!@#% Around and Found Out

[Sanman]

No. The focus is on the process rather than the result and that process will differ depending on your locale, the nature of the organization, whether or not the organization reflects the community it serves, etc. Now we can use the result to help us determine if we have engaged in an equitable process. However, I don't care WHO the decision maker becomes but rather whether there was an equitable process to determine who the decision maker is. I care not if the decision maker is a white heterosexual male if the process was equitable. However, if the last 10 decision-makers are white heterosexual males then I would question whether or not there is an equitable process to determine those decision-makers.

I don't disagree with this in theory. However, those who decide have the power to determine how one measures what is equitable. For example, the black population in the U.S. is approximately 15% and the Asian population is 6%. However, The Black population of CA is approximately 6% and the Asian population is 15%. So, if UCLA wants to be equitable, which numbers do they choose? Can both be considered fair? Will a Black university president pick a different number from an Asian university president? In a state with a nearly 90% percent white population like North Dakota, will a White university president go with state level numbers? If the CA president uses national numbers and the ND president goes with state numbers, you get discrimination because that will effectively reduce the number of available seats for Asians. I imagine using national numbers in Alabama or Mississippi would discriminate against Black Americans. This is how equity can result in inequitable outcomes.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Been reading this thread and all the many reactions and responses from the variety of people on here. These are my reflections and opinions:

1. Everyone deserves to have a voice. AND everyone should at least try to consider how what they’re saying might impact their fellow humans.
2. It’s understandable if other people’s opinions trigger you emotionally—that’s human. We all have emotional baggage whether we realize it or not. Yes, all of us—don’t come at me saying you’re the one person in the world who doesn’t, or that it never informs your opinions. Sure, you can over-intellectualize your emotional reactions all day long—which I saw a lot of on this thread—but at the root, you’re still speaking from an emotionally triggered place—you’re just smart enough to know how to mask it by your intelligence. Too smart for your own good in this case 😊 Same goes for humor as a defense mechanism. And yes, before anyone might ask or so helpfully point this out, I had an emotional reaction to this topic too; I’m not immune to this.
3. It’s extremely easy and common for people to compare their insides to other people’s outsides, which will nearly always make you feel at a disadvantage. I.e. a White person looking at a Black person and thinking “well I bet they didn’t have this disability that I have, they didn’t lose a parent like I did, they didn’t have an absent parent like I did, they didn’t have s***tty parents like I did, they didn’t grow up poor like I did, they weren’t bullied as a kid like I was, etc—insert literally any hardship here” and thinking “and now this m***f**** gets a scholarship/job/closer consideration of their application than me too?? Hell naw! Where’s my ‘righting of wrongs’ for the ish that I had to deal with? That’s not fair!”
4. But here’s the thing. You don’t know what they don’t show you—you can’t ever know everything about a person, and many people don’t shout all their pain/disadvantages from the rooftops. So try comparing your insides to their outsides. Try thinking that they’ve dealt with all the same disadvantages you did AND on top of that, society constantly fed/is still feeding them messages that they are less-than/not safe/not taken as seriously/etc. Put downs in so many forms from so many different places, on a daily basis, based on physical characteristics like race and gender. Really think about that. How would you feel then? Go ahead and add that one on top of whatever hardship you’ve been through, and think how bad THAT would suck. To not be able to catch a break as far as your gender/race in addition to whatever other bs you’ve had to deal with. That would really suck, right? That’s what minorities deal with.
5. The amount of discrimination, systemic racism, micro-aggressions, etc that still happens can most definitely add up and boil over for anyone dealing with it, so of course it can be a very emotional topic. It’s no wonder people who’ve been abused by society have strong reactions to this—how could they not, unless they’ve internalized the bs, or have grown numb to it, or have given up or are taking a break from trying to educate the world, for the sake of their own peace and sanity.

Whew, okay that was cathartic to put in my two cents. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. 😂

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Been reading this thread and all the many reactions and responses from the variety of people on here. These are my reflections and opinions:

1. Everyone deserves to have a voice. AND everyone should at least try to consider how what they’re saying might impact their fellow humans.
2. It’s understandable if other people’s opinions trigger you emotionally—that’s human. We all have emotional baggage whether we realize it or not. Yes, all of us—don’t come at me saying you’re the one person in the world who doesn’t, or that it never informs your opinions. Sure, you can over-intellectualize your emotional reactions all day long—which I saw a lot of on this thread—but at the root, you’re still speaking from an emotionally triggered place—you’re just smart enough to know how to mask it by your intelligence. Too smart for your own good in this case 😊 Same goes for humor as a defense mechanism. And yes, before anyone might ask or so helpfully point this out, I had an emotional reaction to this topic too; I’m not immune to this.
3. It’s extremely easy and common for people to compare their insides to other people’s outsides, which will nearly always make you feel at a disadvantage. I.e. a White person looking at a Black person and thinking “well I bet they didn’t have this disability that I have, they didn’t lose a parent like I did, they didn’t have an absent parent like I did, they didn’t have s***tty parents like I did, they didn’t grow up poor like I did, they weren’t bullied as a kid like I was, etc—insert literally any hardship here” and thinking “and now this m***f**** gets a scholarship/job/closer consideration of their application than me too?? Hell naw! Where’s my ‘righting of wrongs’ for the ish that I had to deal with? That’s not fair!”
4. But here’s the thing. You don’t know what they don’t show you—you can’t ever know everything about a person, and many people don’t shout all their pain/disadvantages from the rooftops. So try comparing your insides to their outsides. Try thinking that they’ve dealt with all the same disadvantages you did AND on top of that, society constantly fed/is still feeding them messages that they are less-than/not safe/not taken as seriously/etc. Put downs in so many forms from so many different places, on a daily basis, based on physical characteristics like race and gender. Really think about that. How would you feel then? Go ahead and add that one on top of whatever hardship you’ve been through, and think how bad THAT would suck. To not be able to catch a break as far as your gender/race in addition to whatever other bs you’ve had to deal with. That would really suck, right? That’s what minorities deal with.
5. The amount of discrimination, systemic racism, micro-aggressions, etc that still happens can most definitely add up and boil over for anyone dealing with it, so of course it can be a very emotional topic. It’s no wonder people who’ve been abused by society have strong reactions to this—how could they not, unless they’ve internalized the bs, or have grown numb to it, or have given up or are taking a break from trying to educate the world, for the sake of their own peace and sanity.

