the experiences/perceptions of women who feel various shades of bad about being here. I’m either a glutton for punishment or just stubbornly optimistic (as noted in my OP) that the act of engaging in tough conversations with a variety of voices is a necessary social good.

I’m still here.

Bari Weiss’s Unasked Questions

In How to Fight Anti-Semitism , a facile approach to history justifies an impoverished ethical stance.

jewishcurrents.org

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I am against over-regulating... basically anything. It’s not a law I find problematic, though. Unless I’ve already verbally given permission, my partner SHOULD confirm I want to engage in sexual behaviors with them. Asking is “making a move”, IMO.

Does the law say anything about hand holding?

There's a spectrum of progression of sexual behavior from first innocently making eye contact and saying 'Hi' all the way to coitus.

I think that it's inevitable that any principle such as 'affirmative consent'--to serve as a basis for criminal prosecution (in the case of laws) and/or disciplinary action (in the case of laws/codes covering behavior on campuses)--will need to be operationally defined in order to, even in principle, be enforceable as laws or disciplinary codes.

I think that, in the effort to operationally define the principle of 'affirmative consent' all along the spectrum of actual or perceived sexual behavior it's inevitable that the more specific / granular the laws (and associated enforceable codes) get to be the more cumbersome and impossible they will be to implement.

Hey @Fan_of_Meehl , I have been musing on your post for a while now. I thought of it/you tonight when I read this book review by Judith Butler. Among the countless topics that I want to better understand in a nuanced way, the excerpt below makes me realize that I know very little about the philosophical frame of intersectional theory and how it is popularly (mis-?) understood.

“Weiss brings a similar misunderstanding to bear on a critique of intersectional theory. She takes “intersectionality” to be a framework that reverses conventional hierarchies, endowing the most oppressed groups with special access to truth, authority, and judgment, and silencing those identified with dominant forms of power. And yet she does not deeply engage the positions of thinkers like Patricia Hill Collins and Kimberlé Crenshaw who launched the development of intersectional theory—and whose work explicitly opposes the notion of a hierarchy of oppressions. Intersectionality theory does have much to say about the possibility of being oppressed in one respect and responsible for oppression in another respect—a part of that theory that Weiss does not address.”

I share this link with the group not to start a political debate about Israel (please please please), but because it seems germane to this larger discussion about nuanced thinking on this thread about identity factors. I hope that we can collectively engage with each other as real (albeit largely anonymous), complicated people and avoid relying on tropes about “social justice warriors” and the scourge of liberalism.

As it specifically pertains to this community, I agree with Jon Snow that this thread has been fruitful. Perhaps it will continue to bear more/different kinds of fruit.

I was asked a few pages ago what my goal was in starting the thread. If it’s not clear at this point (sincerely), I hoped to get feedback on whether I was alone in feeling bad about forum dynamics that may — or may not! — be influenced by gender. The thread has generated interesting evidence for both possibilities, with the truth (if it actually exists) likely being a grey shade in the middle.

Speaking only for myself, I hope in particular that the thread has raised awareness of the experiences/perceptions of women who feel various shades of bad about being here. I’m either a glutton for punishment or just stubbornly optimistic (as noted in my OP) that the act of engaging in tough conversations with a variety of voices is a necessary social good.

I’m still here.

Bari Weiss’s Unasked Questions

In How to Fight Anti-Semitism , a facile approach to history justifies an impoverished ethical stance.

jewishcurrents.org

I appreciate you starting this thread and I think the only way we get better is by talking to and listening to others.

I also have suspicion that--despite surface disagreements--there may be a lot of consensus lurking in the waters of deeper engagement.

It will be cool to take a look at the link that you shared. Thanks!

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Hey @Fan_of_Meehl , I have been musing on your post for a while now. I thought of it/you tonight when I read this book review by Judith Butler. Among the countless topics that I want to better understand in a nuanced way, the excerpt below makes me realize that I know very little about the philosophical frame of intersectional theory and how it is popularly (mis-?) understood.

“Weiss brings a similar misunderstanding to bear on a critique of intersectional theory. She takes “intersectionality” to be a framework that reverses conventional hierarchies, endowing the most oppressed groups with special access to truth, authority, and judgment, and silencing those identified with dominant forms of power. And yet she does not deeply engage the positions of thinkers like Patricia Hill Collins and Kimberlé Crenshaw who launched the development of intersectional theory—and whose work explicitly opposes the notion of a hierarchy of oppressions. Intersectionality theory does have much to say about the possibility of being oppressed in one respect and responsible for oppression in another respect—a part of that theory that Weiss does not address.”

I share this link with the group not to start a political debate about Israel (please please please), but because it seems germane to this larger discussion about nuanced thinking on this thread about identity factors. I hope that we can collectively engage with each other as real (albeit largely anonymous), complicated people and avoid relying on tropes about “social justice warriors” and the scourge of liberalism.

As it specifically pertains to this community, I agree with Jon Snow that this thread has been fruitful. Perhaps it will continue to bear more/different kinds of fruit.

I was asked a few pages ago what my goal was in starting the thread. If it’s not clear at this point (sincerely), I hoped to get feedback on whether I was alone in feeling bad about forum dynamics that may — or may not! — be influenced by gender. The thread has generated interesting evidence for both possibilities, with the truth (if it actually exists) likely being a grey shade in the middle.

