licensure on Master's level: advantage?

[Phipps]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So, I am thinking that applying to pre-doc internships and having been licensed as a Graduate Clinical Professional Counselor (MS level licensure) would be an advantage for getting APA accredited internships?

I am thinking on taking the exam since I can complete the required courses through my doctoral program, but I am not are whether it is worth it...

Any thoughts??

Thanks!!

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I've heard that it can be an advantage to be licensed when applying for internship. I'd also be interested to hear other opinions, though.

 

[Pragma]

That is actually something I WISH was a systemic requirement, but is tough to do that way because states vary on whether/how they license MA/MS level folks.

Not sure if it would be considered an advantage or not for internships, but presumably you could be billing, etc differently. One potential problem would be ensuring you still receive adequate supervision if you ultimately want to get licensed at the doctoral level.

I could see it as a danger after you graduate...the danger being that it could reduce your motivation to complete the EPPP. If you aren't doing testing, you could essentially dive in and do therapy without the new licensure designation. The reimbursement rates aren't drastically different.

 

[aagman01]

When I was applying for internships last year, I saw a few sites (although a small minority) that preferred or requested lpc licensure. It certainly can't hurt. I would also think that it could be quite helpful if you end up doing an informal post-doc type position after internship (depending on what state you intend to settle down in after predoc internship). Look into state requirements for that, though.

So, I am thinking that applying to pre-doc internships and having been licensed as a Graduate Clinical Professional Counselor (MS level licensure) would be an advantage for getting APA accredited internships?

I am thinking on taking the exam since I can complete the required courses through my doctoral program, but I am not are whether it is worth it...

Any thoughts??

Thanks!!

 

[Phipps]

That is actually something I WISH was a systemic requirement, but is tough to do that way because states vary on whether/how they license MA/MS level folks.

Not sure if it would be considered an advantage or not for internships, but presumably you could be billing, etc differently. One potential problem would be ensuring you still receive adequate supervision if you ultimately want to get licensed at the doctoral level.

I could see it as a danger after you graduate...the danger being that it could reduce your motivation to complete the EPPP. If you aren't doing testing, you could essentially dive in and do therapy without the new licensure designation. The reimbursement rates aren't drastically different.

So, it sounds like people would not think that it could be a disadvantage to have taken the MS level licensure exam. I think I would not want to work on the MS level once licensed on that level, and having obtained my doctoral degree. Simply because I think it would be a pain to possibly have to report to a psychologist, being one myself. So, that should not be a potential disadvantage. Considering the extra $$ and time to pass the MS level exam, I was more looking into advantages to that.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I think I would not want to work on the MS level once licensed on that level, and having obtained my doctoral degree. Simply because I think it would be a pain to possibly have to report to a psychologist, being one myself. So, that should not be a potential disadvantage.

You would not be a (licensed) psychologist immediately post-doctorate, in the vast majority of cases. I don't understand why it would be a pain to report to a psychologist? Whatever the circumstance, that psychologist would have more experience than you anyway, and it's required to get that supervision before getting licensed. Even so, when licensed, I assume you may report to a superior psychologist in some positions. I don't understand the apprehension.

 

[Phipps]

Hm. I was more thinking long term (for the rest of my working life), i.e., I am not tempted to just work on the MS level when licensed on that level (instead of going on to get licensed as psychologist), since I would then work permanently under supervision of a psychologist while being one my self, just unlicensed. Think: having completed your MD and working as a RN...something along those lines. Sorry that I don't make sense to you.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I'm still confused. At the master's level, after 2 years of work experience, you can work independently. You don't have to work under a psychologist.

 

[Pragma]

Yeah the only thing you would need supervision for is testing, and perhaps certain CPT codes depending on your state. You can do therapy with your master's license.

I agree it would be silly to get your doctorate and then not get your license if you are practicing. But I actually know someone who did just that (terrified and unsuccessful with EPPP).