Whew, okay that was cathartic to put in my two cents. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk. 😂

Very well said, for what it’s worth. You hit several key points that I hope all of us will reflect on.


I will add (independent opinion unrelated to your post ), that for those who most largely benefit from the current white and male supremacist power structure to repeatedly say ‘we’re not really interested in putting significant effort into changing things until you come to us with a perfect solution’ speaks volumes and is mighty convenient. That is a luxury that the people who are actually suffering from such a system do not have. I wonder if the standards of, and patience for, enacting change would be so high if the shoe were on the other foot. This fragility-driven approach to DEI is not just a sentiment on this forum, but is an every day occurrence in the ‘real world’ whenever BIPOC bring up systemic racism and oppression. This forum just happens to be an unfortunate snapshot. Admittedly, nobody wants to lose their privilege – that’s just human nature. No need to dress that up with unrealistic standards, we are better off sitting with it and processing it.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Very well said, for what it’s worth. You hit several key points that I hope all of us will reflect on.


I will add (independent opinion unrelated to your post ), that for those who most largely benefit from the current white and male supremacist power structure to repeatedly say ‘we’re not really interested in putting significant effort into changing things until you come to us with a perfect solution’ speaks volumes and is mighty convenient. That is a luxury that the people who are actually suffering from such a system do not have. I wonder if the standards of, and patience for, enacting change would be so high if the shoe were on the other foot. This fragility-driven approach to DEI is not just a sentiment on this forum, but is an every day occurrence in the ‘real world’ whenever BIPOC bring up systemic racism and oppression. This forum just happens to be an unfortunate snapshot. Admittedly, nobody wants to lose their privilege – that’s just human nature. No need to dress that up with unrealistic standards, we are better off sitting with it and processing it.

Are you (or is anyone) seriously asserting that modern day professional mental healthcare and its associated professions--to include psychiatry, psychology, social work, and other associated MH professionals--is dominated by some sort of 'white and male supremacist power structure?' Really? Really? Have you read any of the professional journals in those fields lately? Have you worked in a mental healthcare setting in the past 10 years? LOL. A 'white and male supremacist power structure?' Really?

I mean...specifically, what do we need to change (in your opinion) to make these fields less of a so-called 'white and male supremacist power structure?'

 

[WisNeuro]

Are you (or is anyone) seriously asserting that modern day professional mental healthcare and its associated professions--to include psychiatry, psychology, social work, and other associated MH professionals--is dominated by some sort of 'white and male supremacist power structure?' Really? Really? Have you read any of the professional journals in those fields lately? Have you worked in a mental healthcare setting in the past 10 years? LOL. A 'white and male supremacist power structure?' Really?

I mean...specifically, what do we need to change (in your opinion) to make these fields less of a so-called 'white and male supremacist power structure?'

Just let them sit with their projection. Maybe insight will come some day.

 

[Sanman]

Very well said, for what it’s worth. You hit several key points that I hope all of us will reflect on.


I will add (independent opinion unrelated to your post ), that for those who most largely benefit from the current white and male supremacist power structure to repeatedly say ‘we’re not really interested in putting significant effort into changing things until you come to us with a perfect solution’ speaks volumes and is mighty convenient. That is a luxury that the people who are actually suffering from such a system do not have. I wonder if the standards of, and patience for, enacting change would be so high if the shoe were on the other foot. This fragility-driven approach to DEI is not just a sentiment on this forum, but is an every day occurrence in the ‘real world’ whenever BIPOC bring up systemic racism and oppression. This forum just happens to be an unfortunate snapshot. Admittedly, nobody wants to lose their privilege – that’s just human nature. No need to dress that up with unrealistic standards, we are better off sitting with it and processing it.

The flip side of that statement is that those who stand to benefit from the current imperfect solutions are impatient to implement them because they personally stand to benefit from the changes. That may be convenient too and both statements may be true.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

The flip side of that statement is that those who stand to benefit from the current imperfect solutions are impatient to implement them because they personally stand to benefit from the changes. That may be convenient too and both statements may be true.

