Which perspectives are welcome here?

[GradStudent2020]

---

Members do not see this ad.

it's always interesting when, despite knowing the flaws of doing so, psychologists and those with graduate training infer motives of others casually.

What motive are you implying I inferred?

 

[Justanothergrad]

What motive are you implying I inferred?

You arent the only one in this thread. There is a general tendency to engage in straw man fallacies and self serving attributions about the motivational behaviors of others. This deflates the capacity of an authentic conversation about atmosphere.

as to your question,
"This is why posters leave this forum. Their experiences are minimized and invalidated before they even have a chance to share them."

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'm genuinely curious RE: the concerns about tone and toxic masculinity: regarding the forum (rather than, say, society more broadly), are there characteristics of the comments and/or commenters that raise the concern for, and labeling of toxic masculinity specifically, rather than more general toxic interaction? Maybe that could get at the crux of at least some of the disconnect.

I also wonder if my own combination of personal factors has influenced how readily I notice and remember the gender of each member, as I could probably definitively state the self-reported gender identity of maybe a half-dozen or so folks here. Probably a few more thanks to this thread. Sort of like the infamous, "I don't see race" retort.

 

[cara susanna]

So, I'm a woman and I also know that I've been considered part of the "old guard." I do know that some of my posts in the past have been snarky, but as I've progressed as a professional--and a lot of my social and political views have changed--I feel like I've made growth in that area.

Anyway, I have seen comments that reflect male privilege and I can see why it puts off a lot of users. That being said, I don't really see any favoritism from the mods. I also am a member of message boards that are far, far meaner (check out other SDN professional forums if you want some examples) and with terrible moderation so perhaps my view is a bit skewed. I sometimes really appreciate how this board "tells it like it is," and sometimes it frustrates me. On the whole, as much as I value progressive values I do find that sometimes real conversation can be stifled by them--see social media--and I don't want that here. When the attitudes of posters do frustrate me, I try to speak out and I've generally found my responses well received. That being said, that could be because I'm part of the "old guard" described above.

I do agree that posters' communication methods are not always effective. I also recognize that this is not a professional environment and I don't really expect posters to be skillful when posting. That being said, I agree with ClinicalABA that sometimes some very good points are immediately disregarded because of the way that the poster phased things.

I also think that the way the original post was phrased here engendered a certain response. At the same time, I would love a woman-only thread, because I do feel like we're missing that perspective. I do think it's telling that many of the posters agreeing with the OP here are women, including ones I don't see post often (and miss hearing from.)

 

[GradStudent2020]

You arent the only one in this thread. There is a general tendency to engage in straw man fallacies and self serving attributions about the motivational behaviors of others. This deflates the capacity of an authentic conversation about atmosphere.

as to your question,
"This is why posters leave this forum. Their experiences are minimized and invalidated before they even have a chance to share them."

You quoted my comment, so it appeared you were referring to me.

I’m not implying motive there. I have colleagues that have left this forum for the reasons stated. I stopped posting for those reasons. It’s not a guess.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm curious about the actual number of people who have left and stopped posting. Because it sure seems like a lot of posters who say that they left, still post fairly regularly.

 

[foreverbull]

I am just seeing this thread now, and I am a cis-female poster.

I certainly think it’s reasonable to ask folks to just entertain the idea that they might be unintentionally using their power (yes, even in a forum) in ways that might stifle conversation from a group that experiences marginalization in the “real world.” Certainly patterns can be replicated in a forum. And of course, a call to reflect should be respectful and non-shaming.

I post regularly here in part because I want more of a diversity in voices in here, but certainly I can see how it might be intimidating for those who see snark and answers that don’t address the question asked to speak up. And I’ve also seen forums that are much worse, but that shouldn’t remove the responsibility of everyone to reflect on their roles here.

Earlier, probably a few years ago now, I stepped in quite a bit more to ask that folks not patronize as much and when I spent the time to word it in the perfect, non-blaming, non-shaming way, I was met with silence or continued joking from the same folks who spoke the most often. Is it possible that this relates to gender? Sure. Is psychology free from the same gender dynamics that are inherent in society? Probably not, if we’re going to be honest. We may not know for certain, but is it not worth the reflection to consider it?

Ultimately I still try to call out patronizing stuff from time to time, but it saps my energy to get snark back when I’m “nicely” asking. Having said that, I’ve seen subtle changes over time in here positively, even though it can be overwhelming to watch the threads devolve, and these same folks have been helpful in other ways. Again, that doesn’t negate the call to reflect.

One thing that I will say really bothers me personally (this happened to me the very first time I posted here years ago), was asking a question and the first responses were from people who didn’t have the knowledge or practical advice to answer my question (it was specific to a particular state). This was my intro to this forum: people telling me my state was saturated and I shouldn’t bother practicing here when I asked about postdocs or ways to network. Nothing in the thread led me to finding a postdoc, but I did get some helpful tips from the folks who just answered my question with their suggestions about networking on a practical level. Point being, I think continued self-reflection is important from folks when people have questions and you don’t have the answer. You might ask yourself what your motivation is for speaking first despite not having an answer to the question, because the first responses might be reflecting a larger pattern that starts looking more insidious over time.