Speaking only for myself, I hope in particular that the thread has raised awareness of the experiences/perceptions of women who feel various shades of bad about being here. I’m either a glutton for punishment or just stubbornly optimistic (as noted in my OP) that the act of engaging in tough conversations with a variety of voices is a necessary social good.

I’m still here.

Bari Weiss’s Unasked Questions

In How to Fight Anti-Semitism , a facile approach to history justifies an impoverished ethical stance.

jewishcurrents.org

One thing I can say about this thread is that it--hopefully in line with your original questions--has opened my eyes in the following ways:

1) It has definitely raised my awareness of the experiences and perceptions of women in this forum and how many (perhaps most) of them perceive it--particularly the negative aspects of their experiences, which they have voiced. I think it is clear from the responses of others that you are not alone in your concerns or experiences here
2) It has brought to my attention impact of nuance (e.g., use of humor or timing of humor) on others during discussion of this sort of topic that I honestly would not have anticipated before and with learning, with experience, comes change
3) It has struck me as the most authentic and therefore most interesting discussion on many of these topics that I've seen engaged in by members of our profession--and I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm being serious. I think that the relative safety that we all feel discussing this informally in an internet forum (as opposed to discussing it by way of journal articles and rebuttals...or a public back and forth at a conference) has allowed for a freedom of expression on both sides that I've found interesting, productive, and very largely respectful, at least that's my impression.
4) It has piqued my interest in exploring deeper assumptive frameworks that may be at work on ALL sides, the incommensurability of which (to my mind) is the likely source of most of the discord and much of the negative emotional experiences, but I might be naive and I might be unduly optimistic. I;m reminded of the introduction of the recently published 'Process-Based CBT' book in which the authors (one a staunch behaviorist, another more of a 'third wave' pioneer) relate that much of their prior disagreement (and ire) had been fueled by profoundly differing underlying assumptive frameworks (from a formal philosophy of science perspective) rather than by ignorance, malice, or intellectual laziness of the other side. I suspect that a similar process may be at play underneath many of these discussions and surface disagreements.

I have to admit that the linked article was a little over my head but I think I grasped at least one central point having to do with the necessity (and difficulties) of being ethical and standing up to bad actors and being on guard for a 'mind virus' (that in the article appeared to be identified as anti-semitism (or white nationalism) which is latent in our society). I generally agree that such a 'mind virus' or psychology of hate/resentment and (erroneous) the mechanism for justification of atrocities exists as a timeless 'mode' (maybe along the lines of what Aaron Beck was describing in his book 'Prisoners of Hate?'). I may disagree in that I don't think that it attaches necessarily to any one group of people (on either end of the giving or receiving of the irrational hatred). I also know that I have a whole lot more to learn about intersectionality, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.

In any case, I think it's been an awesome discussion and maybe even sorely needed.

 

[GradStudent2020]

One thing I can say about this thread is that it--hopefully in line with your original questions--has opened my eyes in the following ways:

1) It has definitely raised my awareness of the experiences and perceptions of women in this forum and how many (perhaps most) of them perceive it--particularly the negative aspects of their experiences, which they have voiced. I think it is clear from the responses of others that you are not alone in your concerns or experiences here
2) It has brought to my attention impact of nuance (e.g., use of humor or timing of humor) on others during discussion of this sort of topic that I honestly would not have anticipated before and with learning, with experience, comes change
3) It has struck me as the most authentic and therefore most interesting discussion on many of these topics that I've seen engaged in by members of our profession--and I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm being serious. I think that the relative safety that we all feel discussing this informally in an internet forum (as opposed to discussing it by way of journal articles and rebuttals...or a public back and forth at a conference) has allowed for a freedom of expression on both sides that I've found interesting, productive, and very largely respectful, at least that's my impression.
4) It has piqued my interest in exploring deeper assumptive frameworks that may be at work on ALL sides, the incommensurability of which (to my mind) is the likely source of most of the discord and much of the negative emotional experiences, but I might be naive and I might be unduly optimistic. I;m reminded of the introduction of the recently published 'Process-Based CBT' book in which the authors (one a staunch behaviorist, another more of a 'third wave' pioneer) relate that much of their prior disagreement (and ire) had been fueled by profoundly differing underlying assumptive frameworks (from a formal philosophy of science perspective) rather than by ignorance, malice, or intellectual laziness of the other side. I suspect that a similar process may be at play underneath many of these discussions and surface disagreements.

I have to admit that the linked article was a little over my head but I think I grasped at least one central point having to do with the necessity (and difficulties) of being ethical and standing up to bad actors and being on guard for a 'mind virus' (that in the article appeared to be identified as anti-semitism (or white nationalism) which is latent in our society). I generally agree that such a 'mind virus' or psychology of hate/resentment and (erroneous) the mechanism for justification of atrocities exists as a timeless 'mode' (maybe along the lines of what Aaron Beck was describing in his book 'Prisoners of Hate?'). I may disagree in that I don't think that it attaches necessarily to any one group of people (on either end of the giving or receiving of the irrational hatred). I also know that I have a whole lot more to learn about intersectionality, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.

In any case, I think it's been an awesome discussion and maybe even sorely needed.

Thank you for sharing that your awareness/perspective has shifted based on this conversation. I appreciate your willingness to learn from others’ experiences.

 

[Pragma]

I was asked a few pages ago what my goal was in starting the thread. If it’s not clear at this point (sincerely), I hoped to get feedback on whether I was alone in feeling bad about forum dynamics that may — or may not! — be influenced by gender. The thread has generated interesting evidence for both possibilities, with the truth (if it actually exists) likely being a grey shade in the middle.