I could not agree with you more. A cancer patient trying to rid themselves of cancer and become healthy like everybody else is also very impatient for treatment, and conveniently so. Doesn’t make it wrong.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Just let them sit with their projection. Maybe insight will come some day.

Projection of…?

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Are you (or is anyone) seriously asserting that modern day professional mental healthcare and its associated professions--to include psychiatry, psychology, social work, and other associated MH professionals--is dominated by some sort of 'white and male supremacist power structure?' Really? Really? Have you read any of the professional journals in those fields lately? Have you worked in a mental healthcare setting in the past 10 years? LOL. A 'white and male supremacist power structure?' Really?

I mean...specifically, what do we need to change (in your opinion) to make these fields less of a so-called 'white and male supremacist power structure?'

I think this whole discussion started with talking about academic settings and the white and male supremacist power structure there lol

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I think this whole discussion started with talking about academic settings and the white and male supremacist power structure there lol

Oh. So *academic* clinical psychology is dominated by a 'white and male supremacist power structure?'

We can get a pulse of the ideological leanings of academics by perusing their published works, right? Just look at the tables of contents of any/all mainstream journals in *academic* clinical psychology in the past 20 years and tell me if you are asserting that what is being studied, proposed, and interpreted in modern academic psychology is indicative of a white and male supremacist power structure. The opposite is clearly the case.

Can you cite *any* published articles in mainstream *academic* psychological journals that would serve as exemplars of this so-called 'white male supremacist ideology' currently plaguing academic psychology?

I mean, there might be one or two out there somewhere ( or NONE), but the overwhelming majority of funded research grants and publications are clearly denouncing anything white, anything male and especially anything white-male. If so-called white male supremacists are in charge of the field, they're doing an awful job of 'dominating' it in practice. If you've served on any academic, internship or grad school, or hospital search committee in the past 20 years then you KNOW, that people on those committees are trying their best to preferentially hire women and minority candidates as well.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Oh. So *academic* clinical psychology is dominated by a 'white and male supremacist power structure?'

We can get a pulse of the ideological leanings of academics by perusing their published works, right? Just look at the tables of contents of any/all mainstream journals in *academic* clinical psychology in the past 20 years and tell me if you are asserting that what is being studied, proposed, and interpreted in modern academic psychology is indicative of a white and male supremacist power structure. The opposite is clearly the case.

Can you cite *any* published articles in mainstream *academic* psychological journals that would serve as exemplars of this so-called 'white male supremacist ideology' currently plaguing academic psychology?

I mean, there might be one or two out there somewhere ( or NONE), but the overwhelming majority of funded research grants and publications are clearly denouncing anything white, anything male and especially anything white-male. If so-called white male supremacists are in charge of the field, they're doing an awful job of 'dominating' it in practice. If you've served on any academic, internship or grad school, or hospital search committee in the past 20 years then you KNOW, that people on those committees are trying their best to preferentially hire women and minority candidates as well.

Wait now I have homework?? No thanks, I’m good. 😂 But in all seriousness, I think most people would agree academic departments, for all their displayed efforts to be inclusive, still have a long way to go. As does the rest of the world. But as I said before, that’s hard to see if you feel disadvantaged; you’re bound to hone in on any and all evidence that supports that feeling, while ignoring all the rest.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Know of any that you could even vaguely describe off the top of your head? I mean, if white male supremacy dominates modern academic psychology then there must be *some* evidence of this conspiracy out there. Somewhere.

 

[Sanman]

I could not agree with you more. A cancer patient trying to rid themselves of cancer and become healthy like everybody else is also very impatient for treatment, and conveniently so. Doesn’t make it wrong.

I like this analogy. The flaw in this thinking is that it changes the conversation and encourages tribalism. There is nothing wrong with advocating for cancer care. Maybe you will even include people with heart disease when you push for more representation. The problem is that this does nothing for people with multiple sclerosis, kidney disease, or any other disease when you change the conversation from 'Healthcare for all' to 'Better care for those with cancer'. Eventually, those healthy people will go to the people with MS and say " Those people with cancer don't care about you, they only care about themselves" and the people with those forgotten diseases may say "you're right". Then, the conversation will turn from 'healthy people vs sick people' to 'People with cancer vs People without cancer'. When that happens, the people with cancer may find themselves on the losing side of the battle. Don't blame me, I was just over here trying to have a conversation about MS.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Know of any that you could even vaguely describe off the top of your head? I mean, if white male supremacy dominates modern academic psychology then there must be *some* evidence of this conspiracy out there. Somewhere.

Sure, I think the number of white males vs others in academia speaks for itself.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Oh wow. We have reached the ‘white supremacy is an imagined conspiracy’ stage already? Man I really need to clear my schedule for this one.

Since when are multi-stage peer-reviewed and published articles a direct reflection of the personal implicit biases and prejudices held and weaponized by more than enough individuals in our field? I guess actual testimonies by the real life BIPOC who are at the mercy of the prejudice and discrimination are nonexistent and imagined because it didn’t make its way into published peer reviewed articles.

So the argument being made is that the rampant white supremacy that drives American/western culture conveniently magically automatically shuts itself off at the doorstep of the field of psychology?