While I may not agree with how @msgeorgeeliot framed this thread, the fact that the first responses were not what she requested is telling in that some folks couldn’t resist responding first. I see this from time to time, and if it’s specifically male posters doing this, it could mimic gender dynamics outside of here, even if unintentional.

Again, I think it’s worth reflecting on, and I appreciate those willing to bring this up and ask the question, and those willing to reflect in here and at least entertain the idea of repeating larger patterns rather than focusing on semantics.

 

[deleted480308]

So, I'm a woman and I also know that I've been considered part of the "old guard." I do know that some of my posts in the past have been snarky, but as I've progressed as a professional--and a lot of my social and political views have changed--I feel like I've made growth in that area.

Anyway, I have seen comments that reflect male privilege and I can see why it puts off a lot of users. That being said, I don't really see any favoritism from the mods. I also am a member of message boards that are far, far meaner (check out other SDN professional forums if you want some examples) and with terrible moderation so perhaps my view is a bit skewed. I sometimes really appreciate how this board "tells it like it is," and sometimes it frustrates me. On the whole, as much as I value progressive values I do find that sometimes real conversation can be stifled by them--see social media--and I don't want that here. When the attitudes of posters do frustrate me, I try to speak out and I've generally found my responses well received. That being said, that could be because I'm part of the "old guard" described above.

I do agree that posters' communication methods are not always effective. I also recognize that this is not a professional environment and I don't really expect posters to be skillful when posting. That being said, I agree with ClinicalABA that sometimes some very good points are immediately disregarded because of the way that the poster phased things.

I also think that the way the original post was phrased here engendered a certain response. At the same time, I would love a woman-only thread, because I do feel like we're missing that perspective. I do think it's telling that many of the posters agreeing with the OP here are women, including ones I don't see post often (and miss hearing from.)

Literally every thread here allows female posters, I would propose adult women are more than capable of communication in coed discussions

I don’t understand the call for segregation

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I do think it can be important to appreciate the distinction between women being allowed to post, and women feeling welcomed or encouraged to do so, particularly if it is the case that women systematically feel unwelcome.

 

[WisNeuro]

I do think it can be important to appreciate the distinction between women being allowed to post, and women feeling welcomed or encouraged to do so, particularly if it is the case that women systematically feel unwelcome.

While I agree with this, I do wonder how much of the communication patterns can be ascribed to gender vs. other issues. As in, do people differentially communicate to other posters in a certain way because of perceived gender, or do they just reply to everyone the same way and it is construed in a different way depending on gender. Do we have an input, or an output problem here?

 

[psych.meout]

While I agree with this, I do wonder how much of the communication patterns can be ascribed to gender vs. other issues. As in, do people differentially communicate to other posters in a certain way because of perceived gender, or do they just reply to everyone the same way and it is construed in a different way depending on gender. Do we have an input, or an output problem here?

You mean like this exchange?

Yes



Yes



Yes



A serious question- Do you think, with some people, it has nothing to do with their gender, sex, power status, etc., and maybe it’s just that they are good old fashioned jerks? Parsimony is a good thing in any debate. Sometimes an a**hole is just an a**hole!

I can't speak for all women. But, yes this is certainly considered.

I'd like to respectfully point out that the subtext of what you are asking here "are you sure you are not being insensitive or hysterical? All of this might just exist in your head."

 

[WisNeuro]

You mean like this exchange?

Somewhat. In general, I think people on here have a fairly consistent communication style. And, at least for the handful of people I also know in real life, it's also pretty close to their in-person communication style. So, is it a tone style generally, or do people think that there are differential styles of response that are acutely tied to perceived gender?

As for the input side of things. If people aren't willing to consider that our perception of a response is colored by our own lens and subject to confirmatory bias, then they really aren't willing to engage on a real level, as we know for a fact that this is something that possibly enters into every interpersonal interaction.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I’ve not been called out on the “d**ckish” comment, but have- at least indirectly- been called out on the “histrionic”

You mean like this exchange?

I definitely think that was happening in that post. I think I was clear in acknowledging that I agreed that posters were acting aggressive/entitled/rude/whatever you want to call it, as well as acknowledging the results (I.e., other posters were turned off by it). My question was about the attributions of cause of the behavior, not the objective existence of the behavior. I don’t see “you’re saying it all in her head” as a logical interpretation of my post. However, I recognize that logic is not always the primary response in the face of such debates, as well as that this is a personal and meaningful topic for many posters, as well as that given my “demographics” it’s not as threatening a topic for me as it might be for others. While I do feel that I was incorrectly accused of saying “it’s all in your head and you’re being hysterical,” nonetheless I apologized and moved on. My guess is that AlleyCat31 has a history of unfairly and dismissively being told such things, and my arguing with or calling her out on her post would not be productive. I was not being manipulative with my response to her (or lack of). I was trying to clarify my post, deflate a potentially further explosive situation, and move on without making enemies I don’t want or, imho, don’t deserve.

 

[deleted480308]

I do think it can be important to appreciate the distinction between women being allowed to post, and women feeling welcomed or encouraged to do so, particularly if it is the case that women systematically feel unwelcome.