That's cool!

Speaking only for myself, I hope in particular that the thread has raised awareness of the experiences/perceptions of women who feel various shades of bad about being here. I’m either a glutton for punishment or just stubbornly optimistic (as noted in my OP) that the act of engaging in tough conversations with a variety of voices is a necessary social good.

I’m still here.

I guess my question remains unanswered - you talked about accomplishing something or getting something done with the forum. Does your ideology accept anything other than someone accepting your beliefs 100%? This is an easy question to talk your way out of, but the (honest) core of it is important. I'm not a fringe political person. It is a sincere question from a very liberal person that has spent a lot of time contemplating why such obvious injustices are so poorly represented with broad strokes and "Gotcha" rhetoric instead of a more measured approach that might actually have a meaningful impact.

The problem with movements these days is that they don't cater to anyone but like-minded people and Instagram opps. If you want to make a change, be inclusive. That's my two cents.

 

[foreverbull]

Does your ideology accept anything other than someone accepting your beliefs 100%? This is an easy question to talk your way out of, but the (honest) core of it is important. I'm not a fringe political person. It is a sincere question from a very liberal person that has spent a lot of time contemplating why such obvious injustices are so poorly represented with broad strokes and "Gotcha" rhetoric instead of a more measured approach that might actually have a meaningful impact.

The problem with movements these days is that they don't cater to anyone but like-minded people and Instagram opps. If you want to make a change, be inclusive. That's my two cents.

Explain to me how this most recent post by the OP perpetuates “exclusivity”:

I was asked a few pages ago what my goal was in starting the thread. If it’s not clear at this point (sincerely), I hoped to get feedback on whether I was alone in feeling bad about forum dynamics that may — or may not! — be influenced by gender. The thread has generated interesting evidence for both possibilities, with the truth (if it actually exists) likely being a grey shade in the middle.

Speaking only for myself, I hope in particular that the thread has raised awareness of the experiences/perceptions of women who feel various shades of bad about being here. I’m either a glutton for punishment or just stubbornly optimistic (as noted in my OP) that the act of engaging in tough conversations with a variety of voices is a necessary social good.

It sounds to me like the @msgeorgeeliot is saying that our discussion “with a variety of voices” has been fruitful. As I have said before in this thread, @msgeorgeliot has thoughtfully responded to the differing opinions at places in this thread (at others, expressed her frustration at times), and I don’t see the end result as being stifling of others’ opinions, despite how the thread started.

Are we interpreting this differently?

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

That's cool!

I guess my question remains unanswered - you talked about accomplishing something or getting something done with the forum. Does your ideology accept anything other than someone accepting your beliefs 100%? This is an easy question to talk your way out of, but the (honest) core of it is important. I'm not a fringe political person. It is a sincere question from a very liberal person that has spent a lot of time contemplating why such obvious injustices are so poorly represented with broad strokes and "Gotcha" rhetoric instead of a more measured approach that might actually have a meaningful impact.

The problem with movements these days is that they don't cater to anyone but like-minded people and Instagram opps. If you want to make a change, be inclusive. That's my two cents.

In my own defense, I ask the witness @Jon Snow to testify that I was actually the one (or at least one of the ones) to reach out to him on PM last week to get back in the SDN game. Clearly that has worked out not that great for my all-or-nothing ideological leanings

 

[Pragma]

Explain to me how this most recent post by the OP perpetuates “exclusivity”:



It sounds to me like the @msgeorgeeliot is saying that our discussion “with a variety of voices” has been fruitful. As I have said before in this thread, @msgeorgeliot has thoughtfully responded to the differing opinions at places in this thread (at others, expressed her frustration at times), and I don’t see the end result as being stifling of others’ opinions, despite how the thread started.

Are we interpreting this differently?

I'm not saying that the OP hasn't been reflective. I just was querying. Concepts like intersectionality can be inherently divisive.

 

[StellaB]

I'm not saying that the OP hasn't been reflective. I just was querying. Concepts like intersectionality can be inherently divisive.

I'm interested in how you see intersectionality as "inherently divisive"? Maybe because it gets used inappropriately as a cudgel in the absurd underprivilege Olympics?

And I want to echo what others are saying here - though it was at times very stressful, I have felt extremely engaged in this discussion, and am very happy to have it going on here.

On my end, I have to say that one of the most eye-openers for me with this thread has been that I initially interpreted some of the men here to be intentionally obtuse, feigning interest in alternate views and engaging in some bad-faith debate tactics to wear down the critics. I realize that I was wrong, that most of the people posting here really are engaged and want to understand each other, and TBH it has really felt uplifting and positive overall. It can feel so good to recognize being wrong, especially when the end result is increased hope and camaraderie.

Thank you so much @msgeorgeeliot for a stimulating conversation that I expect has already shifted the culture and trust here significantly, at least for me.

 

[MCParent]

I'm interested in how you see intersectionality as "inherently divisive"? Maybe because it gets used inappropriately as a cudgel in the absurd underprivilege Olympics?

I see intersectionality misused so much. It is the opposite of oppression olympics but is constantly used to justify the same. Also nightmarishly I see it in papers where it’s a synonym for “we measured two variables.”

 

[WisNeuro]

I see intersectionality misused so much. It is the opposite of oppression olympics but is constantly used to justify the same. Also nightmarishly I see it in papers where it’s a synonym for “we measured two variables.”