 

[JeyRo]

Yeah the only thing you would need supervision for is testing, and perhaps certain CPT codes depending on your state. You can do therapy with your master's license.

I agree it would be silly to get your doctorate and then not get your license if you are practicing. But I actually know someone who did just that (terrified and unsuccessful with EPPP).

Aw. That's terrible. How many times did this person fail the EPPP, out of morbid curiousity?

 

[Pragma]

Aw. That's terrible. How many times did this person fail the EPPP, out of morbid curiousity?

Well, I will qualify it by saying that they were from a FSPS, but the EPPP is a stupid test. But at least two failures to my knowledge.

 

[JeyRo]

Well, I will qualify it by saying that they were from a FSPS, but the EPPP is a stupid test. But at least two failures to my knowledge.

No offense to your friend, but my take is that a monkey could pass that test with sufficient practice. However, testing anxiety can be a b***h, I would guess.

 

[Pragma]

No offense to your friend, but my take is that a monkey could pass that test with sufficient practice. However, testing anxiety can be a b***h, I would guess.

Well I wouldn't call this person a friend. Just someone I know from a training site. Actually the only person I know who did not pass it. Ironic(?) that they were from a FSPS?

That said, even though I passed it the first time, I thought it wasn't a particularly "face valid" measure.

 

[wigflip]

Well I wouldn't call this person a friend. Just someone I know from a training site. Actually the only person I know who did not pass it. Ironic(?) that they were from a FSPS?

That said, even though I passed it the first time, I thought it wasn't a particularly "face valid" measure.

Is there an oral component to the EPPP, or does that vary by state? (I know masters-level in my state used to have an oral component, but I think they dropped it).

 

[Pragma]

Is there an oral component to the EPPP, or does that vary by state? (I know masters-level in my state used to have an oral component, but I think they dropped it).

Some states have an oral component to the licensure process, but it isn't a part of the EPPP. That's just a multiple choice exam. About stupid things. Much of it I never even learned in grduate school nor intend to apply in clinical practice.

 

[wigflip]

Some states have an oral component to the licensure process, but it isn't a part of the EPPP. That's just a multiple choice exam. About stupid things. Much of it I never even learned in grduate school nor intend to apply in clinical practice.

Ah, thanks. Suspected as much. I'm a good MC test taker, so if I ever even get the opportunity to take the thing I'll probably just cram it all in and vomit it all back out.

 

[DrPablo]

I did just this.

I obtained two masters level licenses prior to completing the PhD. I am now licensed as a Psychologist, LPC, and LMFT. I have maintained all three licenses because it has helped me. I am currently teaching at a university LPC training program and am able to teach in a variety of training programs. I am also currently serving as a licensing supervisor for LPC and LMFT candidates. These candidates work under my supervision while they are working towards their license. I would also like to point out that one can work independently and provide therapy with a masters level license. In all of the states I am aware of, one would not HAVE TO work under a Psychologists supervision once licensed.

I would say these advantages have served me well.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

This could be great IF you could do it. There is a lot of variability state to state. My state would not license a master's in clinical psych as an LPC. I know people who have tried and were turned away. It is a different board and they are defending their turf in spite of the fact that the coursework and clinical work are very similar. I do know some people who have made this work in other states, though.

Best,
Dr. E

 

[Phipps]

Thanks much for weighing in here, DrPablo! This is a helpful response. Also, reading other responses brought up the question as to why one needs to be licensed on the doctoral level when looking for employment in a hospital setting? I remember that it may be more important for private practice and less crucial for employment in an in-or out-patient setting. Any info on that one??
Thanks,
Ms. Phipps

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Thanks much for weighing in here, DrPablo! This is a helpful response. Also, reading other responses brought up the question as to why one needs to be licensed on the doctoral level when looking for employment in a hospital setting? I remember that it may be more important for private practice and less crucial for employment in an in-or out-patient setting. Any info on that one??
Thanks,
Ms. Phipps

As far as I know, if you aren't licensed, they can't bill for your services (or perhaps can only bill at the psychometrist/technician rate). Thus, by not being licensed, you're costing them money.