But where are women actually being told to not post because they are women? I feel like saying someone is “systematically unwelcome “ because of their gender needs some substantiation

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I wonder if there is any research on posting styles by gender on social media? If so, I wonder if inherently there are contrasting styles and if they are read the same or differently depending on the reader’s identified gender?

I suspect there are a range of posting styles and there is likely a difference. I’m not sure if they are read differently, though i’m pretty sure the medium of an online forum adds some additional confusion bc actual tone of voice, body language, and other indicators of context are missing.

 

[StellaB]

But where are women actually being told to not post because they are women? I feel like saying someone is “systematically unwelcome “ because of their gender needs some substantiation

I would hope that the number of women here who are in very different places professionally, have posted here for varying amounts of time, have different life experiences generally - and who are all sharing that this board feels unwelcoming - might count as some form of substantiation. I can’t imagine how much more data you’re gonna get from an anonymous online forum. At a certain point, you just have to ask yourself if you’re flexible and imaginative enough to try and understand, or if you’re not interested in understanding the others’ perspective. No one here owes it to anyone to understand, you do you, for sure. There just seems to be a disconnect when so many posters, overwhelmingly but not exclusively male, have essentially the attitude that they are gonna snark bc they want to, but are then somehow shocked to find out that others find it unwelcoming. Just own the atmosphere it creates! If it’s such a bummer to find out how toxic other people find it, then maybe that’s some useful feedback.

 

[deleted480308]

I would hope that the number of women here who are in very different places professionally, have posted here for varying amounts of time, have different life experiences generally - and who are all sharing that this board feels unwelcoming - might count as some form of substantiation. I can’t imagine how much more data you’re gonna get from an anonymous online forum. At a certain point, you just have to ask yourself if you’re flexible and imaginative enough to try and understand, or if you’re not interested in understanding the others’ perspective. No one here owes it to anyone to understand, you do you, for sure. There just seems to be a disconnect when so many posters, overwhelmingly but not exclusively male, have essentially the attitude that they are gonna snark bc they want to, but are then somehow shocked to find out that others find it unwelcoming. Just own the atmosphere it creates! If it’s such a bummer to find out how toxic other people find it, then maybe that’s some useful feedback.

I get that snark exists. I get that some folks don’t like it. Those are all fair and reasonably factual.

The premise that snark is uniquely male here and directed uniquely at women who are also being pitched as unable to handle it to the degree that they need to retreat a space with no men? That’s not necessarily substantiated yet

 

[AcronymAllergy]

But where are women actually being told to not post because they are women? I feel like saying someone is “systematically unwelcome “ because of their gender needs some substantiation

Mind you, I wasn't definitively stating whether or not women feel systematically unwelcome (although the sentiment expressed in this thread would indicate at least some do). I do think it's a topic worth continuing to explore.

And we know that in general, we don't need to explicitly state a group of people isn't welcome for those people to nonetheless feel unwelcome.

 

[StellaB]

I get that snark exists. I get that some folks don’t like it. Those are all fair and reasonably factual.

The premise that snark is uniquely male here and directed uniquely at women who are also being pitched as unable to handle it to the degree that they need to retreat a space with no men? That’s not necessarily substantiated yet

I agree it’s not uniquely male nor uniquely aimed at women. I’m not sure whether this comment is reflective of a black and white interpretation of the thread, or in reaction to a particular post.

As a total aside - coming from a program that emphasized empiricism, assessment, teaching, and counseling - I always find it so interesting that empiricism and assessment are strongly valued here (a good thing, to be sure), but basic educator and counselor skills are not (“ain’t nobody got time for that on a free forum!”) I see them all as equally important parts of my professional identity, even though I don’t do counseling.

 

[AllyCat31]

I definitely think that was happening in that post. I think I was clear in acknowledging that I agreed that posters were acting aggressive/entitled/rude/whatever you want to call it, as well as acknowledging the results (I.e., other posters were turned off by it). My question was about the attributions of cause of the behavior, not the objective existence of the behavior. I don’t see “you’re saying it all in her head” as a logical interpretation of my post. However, I recognize that logic is not always the primary response in the face of such debates, as well as that this is a personal and meaningful topic for many posters, as well as that given my “demographics” it’s not as threatening a topic for me as it might be for others. While I do feel that I was incorrectly accused of saying “it’s all in your head and you’re being hysterical,” nonetheless I apologized and moved on. My guess is that AlleyCat31 has a history of unfairly and dismissively being told such things, and my arguing with or calling her out on her post would not be productive. I was not being manipulative with my response to her (or lack of). I was trying to clarify my post, deflate a potentially further explosive situation, and move on without making enemies I don’t want or, imho, don’t deserve.

Hi, yeah, I'm still here.

I appreciated your response to my original response and "liked" it.

To clarify, I was speaking broadly of this type of exchange and not accusing you personally. The question you posed is one that has come up many, many times before in these conversations. I wasn't sure if that was your intention, so I respectfully provided how this statement may be interpreted in the context of women/POC frequently being questioned this, dismissed, or in some cases even maligned. I'm not sure how this makes me illogical or that "calling me out" would be necessary. FYI, no worry of enemies here (from my perspective).