My brain hurrrrttsssss, I want to say much more but I can’t until I’ve had enough time to process all this new information 😂😂

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Sure, I think the number of white males vs others in academia speaks for itself.

Is this true across all age strata?

Young academics vs. older academics?

Obviously years of experience in the field, number of pubs, etc. would have to be taken into account and controlled for.

Obviously demographic composition of the field has changed dramatically over the decades.

And, no, I do not take a simple univariate analysis on its face as ever 'speaking for itself.' It speaks to ONE variable in isolation and hardly establishes any form of causality.

See 'the underdetermination problem' in science or, more formally, the underdetermination of theory by evidence.

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Oh wow. We have reached the ‘white supremacy is a conspiracy’ stage already? Man I really need to clear my schedule for this one.

Since when are multi-stage peer-reviewed and published articles a direct reflection of the personal implicit biases and prejudices held and weaponized by more than enough individuals in our field? I guess actual testimonies by the real life BIPOC who are at the mercy of the prejudice and discrimination are nonexistent and imagined because it didn’t make its way into published peer reviewed articles.

So the argument being made is that the rampant white supremacy that drives American/western culture conveniently magically automatically shuts itself off at the doorstep of the field of psychology?

My brain hurrrrttsssss, I want to say much more but I can’t until I’ve had enough time to process all this new information 😂😂

This ^ 💯😂

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I like this analogy. The flaw in this thinking is that it changes the conversation and encourages tribalism. There is nothing wrong with advocating for cancer care. Maybe you will even include people with heart disease when you push for more representation. The problem is that this does nothing for people with multiple sclerosis, kidney disease, or any other disease when you change the conversation from 'Healthcare for all' to 'Better care for those with cancer'. Eventually, those healthy people will go to the people with MS and say " Those people with cancer don't care about you, they only care about themselves" and the people with those forgotten diseases may say "you're right". Then, the conversation with turn from 'healthy people vs sick people' to 'People with cancer vs People without cancer'. When that happens, the people with cancer may find themselves on the losing side of the battle. Don't blame me, I was just over here trying to have a conversation about MS.

I will not argue against your point because I agree in many different ways. My issue is the sentiment which has been shared ad nauseum in this thread, which is: ‘we are not interested in incremental progress until you can show us a plan that guarantees uniform success for all marginalized groups at the same time’, and the laughable irony is that this is all being said while the sayer is sitting on a throne of privilege that they defiantly refuse to acknowledge.

I’m not saying I have all the solutions, but I am definitely saying that what I described above is a willfully pathetic approach to the issue and is simply a fancy way to excuse inaction and maintain the status quo. I won’t even touch the complete denial of the privileges being held by those denying they hold privilege because even a third grader can decimate that in three sentences or less.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

This ^ 💯😂

But isn't this, in essence, what is being claimed?

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Is this true across all age strata?

Young academics vs. older academics?

Obviously years of experience in the field, number of pubs, etc. would have to be taken into account and controlled for.

Obviously demographic composition of the field has changed dramatically over the decades.

And, no, I do not take a simple univariate analysis on its face as ever 'speaking for itself.' It speaks to ONE variable in isolation and hardly establishes any form of causality.

See 'the underdetermination problem' in science or, more formally, the underdetermination of theory by evidence.

I bow to your statistical rigor. And do not disagree with it one bit. Just not sure how it applies to the root of this argument.

 

[borne_before]

Very well said, for what it’s worth. You hit several key points that I hope all of us will reflect on.


I will add (independent opinion unrelated to your post ), that for those who most largely benefit from the current white and male supremacist power structure to repeatedly say ‘we’re not really interested in putting significant effort into changing things until you come to us with a perfect solution’ speaks volumes and is mighty convenient. That is a luxury that the people who are actually suffering from such a system do not have. I wonder if the standards of, and patience for, enacting change would be so high if the shoe were on the other foot. This fragility-driven approach to DEI is not just a sentiment on this forum, but is an every day occurrence in the ‘real world’ whenever BIPOC bring up systemic racism and oppression. This forum just happens to be an unfortunate snapshot. Admittedly, nobody wants to lose their privilege – that’s just human nature. No need to dress that up with unrealistic standards, we are better off sitting with it and processing it.

I do not want to pile on. But, this is my clear issue with many DEI initiatives. They're implemented from the heart over the facts. Usually it's a way to exert unearned power over a fictitious and inaccurate enemy in a short sighted and disengenous way.

Fact: mental health and modern psychology is absolutely dominated by women. If DEI was a universal virtue - something done to truly help- it's proponents would be discussing addressing the lack of males in the field by offering lowered standards and financial aide.

I was the only dude in my cohort of ten. Of the ten - 50% had non white identities and a good 30% had a disability (other than the ever present anxiety amongst white women pursuing doctorates). I can't speak to your field, but school psychology is actually doing a pretty damn good job. The way you speak about this stuff is so black and white - like no progress has been made. The field is rapidly graying as well.

There is a sort of irony in a white woman lecturing white guys about fragility. Maybe because we do recognize the issue and that many white males have recognized and embraced the DEI - fundamentally recognizing the need to make things more fair and benefit psychology, but it's clearly not about DEI anymore - or we'd have a tougher conversation about limiting the role of white women in the field?