Academic medical centers are going to want you to earn your salary one way or another, whether it be by billable clinical hours, research grants, or a mix of both. I'd imagine most other hospitals are going to work similarly.

 

[paramour]

As far as I know, if you aren't licensed, they can't bill for your services (or perhaps can only bill at the psychometrist/technician rate). Thus, by not being licensed, you're costing them money.

Academic medical centers are going to want you to earn your salary one way or another, whether it be by billable clinical hours, research grants, or a mix of both. I'd imagine most other hospitals are going to work similarly.

This. I'm only allowed to see self-pay clients (or the occasional pro bono case that gets thrown in) because they're not able to bill insurance for my services. Of course, I know of a place that does this anyway (i.e., they bill insurance for services conducted by non-licensed folks using the psychologist's provider info), but the regs do not support this practice.

 

[DrPablo]

Thanks much for weighing in here, DrPablo! This is a helpful response. Also, reading other responses brought up the question as to why one needs to be licensed on the doctoral level when looking for employment in a hospital setting? I remember that it may be more important for private practice and less crucial for employment in an in-or out-patient setting. Any info on that one??
Thanks,
Ms. Phipps

Well, you will have to decide what you want to do exactly. In order to do psychological evals, you will need to be a Licensed Psychologist. In my state, hospitals allow psychologists to have hospital "privileges", but only use masters level licensed folks for therapy/case management services. If all you wish to do is therapy, you may not want to pursue the psychologist license. I found out that professional liability insurance is three times as high for a Licensed Psychologist than for an LPC or LMFT! Professional identity and "turf" are additional issues. Some folks in each of these areas (LPC, LMFT, Psychology) actually view multiple licenses as being unsure of professional identity and practice. This may be one reason licensing laws are changing to only allow graduates from CACREP or AAMFT accredited programs apply for licensure. If this were the case in my state, I would not have been eligible to pursue those licenses.

 

[Phipps]

"Some folks in each of these areas (LPC, LMFT, Psychology) actually view multiple licenses as being unsure of professional identity and practice. This may be one reason licensing laws are changing to only allow graduates from CACREP or AAMFT accredited programs apply for licensure. If this were the case in my state, I would not have been eligible to pursue those licenses."

The identity piece doesn't make much sense to me. I don't think it has to be either or. Some people (like me) enter with a MS or changing careers and thus, it happens that they already have credentials under their belt. I believe that integrating of different experiences and educational(al) degrees can be really helpful and beneficial when working as psychologist.

 

[wigflip]

Professional identity and "turf" are additional issues. Some folks in each of these areas (LPC, LMFT, Psychology) actually view multiple licenses as being unsure of professional identity and practice.

This is the kind of input that makes sdn really invaluable: something (like the above) that a newbie could never really anticipate without input from someone more experienced.

It sounds like, based on Dr. P's earlier post, that at least for him/her, the benefits continue to outweigh any turf-related deficits or perceptions related to professional identity, right?

 

[Psychadelic2012]

This is the kind of input that makes sdn really invaluable: something (like the above) that a newbie could never really anticipate without input from someone more experienced.

It sounds like, based on Dr. P's earlier post, that at least for him/her, the benefits continue to outweigh any turf-related deficits or perceptions related to professional identity, right?

The way I see it, there is a political issue and a personal practice issue (if you will). The political issue will be a so-called turf war where the clinician may be pressured to claim one affiliation (APA vs. NBCC, for example) in order that the organization has a united purpose among their members. The personal practice issue would be more of an issue of, "What role are you playing from moment-to-moment?" When do you decide that you are working under your psychologist license vs. the counselor license, etc., whether it be private practice or a position you were hired for? There are slight differences in all of those fields when it comes to standards/scope of practice, codes of ethics, representation of one's credentials, etc. It seems like, in clinical practice, there is no real need for anything other than the most advanced and flexible license/affiliation/credential.