 

[deleted480308]

Mind you, I wasn't definitively stating whether or not women feel systematically unwelcome (although the sentiment expressed in this thread would indicate at least some do). I do think it's a topic worth continuing to explore.

And we know that in general, we don't need to explicitly state a group of people isn't welcome for those people to nonetheless feel unwelcome.

but for those who "feel" unwelcome, there must be a substantiation of why that should include how they are treated differently in order to make the claim of discriminating treatment. Are people treated worse here because they are women?

 

[GradStudent2020]

but for those who "feel" unwelcome, there must be a substantiation of why that should include how they are treated differently in order to make the claim of discriminating treatment. Are people treated worse here because they are women?

Why? Why does anyone need to substantiate that?

 

[deleted343839]

I am a woman and well into my career as a psychologist. I joined SDN as a postdoc. I don't know if that counts as "old guard" but I've been here a while now. I'm late to this party, and therefore will mostly reflect on what others have shared, but since the OP asked...

I think the power dynamics come into play when the moderators do not censure those who are particularly egregious. And repeat offenders. There is a perception of favoritism towards certain members, and they typically are male-identifying posters, so perhaps that’s where the perception of females not being heard/taken seriously/ridiculed/made to feel chastised for the exact behavior they exhibit that male member get a pat on the back and other members are warned to stop.
It seems the TOS are selectively applied. I think that’s a problem. That’s what I see anyway.

It's hard to engage on this without specific examples, since I'm not sure whether we would agree on what defines egregious. I know that I've flagged several posts that I thought crossed a line in some way or another, and my recollection is that I always got an appropriate response. I don't get a sense of favoritism, but the culture of this forum leans toward "tough love" and with that comes a certain tolerance for snark and sarcasm. Like most long term posters, I value this community and to keep the experience positive for myself I have learned to pick and choose when and how I engage. Also, most of us - including those often described as "snarky" - have shared something of our struggles or perceived flaws here and there, and over time I've come to see all of the long-term posters here as human beings with strengths and weaknesses.

It’s haaaaaard being a mod on SDN. I think our current mods are doing a heck of a job of fostering a better community. They are doing a lot better than I did solo. It’s mostly a thankless job.

Good point, and thank you to the moderators for all that you do with little acknowledgment or thanks. It's like being a journal editor. You know that some of the stuff you let through isn't great, but you also trust your fellow professionals enough not to micromanage the content and let them hash it out post-publication.

I also challenge the assumption that we are all here to primarily help and encourage the students. I may do so, but that is me volunteering my time and effort to do so. If I opt to be more snarky, then that is what you get that day. The benefit of being a member of a free community and not a mod. If someone wants to pay me to be a mentor on here, I am happy to treat it like I do my job.

SDN's tagline is "helping students become doctors," though the meaning of that phrase is open to interpretation. I appreciate that psychology can be a small world and that unvarnished opinions, though not always what we want to hear, are valuable but sometimes hard to come by in more velvet-gloved academic or professional settings. The culture of this forum tends to reinforce posters who are already fairly knowledgeable about the field and have realistic goals. That said, I've seen posts from people who are pretty uninformed that turn into useful discussions because the poster is thoughtful, interacts in good faith, and builds on the feedback they're given.

And we know that in general, we don't need to explicitly state a group of people aren't welcome for those people to nonetheless feel unwelcome.

Very true. I don't know what the gender ratio for participation is on SDN and how that compares to the same on listservs or other forums. I suspect it's similar. Most of the rough edges on the psychology forum do not read as gendered to me, but I don't think it is profitable to discourage others from sharing other points of view. Specifics do help, though.

 

[foreverbull]

If people aren't willing to consider that our perception of a response is colored by our own lens and subject to confirmatory bias, then they really aren't willing to engage on a real level, as we know for a fact that this is something that possibly enters into every interpersonal interaction.

Bias goes both ways. Some folks may come from having experienced overt sexism and/or more subtle forms and seeing it in society and come from that lens of feeling frustrated and disempowered. Perhaps this can flavor the intensity of the discussion. And there's a chance that the pattern they are inclined to perceive may be about multiple factors and/or not necessarily about gender or gender alone, but another dynamic based on personality and individual characteristics, etc.

By the same token, others may come from a place of having been raised to believe that their opinions are more valuable and are taken more seriously because they're male, which is not their choice, but having come to expect that others want their opinions and need to hear them regardless of the content or knowledge level with the topic. They might believe that they don't need to question themselves because of their "expert" status and experiences as a male being taken as the default experience in society, and they might offer unsolicited comments that don't relate to the questions asked and/or might feel like the concerns of people in threads aren't valid because they can dismantle semantics. When no other men challenge this (and the most vocal agree with each other or do the same thing = confirmation bias), it can start looking like this is an issue of several women not seeing things clearly, even if this is not the case. This is also a possibility.