If I said to the white women on this forum that they need a reduced role in psychology to make things more equitable, how does that make you feel? Are you going to abandon your career/training/tenured position to make way for more black males because DEI is important? I doubt it.

And you shouldn't. You've done a lot of good. You're membership to a group does not diminish that. You're not less morally pure because your a woman who is white.

Or maybe we can grow the pie or bake two so that more people can have a slice instead of cutting down slices.

In the heart of the OP of this thread - the field suffered because of DEI. It was used by people with low power (students) as a very powerful because of sacred treatment way to harm the field.

I mean for reals, can the DEI proponents even see how disingenuous it is? How much harm it can do if used improperly?

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

But isn't this, in essence, what is being claimed?

I’m not sure if my response was misunderstood, but what I meant was “this is very on point” —my bad if that’s not how it came across or if I’m misunderstanding your comment.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I do not want to pile on. But, this is my clear issue with many DEI initiatives. They're implemented from the heart over the facts. Usually it's a way to exert unearned power over a fictitious and inaccurate enemy in a short sighted and disengenous way.

Fact: mental health and modern psychology is absolutely dominated by women. If DEI was a universal virtue - something done to truly help- it's proponents would be discussing addressing the lack of males in the field by offering lowered standards and financial aide.

I was the only dude in my cohort of ten. Of the ten - 50% had non white identities and a good 30% had a disability (other than the ever present anxiety amongst white women pursuing doctorates). I can't speak to your field, but school psychology is actually doing a pretty damn good job. The way you speak about this stuff is so black and white - like no progress has been made. The field is rapidly graying as well.

There is a sort of irony in a white woman lecturing white guys about fragility. Maybe because we do recognize the issue and that many white males have recognized and embraced the DEI - fundamentally recognizing the need to make things more fair and benefit psychology, but it's clearly not about DEI anymore - or we'd have a tougher conversation about limiting the role of white women in the field?

If I said to the white women on this forum that they need a reduced role in psychology to make things more equitable, how does that make you feel? Are you going to abandon your career/training/tenured position to make way for more black males because DEI is important? I doubt it.

And you shouldn't. You've done a lot of good. You're membership to a group does not diminish that. You're not less morally pure because your a woman who is white.

Or maybe we can grow the pie or bake two so that more people can have a slice instead of cutting down slices.

In the heart of the OP of this thread - the field suffered because of DEI. It was used by people with low power (students) as a very powerful because of sacred treatment way to harm the field.

I mean for reals, can the DEI proponents even see how disingenuous it is? How much harm it can do if used improperly?

Feelings and facts are not always mutually exclusive. I am glad that was your graduate training experience, it certainly was not mine and certainly was not the case for many people that I know, and there was a lot of suffering as a result, enough to drum several folks out of the profession completely thereby changing their life trajectory in ways that they did not want. I am genuinely glad that you did not get to experience that.

So is your proposed solution to maintain the status quo as opposed to incremental improvement across the spectrum? Because that’s what I’m consistently arguing against. Progress is rarely uniform and will at times be uneven and stepwise, so if we continue to say let’s ‘leave those in power where they are until those without power can learn to play well with each other, hold hands, and jump in glee in unison in the way we like and approve’, I will always argue against that because as I said, it’s just a way to continue reaping the benefits of privilege by setting unrealistic standards while the marginalized scramble to meet said unrealistic standards. That is literally a founding tenet of colonization. You can’t do folks wrong and then dictate exactly how they should overcome those wrongs. Doesn’t work that way.

I would have absolutely no problem with taking a step back as a white woman for the advancement of the whole, and why would I have a problem with such? One of the biggest issues marginalized groups have with those outside of such groups is that they don’t know where the line is between taking the lead and when to step back (because society in many ways has always fostered the belief that they own the lead everywhere and all the time).

 

[Pragma]

So is your proposed solution to maintain the status quo as opposed to incremental improvement across the spectrum? Because that’s what I’m consistently arguing against. Progress is rarely uniform and will at times be uneven and stepwise, so if we continue to say let’s ‘leave those in power where they are until those without power can learn to play well with each other, hold hands, and jump in glee in unison in the way we like and approve’, I will always argue against that because as I said, it’s just a way to continue reaping the benefits of privilege by setting unrealistic standards while the marginalized scramble to meet said unrealistic standards. That is literally a founding tenet of colonization. You can’t do folks wrong and then dictate exactly how they should overcome those wrongs. Doesn’t work that way.

Straw man - where are you getting this false dichotomy that you are setting up? There are a lot of different conversations happening in this thread but I think you are demonstrating here a big part of why these discussions can be so challenging.

I still observe or hear about misogynistic behaviors in professional settings fairly regularly and would not pretend that "the battle is over" (how would one measure that sort of goal is a fair question though). At the same time, many of us have been at this for a long time in the field and it is not new to us. Academic settings that I have worked in have had their leadership structures at a minimum highly represented by women (mostly white) and in some cases completely dominated by women. There has been undeniable progress and one could say that the progress has not evolved equitably across groups who have experienced oppression. This is the conversation that I am hearing in this thread, not the above at all.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Straw man - where are you getting this false dichotomy that you are setting up? There are a lot of different conversations happening in this thread but I think you are demonstrating here a big part of why these discussions can be so challenging.