However, Dr. P.'s example of teaching is an interesting one. You would think that they would be happy with a psychologist as an instructor and supervisor, because most masters-level training allows that. I have seen the subtle preference for mentorship by professionals in one's own distinct line of training and that makes sense--if you're training to be a counselor (or, especially, an MFT or SW), a psychologist might not have the experience that you are seeking--or, they just may have it. It's similar with LCSW supervision for counselors, etc. However, we must also consider that having a variety of training and supervision contributes to a colorful learning experience.

Just thinking out loud...I have to admit that I was a little tickled as I read and realized that it was possible to have multiple licenses, because my training will allow for that someday. I think the academic component is the biggest advantage there.

 

[Pragma]

The way I see it, there is a political issue and a personal practice issue (if you will). The political issue will be a so-called turf war where the clinician may be pressured to claim one affiliation (APA vs. NBCC, for example) in order that the organization has a united purpose among their members. The personal practice issue would be more of an issue of, "What role are you playing from moment-to-moment?" When do you decide that you are working under your psychologist license vs. the counselor license, etc., whether it be private practice or a position you were hired for? There are slight differences in all of those fields when it comes to standards/scope of practice, codes of ethics, representation of one's credentials, etc. It seems like, in clinical practice, there is no real need for anything other than the most advanced and flexible license/affiliation/credential.

However, Dr. P.'s example of teaching is an interesting one. You would think that they would be happy with a psychologist as an instructor and supervisor, because most masters-level training allows that. I have seen the subtle preference for mentorship by professionals in one's own distinct line of training and that makes sense--if you're training to be a counselor (or, especially, an MFT or SW), a psychologist might not have the experience that you are seeking--or, they just may have it. It's similar with LCSW supervision for counselors, etc. However, we must also consider that having a variety of training and supervision contributes to a colorful learning experience.

Just thinking out loud...I have to admit that I was a little tickled as I read and realized that it was possible to have multiple licenses, because my training will allow for that someday. I think the academic component is the biggest advantage there.

Depending on the type of program, some accreditation standards dictate that program faculty MUST be credentialed in a certain way (e.g., you have to be a CRC or on your way to a CRC to teach in a rehabilitation counseling program).

So while for your own personal practice the type of license you get may be flexible (or you may be able to get more than one), your actual training accreditation may matter depending on where you want to work.

The whole counseling vs. psychology thing annoys me when it comes to practical training considerations.

 

[wigflip]

The whole counseling vs. psychology thing annoys me when it comes to practical training considerations.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Pragma]

Care to elaborate?

There is a lot of overlap, but the ACA and the APA operate so separately and there is a lot of 'turf" stuff happening.

You can be in a University with both psychology and counseling and where it would be great if people would collaborate a bit, and they refuse. Yes, some of that is just academic politics, but I mean come on - we are talking about clinical/counseling psychologists (APA) and counselors (ACA) here. We're supposed to have social skills - I mean don't you need to have social skills in order to TEACH social skills?

Then to add on top of that, I never realized how tricky things could be for folks running training programs. Now I dodged a bullet with where I am teaching and am not having a problem, but my understanding is that APA-accredited training doesn't mean anything if you want to teach in certain counseling programs. Some accreditation bodies would actually want faculty members to go back and take other courses in order to be faculty for their program. Like I said, didn't happen to me, but it really seems silly.

Yes, it's a tangent, but these organizations make me believe we're back in feudalism at times.

 

[wigflip]

Ah, thanks. I didn't know any of that.

We're supposed to have social skills - I mean don't you need to have social skills in order to TEACH social skills?

Oh, the stories I could tell...

 

[Phipps]

Wouldn't the fact of having a MS level LGPC/LPC/NCC and an LP not broaden your level of education/scope of practice/job opportunities, etc. I am still having trouble understanding how obtaining both on different levels could be interpreted as having an 'identity problem' (as one poster called it) or being unsettled. Could it maybe just be that an individual has obtained both degrees etc. due to valid reasons and at different times in life? I don't see that as a disadvantage.