In this thread, I've seen @msgeorgeeliot clarify her stance and agree about certain aspects of her argument with folks who disagreed. What I haven't heard is folks who disagreed with her points do the same, or even suggest that they're willing to reflect. Is there a one-way kind of feedback loop here, or is it bidirectional? To me, not responding to a call to reflect and focusing on semantics appears like cognitive dissonance in these interactions. If silence means "I"m considering this," by all means, folks can feel free to just say that too so we know what they're are thinking. Otherwise, it just looks like the overall issue (possible power dynamics relating to gender) is being dismissed. There may be other factors involved, so of course we should be able to discuss that too, but is there any room for constructive feedback about the dynamics here at the same time?

I'm also noticing that some women in here are careful to say that we appreciate the male folks in here, have gotten good advice from them, etc. etc. etc. as a way to soften the feedback and make sure we don't sound emotional/angry/anti-male. Does this not speak to some kind of underlying dynamic if women feel like we have to be so careful not to cause offense or else our words will be dismantled and our concerns invalidated?

Food for thought.

 

[deleted480308]

Why? Why does anyone need to substantiate that?

if someone makes a claim about the behavior of others, it should be substantiated to be believed if you want your accused to be treated as the wrong doer.

So in this case, "toxic masculinity is targeting women and making us feel unwelcome" needs some substantiation. Where are the examples of people treated poorly for being a woman?

 

[deleted106747]

I wonder if there is any research on posting styles by gender on social media? If so, I wonder if inherently there are contrasting styles and if they are read the same or differently depending on the reader’s identified gender?

I suspect there are a range of posting styles and there is likely a difference. I’m not sure if they are read differently, though i’m pretty sure the medium of an online forum adds some additional confusion bc actual tone of voice, body language, and other indicators of context are missing.

Why yes there is! It was the topic of my dissertation. I have thoughts on this thread that I’m looking forward to posting when I get back from a conference. Good thread.

 

[WisNeuro]

Bias goes both ways. Some folks may come from having experienced overt sexism and/or more subtle forms and seeing it in society and come from that lens of feeling frustrated and disempowered. Perhaps this can flavor the intensity of the discussion. And there's a chance that the pattern they are inclined to perceive may be about multiple factors and/or not necessarily about gender or gender alone, but another dynamic based on personality and individual characteristics, etc.

By the same token, others may come from a place of having been raised to believe that their opinions are more valuable and are taken more seriously because they're male, which is not their choice, but having come to expect that others want their opinions and need to hear them regardless of the content or knowledge level with the topic. They might believe that they don't need to question themselves because of their "expert" status and experiences as a male being taken as the default experience in society, and they might offer unsolicited comments that don't relate to the questions asked and/or might feel like the concerns of people in threads aren't valid because they can dismantle semantics. When no other men challenge this (and the most vocal agree with each other or do the same thing = confirmation bias), it can start looking like this is an issue of several women not seeing things clearly, even if this is not the case. This is also a possibility.

In this thread, I've seen @msgeorgeeliot clarify her stance and agree about certain aspects of her argument with folks who disagreed. What I haven't heard is folks who disagreed with her points do the same, or even suggest that they're willing to reflect. Is there a one-way kind of feedback loop here, or is it bidirectional? To me, not responding to a call to reflect and focusing on semantics appears like cognitive dissonance in these interactions. If silence means "I"m considering this," by all means, folks can feel free to just say that too so we know what they're are thinking. Otherwise, it just looks like the overall issue (possible power dynamics relating to gender) is being dismissed. There may be other factors involved, so of course we should be able to discuss that too, but is there any room for constructive feedback about the dynamics here at the same time?

I'm also noticing that some women in here are careful to say that we appreciate the male folks in here, have gotten good advice from them, etc. etc. etc. as a way to soften the feedback and make sure we don't sound emotional/angry/anti-male. Does this not speak to some kind of underlying dynamic if women feel like we have to be so careful not to cause offense or else our words will be dismantled and our concerns invalidated?

Food for thought.

Bias does indeed go both ways. And that has been acknowledged, but by differing amounts. Many people have acknowledged their communication styles and asked for clarification and evidence as to other issues. Usually those are dismissed outright as just another "oppressive" strategy. Very disingenuous. Calls for discussion are being made, but rarely are they in good faith. It's interesting to see people saying that their views are minimized, or they are being figuratively censored, yet the only actual calls for censorship have come from the supposed aggrieved parties.

As to the "careful not to cause offense" comment. I wouldn't worry about offending people online, you'll only cause yourself more grief. No one can cause us to be offended but ourselves.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Why yes there is! It was the topic of my dissertation. I have thoughts on this thread that I’m looking forward to posting when I get back from a conference. Good thread.

I’d be really interested in reading your dissertation and/or any citations you ‘d be willing to share.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Hi, yeah, I'm still here.

I appreciated your response to my original response and "liked" it.

To clarify, I was speaking broadly of this type of exchange and not accusing you personally. The question you posed is one that has come up many, many times before in these conversations. I wasn't sure if that was your intention, so I respectfully provided how this statement may be interpreted in the context of women/POC frequently being questioned this, dismissed, or in some cases even maligned. I'm not sure how this makes me illogical or that "calling me out" would be necessary. FYI, no worry of enemies here (from my perspective).