In such discussions, as in this thread, this is where a clear definition of a term would be very helpful. As we've seen here, there have been several instances where people were debating a topic, but using wildly different definitions of a term in question. Terms can differ in contexts and between people, but it's always helpful to know where someone is coming from and how they view certain ambiguous terms.

 

[MCParent]

In such discussions, as in this thread, this is where a clear definition of a term would be very helpful. As we've seen here, there have been several instances where people were debating a topic, but using wildly different definitions of a term in question. Terms can differ in contexts and between people, but it's always helpful to know where someone is coming from and how they view certain ambiguous terms.

Co-construction of identities in ways that change the multiple co-construction such that identity 1 AND 2 =/= identity 1 + 2.

Practically, that the experience of being, say, a poor black woman is not exactly represented by a regression in which you enter income, race, sex, and their interactions. Or, that different kinds of identities matter at different times to different people (eg when adopting in a conservative state, sexual orientation is a huge variable in whether or not you get to adopt; when walking around a nice store, race + gender is a huge variable as to whether one is followed by a guard). Oppression olympics wouldn’t work because the identities that are important are always variable by situation and individual.

 

[MCParent]

I tried to find my own paper on intersectionality and the first hit was this.

Intersectionality Score Calculator

Find your Intersectionality Score!

intersectionalityscore.com

Oh, god.

 

[MCParent]

There we go

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257663747_Approaches_to_Research_on_Intersectionality_Perspectives_on_Gender_LGBT_and_RacialEthnic_Identities

 

[WisNeuro]

I tried to find my own paper on intersectionality and the first hit was this.

Intersectionality Score Calculator

Find your Intersectionality Score!

intersectionalityscore.com

Oh, god.

How is "Born in the USA" a continuous variable?

 

[MCParent]

How is "Born in the USA" a continuous variable?

Don’t you remember the Springsteen song?
Boooorn in the USA at 7/19 on a visual analogue scaaaaale

 

[WisNeuro]

Don’t you remember the Springsteen song?
Boooorn in the USA at 7/19 on a visual analogue scaaaaale

LOL. They need a visual analogue scale for "Just how blue is your collar?"

 

[WisNeuro]

yep. In my opinion, the concept is so messed up in the public use that I’m not sure there’s a value to pursuing it. Meaning, it is a more complicated and more divisively applied concept than the older heuristic of promoting individuality and not judging people by the color of their skin.

Reading MC's paper as we speak, and while I agree that the term is used very nebulously in the lay public, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. If we threw out every concept that was misused/misunderstood in the public's eye, there would be almost nothing to pursue in the scientific setting.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I'm not saying that the OP hasn't been reflective. I just was querying. Concepts like intersectionality can be inherently divisive.

As a grad student (this was about 20 years ago) before they'd let us teach university courses to the undergrads they had an 'orientation' process for us that involved something that--at the time--I regarded as a bit odd but has since become mainstream (in psychology and academia as a whole). I remember that they emphasized that, in addition to teaching the core material, it was our job to somehow make the students 'better citizens.' I remember thinking at the time that I didn't necessarily agree with that philosophy but kind of just shrugged it off.

Since then, it seems like the field has placed rather major emphasis on 'activism,' being 'allies' (say of the LGBTQ+ community) and other forms of 'social justice/action' that strikes me as not necessarily consistent with our core mission (although I realize that this is just my view). One of the things that I notice about certain of these areas in psychology such as gender studies, LGBTQ+, multicultural diversity, etc. is that--at least to me--there doesn't seem to be the same level of intense (methodological, scientific) critique of their methods or conclusions as you would see, say, when different competing theories are being tested in another area (e.g., depression, PTSD, anxiety disorders). Come to think of it, there don't seem to be ANY competing theories that are 'duking it out' in these areas (at least that's my perception). Rather, these areas seem to be 'doctrines' that are simply supposed to be taken as true and, if they are critiqued in any meaningful way, there is a tendency to barb the questioner with ad hominem attacks such as 'ignorant,' 'racist/sexist,' unprofessional, hostile, you name it. They seem to enjoy the status of 'sacred cows' that are not to be questioned. That's one of my major issues with them (certainly not with their central message of tolerance, which I think is laudable). However, as with any virtue, it can become a vice if taken to the extreme. For example, justice must be tempered with compassion and compassion must be tempered with justice.

So, in the past 20 years particularly, I've witnessed the growth of an area of our field which has in many ways begun to change its fundamental character...the fundamental core values of what it means to be a professional psychologist. In addition to the 'science of studying human behavior and mental processes,' psychology has expanded to include some degree of social activism which some of us are not entirely comfortable with (but expressing this openly may be punished by the implementation of negative contingencies). I do think there's probably (statistically) gender differences in this and I also don't think that it's necessarily a good/bad thing, maybe it's a natural evolution of the field. And I think that fundamental assumptions about one's self/world/others do shape where one lines up on this topic as well as the topic of how to address sexual harrassment/violence.

 

[MCParent]

yep. In my opinion, the concept is so messed up in the public use that I’m not sure there’s a value to pursuing it. Meaning, it is a more complicated and more divisively applied concept than the older heuristic of promoting individuality and not judging people by the color of their skin.