I still observe or hear about misogynistic behaviors in professional settings fairly regularly and would not pretend that "the battle is over" (how would one measure that sort of goal is a fair question though). At the same time, many of us have been at this for a long time in the field and it is not new to us. Academic settings that I have worked in have had their leadership structures at a minimum highly represented by women (mostly white) and in some cases completely dominated by women. There has been undeniable progress and one could say that the progress has not evolved equitably across groups who have experienced oppression. This is the conversation that I am hearing in this thread, not the above at all.

It was a simple question, I don’t feel the need to reiterate every single viewpoint that has been made thus far on here in every single post, I was addressing the most recent. So yeah, certainly was not presenting a dichotomy at all. There’s nothing here being pulled out of thin air. I am well aware of the conversations that have been happening seeing as I’m one of the most vocal on the thread. If you read back far enough, you will see other viewpoints that I’ve presented and they are way more than two so once again – far from a dichotomy. Or we can just go on ignoring them.

 

[borne_before]

It was a simple question, I don’t feel the need to reiterate every single viewpoint that has been made thus far on here in every single post, I was addressing the most recent. So yeah, certainly was not presenting a dichotomy at all. There’s nothing here being pulled out of thin air. I am well aware of the conversations that have been happening seeing as I’m one of the most vocal on the thread. If you read back far enough, you will see other viewpoints that I’ve presented and they are way more than two so once again – far from a dichotomy. Or we can just go on ignoring them.

You’re getting frustrated because you’ve never been challenged on this before and are overwhelmed. You can adjust to that or not. You’re making valid points but this reminds me of a high school kid evangelizing Christianity for the first time outside of church.

Maybe there are some issues with dei and how it’s implemented? Or is it infallible because it’s heart is in the right place?

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

You’re getting frustrated because you’ve never been challenged on this before and are overwhelmed. You can adjust to that or not. You’re making valid points but this reminds me of a high school kid evangelizing Christianity for the first time outside of church.

Maybe there are some issues with dei and how it’s implemented? Or is it infallible because it’s heart is in the right place?

Umm…..what? When did it become okay to assume this much about anyone, ever?

I can’t help but notice that all the people in this thread arguing agains DEI use a lot of definitive and absolute language such as “always” and “never.”

 

[WisNeuro]

Umm…..what? When did it become okay to assume this much about anyone, ever?

Apparently it's only ok to make broad generalizations and assumptions on the other side of the discussion...

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

Apparently it's only ok to make broad generalizations and assumptions on the other side of the discussion...

I don’t think so. Did I ever do that?

 

[WisNeuro]

I don’t think so. Did I ever do that?

You can easily read through the thread and see it happen throughout.

 

[Sanman]

I will not argue against your point because I agree in many different ways. My issue is the sentiment which has been shared ad nauseum in this thread, which is: ‘we are not interested in incremental progress until you can show us a plan that guarantees uniform success for all marginalized groups at the same time’, and the laughable irony is that this is all being said while the sayer is sitting on a throne of privilege that they defiantly refuse to acknowledge.

The assumption here is that the "sayer is sitting on the throne of privilege" in all cases. This may not be true. I have been mistakenly referred to as a "white male of privilege" several times in the course of this discussion already. The harm in going forward with an imperfect plan is that if you get it wrong, your next chance at getting it right may not be for years or even generations. You may disagree with this argument and that is alright. Hwever, that does not mean there is no validity to it.

 

[WisNeuro]

The assumption here is that the "sayer is sitting on the throne of privilege" in all cases. This may not be true in all cases. I have been mistakenly referred to as a "white male of privilege" several times in the course of this discussion already. The harm in going forward with an imperfect plan is that if you get it wrong, your next chance at getting it right may not be for years or even generations. You may disagree with this argument and that is alright. Hwever, that does not mean there is no validity to it.

Wait, that's not you in your thumbnail/avatar?

 

[Sanman]

So is your proposed solution to maintain the status quo as opposed to incremental improvement across the spectrum? Because that’s what I’m consistently arguing against. Progress is rarely uniform and will at times be uneven and stepwise, so if we continue to say let’s ‘leave those in power where they are until those without power can learn to play well with each other, hold hands, and jump in glee in unison in the way we like and approve’, I will always argue against that because as I said, it’s just a way to continue reaping the benefits of privilege by setting unrealistic standards while the marginalized scramble to meet said unrealistic standards. That is literally a founding tenet of colonization. You can’t do folks wrong and then dictate exactly how they should overcome those wrongs. Doesn’t work that way.

The assumption here is that there will always be progress and that those we leave behind will be taken up for in the future. If that does not happen, is it truly progress or are we simply caught up in a game of musical chairs?

Additionally, the idea that certain groups may not be included because they are overrepresented sets the precedent that one is only allowed to achieve so much before others should come for them. This is where the argument for progress will fail. You are already putting a limitation on what others can achieve. That means you give the right for others to put limitations on you.

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

Apparently it's only ok to make broad generalizations and assumptions on the other side of the discussion

Apparently it's only ok to assume others are projecting.