I think I understand where your post was coming from- heck, the very existence of the word “hysterical” reflects the gender/sex bias at the root of much of historical psychology

Point of clarification- I was just saying that “saying all in her head” was not a logical conclusion from my earlier posts where I acknowledged that I think the aggressive behavior does exist and should be responded to negatively, and was questioning views regarding potential multiple causes of the aggression. I was not trying to call you out or label you as illogical, but point out how heated and personal topics require different approaches.

 

[Sanman]

I agree it’s not uniquely male nor uniquely aimed at women. I’m not sure whether this comment is reflective of a black and white interpretation of the thread, or in reaction to a particular post.

As a total aside - coming from a program that emphasized empiricism, assessment, teaching, and counseling - I always find it so interesting that empiricism and assessment are strongly valued here (a good thing, to be sure), but basic educator and counselor skills are not (“ain’t nobody got time for that on a free forum!”) I see them all as equally important parts of my professional identity, even though I don’t do counseling.

I won't speak for anyone but myself and I do know that the strong neuropsych and forensic representation on these boards may have something to do with which skills are more emphasized. That said, it is precisely because I do value my counseling and educating skills that I try not to use them here. That is my paid professional identity and not my personal view of things. If I viewed this place as an extension of my professional identity, I likely would be here less. I get to say things without thinking and reflecting here and with a measure of bluntness. That is what I enjoy about this place. To make my point, I would never weigh in on a topic in supervision or counseling and then go missing when life gets busy. Why? it would be professionally inappropriate. I do that all the time here. My time here is generally relegated to moments of professional slacking (avoiding paperwork as I am now) or brief responses on my phone. I likely won't go back and read all the responses to this thread in detail, no time. The same reason I don't back my responses with research links as some other posers might do. My point is simply that people's investment in this place differs based on the poster. I won't reflect much on this thread because it isn't an important part of my life. I am more interested in what type of Rye whiskey @ClinicalABA had this weekend because I had a few good ones and have been getting into Rye cocktails recently.

 

[foreverbull]

Bias does indeed go both ways. And that has been acknowledged, but by differing amounts. Many people have acknowledged their communication styles and asked for clarification and evidence as to other issues. Usually those are dismissed outright as just another "oppressive" strategy. Very disingenuous. Calls for discussion are being made, but rarely are they in good faith. It's interesting to see people saying that their views are minimized, or they are being figuratively censored, yet the only actual calls for censorship have come from the supposed aggrieved parties.

As to the "careful not to cause offense" comment. I wouldn't worry about offending people online, you'll only cause yourself more grief. No one can cause us to be offended but ourselves.

I'm not looking to censor anyone (I don't think everyone else is here either, necessarily), I just want people to sometimes think before they speak, as I'd mentioned. Based on my own experiences in this thread, I stand my by point that it can seem one-sided feedback-wise at times (not always).

I personally would like to hear a wider range of voices (particularly those who currently feel hesitant to post), and I hope that will emerge from this discussion, regardless of whether we all agree or disagree.

As to the second part, well, my experience in multiple forums has been that folks have picked apart a phrase I used. I do this too sometimes, particularly if the line crosses some sort of "egregious" threshold in my mind or is an outright fallacy, but I continue to try to reflect on what I put out into the world, particularly since it's out there permanently, despite the relative anonymity.

 

[Sanman]

SDN's tagline is "helping students become doctors," though the meaning of that phrase is open to interpretation. I appreciate that psychology can be a small world and that unvarnished opinions, though not always what we want to hear, are valuable but sometimes hard to come by in more velvet-gloved academic or professional settings. The culture of this forum tends to reinforce posters who are already fairly knowledgeable about the field and have realistic goals. That said, I've seen posts from people who are pretty uninformed that turn into useful discussions because the poster is thoughtful, interacts in good faith, and builds on the feedback they're given.

Fair enough, that said everyone's reasons for arriving here are different. Heck this account pre-dates the psychology forum by a number of years to when I was a starting college and pre-med. This place was very different and many people stayed just for the SDN lounge, which was much more unprofessional than anything here. Even the goals of this site have changed an grown over the years. Let's not lose site of that as well. Some here are verified members and donors and such. Some are anonymous and others quite transparent about identity. Different interests and levels of investment in this place.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm not looking to censor anyone (I don't think everyone else is here either, necessarily), I just want people to sometimes think before they speak, as I'd mentioned. Based on my own experiences in this thread, I stand my by point that it can seem one-sided feedback-wise at times (not always).

I personally would like to hear a wider range of voices (particularly those who currently feel hesitant to post), and I hope that will emerge from this discussion, regardless of whether we all agree or disagree.

As to the second part, well, my experience in multiple forums has been that folks have picked apart a phrase I used. I do this too sometimes, particularly if the line crosses some sort of "egregious" threshold in my mind or is an outright fallacy, but I continue to try to reflect on what I put out into the world, particularly since it's out there permanently, despite the relative anonymity.

Censorship has been straight out called for multiple times in such threads, not by you as far as I remember, but it comes up, and always by one side.

I'm all about a wider range of voices. I think everyone should be free to comment, in their own voice as they see fit, as long as it falls within the TOS. Particularly in this relatively very tame forum community.