I mean maybe. It’s like “privilege.” I think that is a fantastic word for describing ignorance arising from lack of knowledge of others’ experiences. Eg a friend of mine was having trouble paying for his tuition and his coworker suggested that his family just not take a winter vacation one year. He said they don’t take winter vacations. She scoffed and said “oh, Carlos, it could be ANY vacation.” But then “privilege” has also been warped beyond recognition.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Co-construction of identities in ways that change the multiple co-construction such that identity 1 AND 2 =/= identity 1 + 2.

Practically, that the experience of being, say, a poor black woman is not exactly represented by a regression in which you enter income, race, sex, and their interactions. Or, that different kinds of identities matter at different times to different people (eg when adopting in a conservative state, sexual orientation is a huge variable in whether or not you get to adopt; when walking around a nice store, race + gender is a huge variable as to whether one is followed by a guard). Oppression olympics wouldn’t work because the identities that are important are always variable by situation and individual.

As I've heard it put (I think very cogently), viewing people primarily in terms of their categorical (group) membership (e.g., sex, gender, race, orientation, age, etc.) is a very *low-resolution* model of the situation and may even be inaccurate when applied to individuals.

 

[StellaB]

As I've heard it put (I think very cogently), viewing people primarily in terms of their categorical (group) membership (e.g., sex, gender, race, orientation, age, etc.) is a very *low-resolution* model of the situation and may even be inaccurate when applied to individuals.

Yes, this is where it can be useful. And I think it also makes sense to consider that intersectionality of minority status can yield an exponential effect at times. For example, being black and gay in the South is likely particularly difficult if the individual experiences rejection from their racial group due to sexuality, and rejected from their sexual orientation group for racial reasons, resulting in an exponentially disadvantaged position that neither race nor sexuality nor race + sexuality really capture (race x sexuality being a higher resolution picture). As others have pointed out, there are many other variables that come into play as well - take the same individual characteristics but out of the South / in a less religious or more populous area, and the outcome can be very different.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Since then, it seems like the field has placed rather major emphasis on 'activism,' being 'allies' (say of the LGBTQ+ community) and other forms of 'social justice/action' that strikes me as not necessarily consistent with our core mission (although I realize that this is just my view).

I didn't find this to be the case during my undergrad and grad training. Though, I went to large, public R1 schools. This may be more the case in other universities.

I have seen this is an emphasis in APA and other professional organizations.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Yes, this is where it can be useful. And I think it also makes sense to consider that intersectionality of minority status can yield an exponential effect at times. For example, being black and gay in the South is likely particularly difficult if the individual experiences rejection from their racial group due to sexuality, and rejected from their sexual orientation group for racial reasons, resulting in an exponentially disadvantaged position that neither race nor sexuality nor race + sexuality really capture (race x sexuality being a higher resolution picture). As others have pointed out, there are many other variables that come into play as well - take the same individual characteristics but out of the South / in a less religious or more populous area, and the outcome can be very different.

This approach makes total sense--approaching it as a potentially useful heuristic/hypothesis in therapy rather than as gospel truth.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

On the topic of 'The South,' I've seen some interesting (what appeared to me) biases/caricatures of it over time within other folks in psychology. I'll never forget a conversation I had (in the mid-90's) with a female psychology student at a research facility in Baltimore (I was working there for the summer as part of a research gig). When she found out that I was from the South, she commented that, she'd just never feel 'safe' (in the rural South) traveling/visiting there. It kind of took me aback, especially considering that we were in downtown Baltimore (in the 90's), the psychologist researcher we were working for had just been held up at gunpoint at an ATM the month prior, and this was a middle/upper class Caucasian woman who was expressing how she believed that she 'wouldn't feel safe' traveling in the rural Southern US. My guess was that she'd seen a few too many Hollywood movies and their (mis)characterization of the rural South as some wild-west setting where everyone is drunkenly driving their pickups with a confederate flag paintjob around whilst randomly shooting bystanders with shotguns. So, biases/prejudices can go both ways.

 

[StellaB]

On the topic of 'The South,' I've seen some interesting (what appeared to me) biases/caricatures of it over time within other folks in psychology. I'll never forget a conversation I had (in the mid-90's) with a female psychology student at a research facility in Baltimore (I was working there for the summer as part of a research gig). When she found out that I was from the South, she commented that, she'd just never feel 'safe' (in the rural South) traveling/visiting there. It kind of took me aback, especially considering that we were in downtown Baltimore (in the 90's), the psychologist researcher we were working for had just been held up at gunpoint at an ATM the month prior, and this was a middle/upper class Caucasian woman who was expressing how she believed that she 'wouldn't feel safe' traveling in the rural Southern US. My guess was that she'd seen a few too many Hollywood movies and their (mis)characterization of the rural South as some wild-west setting where everyone is drunkenly driving their pickups with a confederate flag paintjob around whilst randomly shooting bystanders with shotguns. So, biases/prejudices can go both ways.

Oh, undoubtedly. There is a lot of prejudice against the South that seems to essentially come down to prejudice about economic class.

 

[Sanman]

On the topic of 'The South,' I've seen some interesting (what appeared to me) biases/caricatures of it over time within other folks in psychology. I'll never forget a conversation I had (in the mid-90's) with a female psychology student at a research facility in Baltimore (I was working there for the summer as part of a research gig). When she found out that I was from the South, she commented that, she'd just never feel 'safe' (in the rural South) traveling/visiting there. It kind of took me aback, especially considering that we were in downtown Baltimore (in the 90's), the psychologist researcher we were working for had just been held up at gunpoint at an ATM the month prior, and this was a middle/upper class Caucasian woman who was expressing how she believed that she 'wouldn't feel safe' traveling in the rural Southern US. My guess was that she'd seen a few too many Hollywood movies and their (mis)characterization of the rural South as some wild-west setting where everyone is drunkenly driving their pickups with a confederate flag paintjob around whilst randomly shooting bystanders with shotguns. So, biases/prejudices can go both ways.