 

[wigflip]

Wouldn't the fact of having a MS level LGPC/LPC/NCC and an LP not broaden your level of education/scope of practice/job opportunities, etc. I am still having trouble understanding how obtaining both on different levels could be interpreted as having an 'identity problem' (as one poster called it) or being unsettled. Could it maybe just be that an individual has obtained both degrees etc. due to valid reasons and at different times in life? I don't see that as a disadvantage.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but what I understood that poster to mean was that "within the various fields, these perceptions exist." If that's true (and I don't see any reason to doubt the person, who appears to be a licensed psychologist), then it doesn't really matter what any one individual's reasons for accumulating multiple licenses is, or whether the "identity confusion" discourse is logical. Nor does it really matter whether any one particular person (you or me) fails to see it as a disadvantage. The way I see it:

a. it's a bias that exists, at least amongst some
b. it's good to know that it's out there because
c. you can better evaluate the benefits and deficits of multiple licensure and prepare yourself to manage any misperceptions or objections that may arise

 

[Psychadelic2012]

There is a lot of overlap, but the ACA and the APA operate so separately and there is a lot of 'turf" stuff happening.

You can be in a University with both psychology and counseling and where it would be great if people would collaborate a bit, and they refuse. Yes, some of that is just academic politics, but I mean come on - we are talking about clinical/counseling psychologists (APA) and counselors (ACA) here. We're supposed to have social skills - I mean don't you need to have social skills in order to TEACH social skills?

Then to add on top of that, I never realized how tricky things could be for folks running training programs. Now I dodged a bullet with where I am teaching and am not having a problem, but my understanding is that APA-accredited training doesn't mean anything if you want to teach in certain counseling programs. Some accreditation bodies would actually want faculty members to go back and take other courses in order to be faculty for their program. Like I said, didn't happen to me, but it really seems silly. .

I kind of understand why it exists. I see it from both sides (if we're talking psychology and counseling)--psychology can see itself as more advanced or more empirical than counseling, and counseling sees psychology as too narrow, focused on pathology, and snooty. People are clannish, period. They want people of their own there to pass down the traditions to the next generation. As much as we are alike, there are definitely subtle differences. That isn't to say that there aren't programs that don't merge the two well--programs with a counseling psychology doctoral program and a counseling masters program are good examples, although then it's masters vs. doctoral. Then you get the clinical psych people saying (even on this forum) that counseling psych is "just nicer" (a subtle insult) than clinical or finding some way to separate themselves. And all of this is just counseling vs. psych! Throw social work in there and guns come out, relatively speaking! I think it's harder to see the nuances if you're outside of the field than if you're knee-deep in it. It's probably harder for a newbee to see it as well.

 

[wigflip]

And all of this is just counseling vs. psych! Throw social work in there and guns come out, relatively speaking!

Great point! One of the big turnoffs for me when I was an undergrad was the utter disdain that the various disciplines appeared to have for each other: the social workers looked down on the MFTs, who in turn thought that the SWers didn't have enough clinical training and resented that SWers could supervise MFTS but not the other way around (in my state); the psychologists looked down on everybody. It wasn't always in the form of outright vitriol. Sometimes profs or practitioners just got that "who farted?" look on their face.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Sigh. Yes, it was even apparent in my masters program (which housed a PsyD program AND a LPC-license-eligible psychology masters program), when a prof at the original open house that I attended said (about the counseling masters program, housed in another department of the university), "The difference between counseling and us? They're nice over there. They're just really nice." He said that with a smirk on his face and a clear insult in mind.

 

[wigflip]

Sigh. Yes, it was even apparent in my masters program (which housed a PsyD program AND a LPC-license-eligible psychology masters program), when a prof at the original open house that I attended said (about the counseling masters program, housed in another department of the university), "The difference between counseling and us? They're nice over there. They're just really nice." He said that with a smirk on his face and a clear insult in mind.