 

[StellaB]

I won't speak for anyone but myself and I do know that the strong neuropsych and forensic representation on these boards may have something to do with which skills are more emphasized. That said, it is precisely because I do value my counseling and educating skills that I try not to use them here. That is my paid professional identity and not my personal view of things. If I viewed this place as an extension of my professional identity, I likely would be here less. I get to say things without thinking and reflecting here and with a measure of bluntness. That is what I enjoy about this place. To make my point, I would never weigh in on a topic in supervision or counseling and then go missing when life gets busy. Why? it would be professionally inappropriate. I do that all the time here. My time here is generally relegated to moments of professional slacking (avoiding paperwork as I am now) or brief responses on my phone. I likely won't go back and read all the responses to this thread in detail, no time. The same reason I don't back my responses with research links as some other posers might do. My point is simply that people's investment in this place differs based on the poster. I won't reflect much on this thread because it isn't an important part of my life. I am more interested in what type of Rye whiskey @ClinicalABA had this weekend because I had a few good ones and have been getting into Rye cocktails recently.

This absolutely makes sense. I wasn't trying to suggest we act as counselors here, just that we don't seem to value the use of relatively basic communication skills we all learned but we do value empiricism and thinking like scientists (i.e. avoiding anecdotes when possible). Maybe it feels like more of a burden to some, based on personal communication styles. Myself I tend to be saltier in person, where my tone and body language can convey irony, and I tend to be more careful about that when writing.

 

[Sanman]

This absolutely makes sense. I wasn't trying to suggest we act as counselors here, just that we don't seem to value the use of relatively basic communication skills we all learned but we do value empiricism and thinking like scientists (i.e. avoiding anecdotes when possible). Maybe it feels like more of a burden to some, based on personal communication styles. Myself I tend to be saltier in person, where my tone and body language can convey irony, and I tend to be more careful about that when writing.

I tend to be about the same in both. That said I can be saltier to some than others and they might not know the real reason behind this, because I am anonymous. For example, I have been called out as privileged before even though I am a POC. I try not to advertise that fact as I would like to stay anonymous and it is not hard to figure who I am if I gave enough details about myself. But, you are likely to piss me off by implying it. It is hard to have a completely honest conversation about this topic while also staying anonymous.

 

[erg923]

@erg923 listening. Not read whole thread.

Sorry that women feel slighted here. I have a daughter (1 of 3). All for equality and examining historical inequality and discrimination.

I am probably not as progressively minded or "left leaning" as many in psychology (or on this board) but I can support the idea (fact?) that posters can sometimes be drowned out by more vocal, often male, voices.

 

[WisNeuro]

Did you just tag yourself in third person? Nerd.

 

[GradStudent2020]

if someone makes a claim about the behavior of others, it should be substantiated to be believed if you want your accused to be treated as the wrong doer.

So in this case, "toxic masculinity is targeting women and making us feel unwelcome" needs some substantiation. Where are the examples of people treated poorly for being a woman?

I don’t care about anyone being treated as a wrong-doer. Maybe others do, but I wouldn’t want to infer motive from posts.


I’m not a mind reader, but I don’t believe that the repeat offenders have any intention to reflect on or change their behaviors.

I don’t believe that using the right words, presenting enough proof, or otherwise wrapping up my concerns in a pretty little package matters to the posters that engage in these behaviors.

Just look at what other women have said on these threads, how much effort they have put over the years to be heard and understood.....only to be met with continued sarcasm.

FWIW, I think toxic masculinity is a problem on this forum AND I don’t believe that the worst offenders choose their victims based on gender.

 

[psych.meout]

I don’t care about anyone being treated as a wrong-doer. Maybe others do, but I wouldn’t want to infer motive from posts.

I’m not a mind reader, but I don’t believe that the repeat offenders have any intention to reflect on or change their behaviors.

Really? You don't want to infer motives from posts and you're not a mind reader?

My own experience has been that it is not worth wading through the **** of mocking, bullying, and toxic masculinity to get “advice”. The advice here isn’t particularly unique. There are many other ways to get support, mentorship, and guidance in this field without subjecting yourself to becoming troll fuel. There are posters here that get their kicks from criticizing and mocking students and early career psychologists. They show up on most threads, regardless of content. When their behavior is called out, they minimize it, refuse responsibility, claim it is “tough love”, whatever.

I don’t believe that using the right words, presenting enough proof, or otherwise wrapping up my concerns in a pretty little package matters to the posters that engage in these behaviors.

Just look at what other women have said on these threads, how much effort they have put over the years to be heard and understood.....only to be met with continued sarcasm.

FWIW, I think toxic masculinity is a problem on this forum AND I don’t believe that the worst offenders choose their victims based on gender.

That's not their point. It's not about whether someone will change their positions or behaviors, it's that you're accusing people of being "toxic" or some other sin without any substantiation. You should have to provide some kind of support for accusations, especially when you happen to "like" posts where other people are calling for users to be "censured" and claiming that the lack of censorship is a sign of some kind of favoritism from the mods.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Really? You don't want to infer motives from posts and you're not a mind reader?




That's not their point. It's not about whether someone will change their positions or behaviors, it's that you're accusing people of being "toxic" or some other sin without any substantiation. You should have to provide some kind of support for accusations, especially when you happen to "like" posts where other people are calling for users to be "censured" and claiming that the lack of censorship is a sign of some kind of favoritism from the mods.