 

[Pragma]

It was a simple question, I don’t feel the need to reiterate every single viewpoint that has been made thus far on here in every single post, I was addressing the most recent. So yeah, certainly was not presenting a dichotomy at all. There’s nothing here being pulled out of thin air. I am well aware of the conversations that have been happening seeing as I’m one of the most vocal on the thread. If you read back far enough, you will see other viewpoints that I’ve presented and they are way more than two so once again – far from a dichotomy. Or we can just go on ignoring them.

I can read what you said and tell you I did not see that presented in this thread. That's why I called it a straw man.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

You’re getting frustrated because you’ve never been challenged on this before and are overwhelmed. You can adjust to that or not. You’re making valid points but this reminds me of a high school kid evangelizing Christianity for the first time outside of church.

Maybe there are some issues with dei and how it’s implemented? Or is it infallible because it’s heart is in the right place?

I am very much frustrated, thank you very much. Fighting oppression, particularly against folks who are deeply steeped in denial, is a very frustrating endeavor. Were you expecting me to be happy about it? I’m sorry I’m not doing it with a smile on my face, to your standards, just as you would prefer. That doesn’t make much sense. My presentation/delivery does not have to be remotely palatable to you, and The fact that you think it does is embarrassingly uninformed. However, if my posts classify me as frustrated in your eyes, I’d hate to know what you describe the other posters as. Or am I the only one coming across as frustrated on here, and am I the only one who gets the label because you don’t like what I’m saying? Hmm..suspicious. I will just assume that your card got pulled and you had nothing else meaningful to say. I guess we’re all assuming today.

And, most importantly, very presumptive and WRONG of you to assume I’ve never been challenged on this before, because unlike some people posting on this thread and perhaps yourself, this is not my first, second or third time having such a difficult conversations. For a lot of us, this is not a hat we got to put on and takeoff whatever we are bored and come on this website, it’s what we HAVE to do in our every day lives. As a matter of fact, I have these discussions almost every day. so that Herculean leap of a conclusion you just drew is more misguided that you could ever imagine and I would hate to hypothesize the motivation behind you making such an erroneous statement. So you may want to have a rethink the next time you make such a claim. Perhaps find another way to undermine the points I am making than simply dismissing me as “frustrated”.

 

[WisNeuro]

Apparently it's only ok to assume others are projecting.

No, we can go with a variety of defense mechanisms, not just projection.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Umm…..what? When did it become okay to assume this much about anyone, ever?

I can’t help but notice that all the people in this thread arguing agains DEI use a lot of definitive and absolute language such as “always” and “never.”

Just like in real life/offline. Predictable and unsurprising. Right out of the rule book lol. The good thing is that folks can always assume whatever, all I can do is point out the error(s) in their assumptions. They didn’t flag ‘white supremacy is an imagined conspiracy’ as a frustrated statement, but somehow leapt over that to classify me as frustrated 😂😂 gotta love it! The true intentions jumped out so quick.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

The assumption here is that the "sayer is sitting on the throne of privilege" in all cases. This may not be true. I have been mistakenly referred to as a "white male of privilege" several times in the course of this discussion already. The harm in going forward with an imperfect plan is that if you get it wrong, your next chance at getting it right may not be for years or even generations. You may disagree with this argument and that is alright. Hwever, that does not mean there is no validity to it.

Not in all cases but in a lot of cases. Those who fight the hardest to maintain the status quote are typically the ones benefitting from it. Its not a totally baseless assumption. It’s against human nature to fight against one’s best interest. Still, does not invalidate your point at all and what you said deserves great consideration.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

I can read what you said and tell you I did not see that presented in this thread. That's why I called it a straw man.

So you reviewed the entire thread, and you are still convinced that I pulled what I said out of thin air? Then I have to respectfully question your visual acuity because that exact sentiment has been presented multiple times throughout this thread. I’m completely baffled by how you missed it when it’s one of the prevalent ‘other’ points being made by multiple posters.

 

[Pragma]

So you reviewed the entire thread, and you are still convinced that I pulled what I said out of thin air? Then I have to respectfully question your visual acuity because that exact sentiment has been presented multiple times throughout this thread. I’m completely baffled by how you missed it when it’s one of the prevalent ‘other’ points being made by multiple posters.

Yes I have looked through the thread again (and have been participating in it). I don't see the position that you outlined represented. Feel free to enlighten me if someone expressed something to the effect of [‘leave those in power where they are until those without power can learn to play well with each other, hold hands, and jump in glee in unison in the way we like and approve’] that I missed.

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

No, we can go with a variety of defense mechanisms, not just projection.

Deflection

 

[WisNeuro]

Deflection

See, now you're getting the hang of it!

 

[Pragma]

Umm…..what? When did it become okay to assume this much about anyone, ever?

I can’t help but notice that all the people in this thread arguing agains DEI use a lot of definitive and absolute language such as “always” and “never.”

Plenty of that to go around in the entire thread. I saw some extreme percentages on page 3!

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

The assumption here is that the "sayer is sitting on the throne of privilege" in all cases. This may not be true. I have been mistakenly referred to as a "white male of privilege" several times in the course of this discussion already. The harm in going forward with an imperfect plan is that if you get it wrong, your next chance at getting it right may not be for years or even generations. You may disagree with this argument and that is alright. Hwever, that does not mean there is no validity to it.