I have seen it both ways in my work. City folks afraid of rural areas and rural folks that won't step foot in "the city" due to crime, traffic, etc. I think it has to do with the set of life skills you develop. I was a city person that moved to a rural/country area for work. I am starting to develop comfort and life skills in managing both areas. It often has to do with your view of people. City people often see safety in crowds and public areas and rural people see safety in being away from people. Both may be true in their respective settings.

 

[Sanman]

Yep. And that transition from epidemiological signal to individual application is where I think the biggest problems arise in using words like privilege and concepts from intersectionality in every day life and even in the policy sphere.

Assuming a black woman has had it rough without other data is just as bad as assuming a white guy has had no resistance in accomplishing whatever. There was a study of conservatives and liberals in which education was provided on white privilege. Didn’t change conservatives views and decreased empathy amongst liberals for poor white people.

So, while it may be of value to study these things, the activism part may be actively harmful to the public. And, what is internalized in terms of intended message may not be desirable.

Agreed and I think it also has to do with the dynamics in individual situations and figuring out how intersectionality affects all of us.

In reflecting back and processing on the recent conversations here, I was asked about my motivations in making a joke and intersectionality is occurring in that very conversation. Women here are saying they they don't feel heard and I understand that.

However, I'm looking at it from my lens and then trying to remove myself from it and examine from different perspectives. The experience was very different. They experienced it as women fighting for their voice to be heard among male voices.

As a large, dark skinned man, I experienced the feedback as being told to change my behavior due to the discomfort of a group of (likely white) women. Well, having to do that in the way I look, act, speak, dress , etc during most of my life, it did trigger some defensive emotions (and it still does) because it feels like a more privileged and larger group again asking a minority to bend to their preference.

That may not be a fair assessment, but this is where privilege is not so cut and dry and where it can cause divisiveness between groups.

 

[Mindfulpsych22]

Since then, it seems like the field has placed rather major emphasis on 'activism,' being 'allies' (say of the LGBTQ+ community) and other forms of 'social justice/action' that strikes me as not necessarily consistent with our core mission (although I realize that this is just my view). One of the things that I notice about certain of these areas in psychology such as gender studies, LGBTQ+, multicultural diversity, etc. is that--at least to me--there doesn't seem to be the same level of intense (methodological, scientific) critique of their methods or conclusions as you would see, say, when different competing theories are being tested in another area (e.g., depression, PTSD, anxiety disorders). Come to think of it, there don't seem to be ANY competing theories that are 'duking it out' in these areas (at least that's my perception). Rather, these areas seem to be 'doctrines' that are simply supposed to be taken as true and, if they are critiqued in any meaningful way, there is a tendency to barb the questioner with ad hominem attacks such as 'ignorant,' 'racist/sexist,' unprofessional, hostile, you name it. They seem to enjoy the status of 'sacred cows' that are not to be questioned. That's one of my major issues with them (certainly not with their central message of tolerance, which I think is laudable). However, as with any virtue, it can become a vice if taken to the extreme. For example, justice must be tempered with compassion and compassion must be tempered with justice.

Another issue is that many of the theories in these areas have premises that are not falsifiable and are full of post-hoc explanations. For example, if someone or something is labeled “racist” providing evidence against this interpretation is also considered racism. When a member of a minority group gives accounts of their experiences of oppression and discrimination, their interpretations are not to be questioned and superceed facts. Yet when a member of the same minority group espouses that they felt they’ve had very few experiences of oppression or discrimination, their experience is to be dismissed as their own internalized oppression.

I think we can all agree psychological science and clinical science will be stunted by any perspective that operates off of inferences that can never be disproven.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Good points.

I think when it comes down to it, it’s all about individual experience. And yes, both visible and internal attributes are contributing variance and we can likely account for some of that by measuring race or ses or height or weight or iq or education or genetics or .....

I associate talking about tone as a loser argument. I know that’s not fair. But, it’s something that built up for me over years of specific relationships. Very idiosyncratic, but my knee jerk response to it is hostility, assuming the person voicing is not acting in good faith and that they have a mushy thought process (ie complaining about tone because they lack the ability to engage in an argument that requires critical reasoning skills). Those are attribution errors on my part. But, definitely present.

I think that, given enough variables to consider, any individual will most likely come out as in the (so called) 'privileged' group on some variables but also in the 'disadvantaged' group on others. This is part of why I find the whole approach so vexing. We are all 'privileged' and 'disadvantaged' in different ways, depending on context, and depending on comparison group.

And I'm not so sure that it's so simple a dichotomy, either. I mean, if you were to grow up a rich, privileged, snobbish, heterosexual, white male who ended up developing the personality of an absolute jerk then you may develop a pretty severe alcohol problem and/or cocaine habit, and end up living a pretty lonely and miserable life. Compared to someone who grew up impoverished in the inner city and who applied themselves, developed strength of character, and whose 'hard times' and 'disadvantages' were leveraged into a meaningful and fulfilling life and successful career.
I don't mean to offend anyone with what I'm about to say, but, it seems to me that when folks try to enact 'social justice' based on certain such characteristics they are in a way 'playing God' and enacting the belief that it's somehow their responsibility (and role) to ensure that 'justice is done.'