Ugh! Wonder what the gender breakdown of the two departments is. "Nice" can be a gendered insult. Those kind of allusions seem to be directed towards female-prevalent disciplines (social work, etc).

Actually, what you mention above seems to be the prevalent attitude in academia at large. I'm a feminist myself (duh), but I see it especially amongst feminist academics who don't want to be mistaken for Professors of Hand Holding Studies: kindness = imbecility, so I can prove my rigor by being tactless, curt, and hostile. Apparently sensitivity is for dummies.

 

[Pragma]

I kind of understand why it exists. I see it from both sides (if we're talking psychology and counseling)--psychology can see itself as more advanced or more empirical than counseling, and counseling sees psychology as too narrow, focused on pathology, and snooty. People are clannish, period. They want people of their own there to pass down the traditions to the next generation. As much as we are alike, there are definitely subtle differences. That isn't to say that there aren't programs that don't merge the two well--programs with a counseling psychology doctoral program and a counseling masters program are good examples, although then it's masters vs. doctoral. Then you get the clinical psych people saying (even on this forum) that counseling psych is "just nicer" (a subtle insult) than clinical or finding some way to separate themselves. And all of this is just counseling vs. psych! Throw social work in there and guns come out, relatively speaking! I think it's harder to see the nuances if you're outside of the field than if you're knee-deep in it. It's probably harder for a newbee to see it as well.

Oh sure there are differences, but not drastic ones in my mind. Therapy skills are still therapy skills, diversity is still diversity, and assessment is still assessment. Often there is a huge amount of overlap. I came from a program where interdisciplinary learning was considered a valuable asset and these types of conflicts were minimal.

It is just funny to me that some counseling accreditation bodies would force me, an assessment specialist, to get more training to teach a master's level assessment course. Now that isn't actually the case where I am at, but I have heard of it elsewhere.

The academic politics are interesting. "Nicer" could reflect gender bias in some places I am sure. But when I have taught in counseling departments (with men) I noted just a general tendency to rely on humanisic principles as a guiding force.

 

[Phipps]

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but what I understood that poster to mean was that "within the various fields, these perceptions exist." If that's true (and I don't see any reason to doubt the person, who appears to be a licensed psychologist), then it doesn't really matter what any one individual's reasons for accumulating multiple licenses is, or whether the "identity confusion" discourse is logical. Nor does it really matter whether any one particular person (you or me) fails to see it as a disadvantage. The way I see it:

a. it's a bias that exists, at least amongst some
b. it's good to know that it's out there because
c. you can better evaluate the benefits and deficits of multiple licensure and prepare yourself to manage any misperceptions or objections that may arise

Yep. It all makes sense and I agree. I guess, it is a really hard decision whether to take another master's level class (as a doctoral student) in order to fulfill all requirements for sitting for the National Counseling Exam or to let it go. Thought, since I am one class shy of having all requirements together...but now, taking into consideration all the subtleties expressed above + $$$ for another class + time it takes on top of already 10 credits in my doctoral program + seeing patients etc., it is A LOT and I am not sure how well it may pay off.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Oh sure there are differences, but not drastic ones in my mind. Therapy skills are still therapy skills, diversity is still diversity, and assessment is still assessment. Often there is a huge amount of overlap. I came from a program where interdisciplinary learning was considered a valuable asset and these types of conflicts were minimal.

It is just funny to me that some counseling accreditation bodies would force me, an assessment specialist, to get more training to teach a master's level assessment course. Now that isn't actually the case where I am at, but I have heard of it elsewhere.

The academic politics are interesting. "Nicer" could reflect gender bias in some places I am sure. But when I have taught in counseling departments (with men) I noted just a general tendency to rely on humanisic principles as a guiding force.

I totally understand what you're saying, and of course many would agree that there is overlap and there is no reason to be picky about discipline. But politics are politics, and the different professions have slightly different ways of looking at people and, therefore, indoctrinating their students into their profession. Also, and not saying this is true for you, a psychologist's assessment can be much different than an assessment by a counselor or a social worker. Obviously there is a lot of variation within the professions, too, but I'm not so sure that a purebred psychologist would have the remedial experience of doing assessments that a counselor would eventually do.