I also think that is is absolutely crucial to define what people mean by the term "privilege" in these discussions. One of the covert assumptions appears to be that any white male in a position of authority is benefiting from 'unearned' privilege and I don't think that it is reasonable to make that assumption. Certainly not at the level of the individual.

Not all 'privilege' is 'unearned.' Not all authority is illegitimate. 'Privilege' has become a dirty word nowadays. Authority is to be inherently distrusted. Everything devolves into power struggles between groups (the oppressors vs. the oppressed) and all nuance, context, and respect for individuals is lost and it becomes all tribalistic in-group vs. out-group dynamics and when those dynamics dominate the discussion NO progress can be made.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

The assumption here is that there will always be progress and that those we leave behind will be taken up for in the future. If that does not happen, is it truly progress or are we simply caught up in a game of musical chairs?

Additionally, the idea that certain groups may not be included because they are overrepresented sets the precedent that one is only allowed to achieve so much before others should come for them. This is where the argument for progress will fail. You are already putting a limitation on what others can achieve. That means you give the right for others to put limitations on you.

I am being deadly serious when I say--once all (or most) of the white males are purged from psychology it will be a toss up battle between white women vs. black men regarding which demographic is 'the more' oppressed. This is because the ideological engine fueling all of this HAS to have this 'oppressor vs. oppressed narrative at its center (and tends to see ANY conflict, any disparity between groups, and ANY messiness of life as somehow being explainable via this dynamic--it's a convenient one-variable explanation for problems). When someone suggests looking at or controlling for other variables, the response is, lol, I don't wanna do stats, that is irrelevant. We learned in *undergrad* about confounds and third variables. The fact that professional psychologists argue with a straight face that the idea of looking at more than one variable at a time is 'off topic' when trying to evaluate a claim in the DEI area shows you just how 'privileged' its proponents have been--as others have noted; it's been treated as an area that is so immune from methodological, logical, or empirical critique that its response to even an undergraduate level of critical thought (control for third variables) is met with laughter, derision, sarcasm, etc. if not a stream of ad hominems.

 

[borne_before]

I am very much frustrated, thank you very much. Fighting oppression, particularly against folks who are deeply steeped in denial, is a very frustrating endeavor. Were you expecting me to be happy about it? I’m sorry I’m not doing it with a smile on my face, to your standards, just as you would prefer. That doesn’t make much sense. My presentation/delivery does not have to be remotely palatable to you, and The fact that you think it does is embarrassingly uninformed. However, if my posts classify me as frustrated in your eyes, I’d hate to know what you describe the other posters as. Or am I the only one coming across as frustrated on here, and am I the only one who gets the label because you don’t like what I’m saying? Hmm..suspicious. I will just assume that your card got pulled and you had nothing else meaningful to say. I guess we’re all assuming today.

And, most importantly, very presumptive and WRONG of you to assume I’ve never been challenged on this before, because unlike some people posting on this thread and perhaps yourself, this is not my first, second or third time having such a difficult conversations. For a lot of us, this is not a hat we got to put on and takeoff whatever we are bored and come on this website, it’s what we HAVE to do in our every day lives. As a matter of fact, I have these discussions almost every day. so that Herculean leap of a conclusion you just drew is more misguided that you could ever imagine and I would hate to hypothesize the motivation behind you making such an erroneous statement. So you may want to have a rethink the next time you make such a claim. Perhaps find another way to undermine the points I am making than simply dismissing me as “frustrated”.

You’re not fighting oppression here. Get off the high horse of me vs oppressors. It’s just not that black and white. The dei folk have trained you yo use massive labels and black and white thinking in manner that is wrong from reality. Do you see why this resembles more of a religious dogmatic zeal than something designed to make things better?

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

You’re not fighting oppression here. Get off the high horse of me vs oppressors. It’s just not that black and white. The dei folk have trained you yo use massive labels and black and white thinking in manner that is wrong from reality. Do you see why this resembles more of a religious dogmatic zeal than something designed to make things better?

Looks like someone is getting frustrated...

 

[alice_in_neuro_wonderland]

I also think that is is absolutely crucial to define what people mean by the term "privilege" in these discussions. One of the covert assumptions appears to be that any white male in a position of authority is benefiting from 'unearned' privilege and I don't think that it is reasonable to make that assumption. Certainly not at the level of the individual.

Not all 'privilege' is 'unearned.' Not all authority is illegitimate. 'Privilege' has become a dirty word nowadays. Authority is to be inherently distrusted. Everything devolves into power struggles between groups (the oppressors vs. the oppressed) and all nuance, context, and respect for individuals is lost and it becomes all tribalistic in-group vs. out-group dynamics and when those dynamics dominate the discussion NO progress can be made.

Here is a good article that provides an overview of typical white privilege: White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack' and 'Some Notes for Facilitators' | National SEED Project

I would throw in something about male privilege, but I don’t want to be accused of being an ironic white woman lecturing white men again 😉 I’ll leave that to someone else if they wish.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Looks like someone is getting frustrated...

😂😂😂😂😂 the scream I just scrumpt lol. Proud zealot over here! Again, unsurprising and predictable lol