What may appear--at first--deceptively 'advantageous' (or a privilege) may turn out to be a major weakness as time goes on. What may appear--at first--as an extreme 'disadvantage' may lead to resilience of character and toughness that no 'privileged' person would have been likely to attain.

I think this gets at certain underlying philosophical assumptions (about life, or human nature) that many in here may honestly disagree on. And it is very possible that 'advantaged' folks (white, male, heterosexual, educated, etc.) would tend to hold the view that I just expressed. Some would say that it's a belief to reduce cognitive dissonance and it's false...even an ego-saving maneuver. Some would say it's naive (and it undoubtedly is to an extent, and under certain conditions). I suppose that's where the discussion lies.

 

[StellaB]

I think that, given enough variables to consider, any individual will most likely come out as in the (so called) 'privileged' group on some variables but also in the 'disadvantaged' group on others. This is part of why I find the whole approach so vexing. We are all 'privileged' and 'disadvantaged' in different ways, depending on context, and depending on comparison group.

And I'm not so sure that it's so simple a dichotomy, either. I mean, if you were to grow up a rich, privileged, snobbish, heterosexual, white male who ended up developing the personality of an absolute jerk then you may develop a pretty severe alcohol problem and/or cocaine habit, and end up living a pretty lonely and miserable life. Compared to someone who grew up impoverished in the inner city and who applied themselves, developed strength of character, and whose 'hard times' and 'disadvantages' were leveraged into a meaningful and fulfilling life and successful career.
I don't mean to offend anyone with what I'm about to say, but, it seems to me that when folks try to enact 'social justice' based on certain such characteristics they are in a way 'playing God' and enacting the belief that it's somehow their responsibility (and role) to ensure that 'justice is done.'

What may appear--at first--deceptively 'advantageous' (or a privilege) may turn out to be a major weakness as time goes on. What may appear--at first--as an extreme 'disadvantage' may lead to resilience of character and toughness that no 'privileged' person would have been likely to attain.

I think this gets at certain underlying philosophical assumptions (about life, or human nature) that many in here may honestly disagree on. And it is very possible that 'advantaged' folks (white, male, heterosexual, educated, etc.) would tend to hold the view that I just expressed. Some would say that it's a belief to reduce cognitive dissonance and it's false...even an ego-saving maneuver. Some would say it's naive (and it undoubtedly is to an extent, and under certain conditions). I suppose that's where the discussion lies.

I think it's important not to overlook the role of institutionalized oppression, though. It's not just individuals affecting other individuals.

An example that can hopefully be illustrative of the point:
For quite some time, African American veterans were not offered government subsidized mortgages. Once that issue was resolved, red-lining prevented most from buying homes in more affluent, typically white neighborhoods. Most American's primary savings for retirement and inheritance for their children essentially are the value of their homes. Not only were black veterans unable to receive the full benefit of the VA loans, African American-dense neighborhoods have historically suffered from such injustices as being more susceptible to eminent domain takeovers, having freeways built right through them, etc., because as a community they have less representation in government, less money, and therefore less of an ability to prevent harmful developments in their neighborhoods. When you consider that housing is typically a "transformative asset" in the sense of economic stability and the ability to pass on wealth to one's children, the aggregate effect of the economic injustices are extremely large over time.

This is different than the effect of direct discrimination perpetrated by one individual against another. At the end of the day, historically the example individuals who pull themselves up out of poverty maintain a weaker grasp on their new economic status, while the fallen wealthy guy is much more likely to have rich family members, inheritance, access to power, etc.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I think it's important not to overlook the role of institutionalized oppression, though. It's not just individuals affecting other individuals.

An example that can hopefully be illustrative of the point:
For quite some time, African American veterans were not offered government subsidized mortgages. Once that issue was resolved, red-lining prevented most from buying homes in more affluent, typically white neighborhoods. Most American's primary savings for retirement and inheritance for their children essentially are the value of their homes. Not only were black veterans unable to receive the full benefit of the VA loans, African American-dense neighborhoods have historically suffered from such injustices as being more susceptible to eminent domain takeovers, having freeways built right through them, etc., because as a community they have less representation in government, less money, and therefore less of an ability to prevent harmful developments in their neighborhoods. When you consider that housing is typically a "transformative asset" in the sense of economic stability and the ability to pass on wealth to one's children, the aggregate effect of the economic injustices are extremely large over time.

This is different than the effect of direct discrimination perpetrated by one individual against another. At the end of the day, historically the example individuals who pull themselves up out of poverty maintain a weaker grasp on their new economic status, while the fallen wealthy guy is much more likely to have rich family members, inheritance, access to power, etc.

But the fallen wealthy guy is still likely to be a miserable personality-disordered SOB and all the money in the world won't fix that. He and his rich family will be miserable.

 

[deleted106747]

But the fallen wealthy guy is still likely to be a miserable personality-disordered SOB and all the money in the world won't fix that. He and his rich family will be miserable.

Well, you can get miserable personality disordered persons in any demographic. I've been around extraordinarily wealthy people. Two things 1) if you are a miserable personality disordered person, it helps to have money and family who can support you. It's easier to have a terrible personality in a wealthy system than in a poor one; and 2) Most aren't. They weren't necessarily the most effective or driven people, but they were nice enough. The comparison is like apples mixed in with oranges, or something, but one group has more opportunity to what, grow or something.