I'd have to specifically look at gender to see if that is the case in my above-mentioned example, but yes, I think it is much better to say that counselors are more humanistic in their approach, rather than "nice." What is it they say? When that psychology prof said that, it said more about him than it did about the counseling department--that he's a snooty jerk. You'd think he could be more articulate if he really wanted to portray "his" specialty as more intellectual!

 

[wigflip]

I'd have to specifically look at gender to see if that is the case in my above-mentioned example, but yes, I think it is much better to say that counselors are more humanistic in their approach, rather than "nice." What is it they say? When that psychology prof said that, it said more about him than it did about the counseling department--that he's a snooty jerk. You'd think he could be more articulate if he really wanted to portray "his" specialty as more intellectual!

Yeah, I guess it's not necessarily X# of women vs. Y# of men in various departments (though it could be), so much as a (negative) perception that certain sub/fields or disciplines are "feminine"/"feminized" (i.e. characterized by practices that the person doing the insulting doesn't like, and which s/he has most likely been socialized not to like via his/her own discipline). Those could include an emphasis on compassion, administrative flexibility with policies, focus on identity politics, holistic POV, an openness to qualitative research, flattened power structures, (perceived) lack of rigor, etc.

On a related note, a tactic I see used on sdn with some regularity (though not on this thread, mercifully) is the labeling of some discourse, viewpoint, or person as "emotional," usually in contrast with an oppositional viewpoint alleged to be "rational," "reasonable," or "logical." It's not necessarily used by male posters against women, but it harkens back to essentialist gender discourses and has a long history of being used by men (either individuals or organizations) against women.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Yes, good point. I'm with you. I wasn't going to mention the discussions and hierarchies on SDN, but since you did...I agree.

 

[Pragma]

Yeah, I guess it's not necessarily X# of women vs. Y# of men in various departments (though it could be), so much as a (negative) perception that certain sub/fields or disciplines are "feminine"/"feminized" (i.e. characterized by practices that the person doing the insulting doesn't like, and which s/he has most likely been socialized not to like via his/her own discipline). Those could include an emphasis on compassion, administrative flexibility with policies, focus on identity politics, holistic POV, an openness to qualitative research, flattened power structures, (perceived) lack of rigor, etc.

Really? That's feminine? Then call me demasculated 😀

As far as what goes on your list, I know some of these have been traditionally associated with femininity...but I have to say there has been a ton of change. I know female leaders that are nothing like this list, and plenty of guys that are. And no, they aren't ALL gay guys. 😎

 

[Psychadelic2012]

The way wigflip is speaking, it's more about a continuum of femininity and masculinity, but not in a strict woman-man gender sense. It's metaphorical in a way. Think yin-yang. The way it becomes gendered is that humans have a history of assigning certain characteristics to women (and vice versa) that tend to become the "less than" characteristics, or those that do not have power (while men's tend to have the power and the privilege). This is actually a great example of what we're talking about--perhaps, in wigflip's discipline, this type of language is commonly used, while in psychology it isn't used. Here again we have a subtle distinction that can polarize disciplines that, while they may share many things in practice, are very different in their conceptualization of the world.

 

[Pragma]

The way wigflip is speaking, it's more about a continuum of femininity and masculinity, but not in a strict woman-man gender sense. It's metaphorical in a way. Think yin-yang. The way it becomes gendered is that humans have a history of assigning certain characteristics to women (and vice versa) that tend to become the "less than" characteristics, or those that do not have power (while men's tend to have the power and the privilege). This is actually a great example of what we're talking about--perhaps, in wigflip's discipline, this type of language is commonly used, while in psychology it isn't used. Here again we have a subtle distinction that can polarize disciplines that, while they may share many things in practice, are very different in their conceptualization of the world.

I'm familiar with the concept.