I'm articulating poorly because of a mean little virus. Darned third week of September when the petri dishes - I mean kids - have been together long enough to grow all their bugs. Hopefully what I'm trying to say is clear.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I think it's important not to overlook the role of institutionalized oppression, though. It's not just individuals affecting other individuals.

An example that can hopefully be illustrative of the point:
For quite some time, African American veterans were not offered government subsidized mortgages. Once that issue was resolved, red-lining prevented most from buying homes in more affluent, typically white neighborhoods. Most American's primary savings for retirement and inheritance for their children essentially are the value of their homes. Not only were black veterans unable to receive the full benefit of the VA loans, African American-dense neighborhoods have historically suffered from such injustices as being more susceptible to eminent domain takeovers, having freeways built right through them, etc., because as a community they have less representation in government, less money, and therefore less of an ability to prevent harmful developments in their neighborhoods. When you consider that housing is typically a "transformative asset" in the sense of economic stability and the ability to pass on wealth to one's children, the aggregate effect of the economic injustices are extremely large over time.

This is different than the effect of direct discrimination perpetrated by one individual against another. At the end of the day, historically the example individuals who pull themselves up out of poverty maintain a weaker grasp on their new economic status, while the fallen wealthy guy is much more likely to have rich family members, inheritance, access to power, etc.

For sake of argument, let's hold the race variable constant. Twin African-American brothers grow up in the same inner city impoverished neighborhood. Hell, let's even make them monozygotic twins. Brother A goofs off in school, gets poor grades, hangs out with the wrong crowds, sires 10 kids by 7 different mothers (supports none of them) and develops his antisocial skills and hobbies and ends up in prison. Brother B works hard in school, gets good grades, associates with peers who are working to improve themselves, goes to college, gets degree, great job, wife and kids.

So, the children of Brother B are 'privileged' now and so--I suppose--we could say that we should enact 'social justice' and force Brother B to take $40,000 per kid (away from his kid's college funds...hey, he can afford it) and donate $120,000 to the kids of Brother A.

Sure, he could *choose* to do that, and maybe he will (or maybe he won't). Maybe he knows more about the situation than we do. Maybe he's at least as moral a person as we are. What gives someone outside that situation (or outside that family) the wisdom and authority to 'enact social justice' and force him to give his kids' money to his brothers' kids? Is it realistic to believe that Brother A's kids (who have just had $120,000 drop out of the sky into their lap--they didn't have to work for it) lives are necessarily going to be improved in the long run because of this forced transfer of wealth? Is this 'justice?' Who gets to decide? Can reasonable people disagree?

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Well, you can get miserable personality disordered persons in any demographic. I've been around extraordinarily wealthy people. Two things 1) if you are a miserable personality disordered person, it helps to have money and family who can support you. It's easier to have a terrible personality in a wealthy system than in a poor one; and 2) Most aren't. They weren't necessarily the most effective or driven people, but they were nice enough. The comparison is like apples mixed in with oranges, or something, but one group has more opportunity to what, grow or something.

I'm articulating poorly because of a mean little virus. Darned third week of September when the petri dishes - I mean kids - have been together long enough to grow all their bugs. Hopefully what I'm trying to say is clear.

Sure...money can help (conceivably) in any situation. However, my experience working with folks who have plenty of money coming in (e.g., via service connection, SSDI, caregiver support) and who have, say, problems with substance abuse and personality disorders, money ain't the problem and it doesn't get them well.

Hope you and the little ones get better soon!

 

[deleted106747]

Sure...money can help (conceivably) in any situation. However, my experience working with folks who have plenty of money coming in (e.g., via disability payments) and who have, say, problems with substance abuse and personality disorders, money ain't the problem and it doesn't get them well.

Hope you and the little ones get better soon!

Agreed - but I think those getting disability are a hugely different population than the naturally wealthy which is more the comparison group to those who have experienced institutionalized racism. I do think that the impact of institutionalized racism should still be the center of the conversation. Although I have a lot of empathy for, say, cultural appropriation concerns, I think when it goes really far (i.e. dreadlocks) it tends to numb people against conversations about all racism. Since we live in such an all or nothing world.

Thanks for the good wishes. I suspect I'm highly privileged if one can be ranked, but none of that privilege prevented me from feeling quite sorry for myself today as I dragged through my day, ha.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Agreed - but I think those getting disability are a hugely different population than the naturally wealthy which is more the comparison group to those who have experienced institutionalized racism. I do think that the impact of institutionalized racism should still be the center of the conversation. Although I have a lot of empathy for, say, cultural appropriation concerns, I think when it goes really far (i.e. dreadlocks) it tends to numb people against conversations about all racism. Since we live in such an all or nothing world.

Thanks for the good wishes. I suspect I'm highly privileged if one can be ranked, but none of that privilege prevented me from feeling quite sorry for myself today as I dragged through my day, ha.

How exactly does one construct a treatment plan addressing 'institutional racism?'

 

[deleted106747]

How exactly does one construct a treatment plan addressing 'institutional racism?'

Sorry, was this conversation in the context of treatment? I read through it quickly and didn't catch that.
I don't know if I have a good answer to that. Dealing with the depression, anxiety, whatever mental health concern that the racism helped engender, I suppose. Validation and not denial that the country has a long, racist history that still impacts us today. Being open to hearing someone's experience. All stuff that we probably all do for the most part.