Well, why? Why do I have to provide some kind of support for those accusations? Because *you* take issue with the comments I “like”? I shared my experience because someone asked about women’s experiences on this board. I owe you nothing. If you are truly curious about whether the accusations are substantiated, go back through past threads with an open mind.

 

[WisNeuro]

Looks like we all agree on something. No one owes anyone anything on this forum.

 

[psych.meout]

Well, why? Why do I have to provide some kind of support for those accusations? Because *you* take issue with the comments I “like”? I shared my experience because someone asked about women’s experiences on this board. I owe you nothing. If you are truly curious about whether the accusations are substantiated, go back through past threads with an open mind.

Right, you don't owe me anything, but by the same token, I owe you nothing. You aren't owed a specific tone, speech without snark or sarcasm, or anything else.

 

[PhDPlz2011]

I read the whole thread and want to offer a few thoughts on themes/questions that have come up repeatedly:

1) I'm a women who has been on SDN for a long time (7 years, according to my profile, but I'm pretty sure I had another profile before this one) and who no longer reads or posts regularly because I find the culture of this forum to be toxic.

2) Several posters have said something along the lines of "no one is prohibited to post" or "women are free to post here." However, my experience is that there is a core group of frequent posters who perpetuate a culture that is dismissive of claims of gender (and class, and racial) bias. This group tends to pile on posters who bring up issues related to social justice. This group also piles on people who dare to show ignorance (of the field, of the process of graduate training) on the board. They post more than anyone else and tend to back each other up. Some of them have self-identified as men. Others may be women...women, too, can contribute to toxic masculinity. No one is formally giving this group power, but they maintain it by operating as a group and being louder than everyone else.

3) I don't send students to SDN for information anymore. I don't come here with my own questions, either. That's fine and I'm pretty sure the SDN regulars don't miss me or the students I might send here. I do think the problems women (and some men) are raising in this thread seriously detract from the capacity of this forum to serve as a space for productive interactions among students and psychology professionals. I think that's a bad thing, but I get the sense that many of the most frequent posters do not. This is basically their space for blowing off steam by being internet trolls. Too bad for everyone else, I guess.

If you're reading this as an SDN regular and think it doesn't apply to you, there's a good chance it doesn't....props to you for sticking around. If you're reading it and thinking about how stupid I am and how you might pithily illustrate all of my logical errors to me, it probably does.

 

[GradStudent2020]

Right, you don't owe me anything, but by the same token, I owe you nothing. You aren't owed a specific tone, speech without snark or sarcasm, or anything else.

Cool. I don’t recall demanding those things from you.

Do you take some issue with my sharing my experiences? What’s up with these comments?

 

[GradStudent2020]

Ye

I read the whole thread and want to offer a few thoughts on themes/questions that have come up repeatedly:

1) I'm a women who has been on SDN for a long time (7 years, according to my profile, but I'm pretty sure I had another profile before this one) and who no longer reads or posts regularly because I find the culture of this forum to be toxic.

2) Several posters have said something along the lines of "no one is prohibited to post" or "women are free to post here." However, my experience is that there is a core group of frequent posters who perpetuate a culture that is dismissive of claims of gender (and class, and racial) bias. This group tends to pile on posters who bring up issues related to social justice. This group also piles on people who dare to show ignorance (of the field, of the process of graduate training) on the board. They post more than anyone else and tend to back each other up. Some of them have self-identified as men. Others may be women...women, too, can contribute to toxic masculinity. No one is formally giving this group power, but they maintain it by operating as a group and being louder than everyone else.

3) I don't send students to SDN for information anymore. I don't come here with my own questions, either. That's fine and I'm pretty sure the SDN regulars don't miss me or the students I might send here. I do think the problems women (and some men) are raising in this thread seriously detract from the capacity of this forum to serve as a space for productive interactions among students and psychology professionals. I think that's a bad thing, but I get the sense that many of the most frequent posters do not. This is basically their space for blowing off steam by being internet trolls. Too bad for everyone else, I guess.

If you're reading this as an SDN regular and think it doesn't apply to you, there's a good chance it doesn't....props to you for sticking around. If you're reading it and thinking about how stupid I am and how you might pithily illustrate all of my logical errors to me, it probably does.

+1 to all of this.

Thank you for pointing out that toxic masculinity can be perpetuated by all genders. There appears to be some confusion on this thread about that. I also keep seeing the (not uncommon) misinterpretation that this term implies men are all toxic or that people engaging in these behaviors are toxic people.

 

[erg923]

Did you just tag yourself in third person? Nerd.

How do you think I wooed my wife, dum dum?

 

[AllyCat31]

I think I understand where your post was coming from- heck, the very existence of the word “hysterical” reflects the gender/sex bias at the root of much of historical psychology

Point of clarification- I was just saying that “saying all in her head” was not a logical conclusion from my earlier posts where I acknowledged that I think the aggressive behavior does exist and should be responded to negatively, and was questioning views regarding potential multiple causes of the aggression. I was not trying to call you out or label you as illogical, but point out how heated and personal topics require different approaches.

Thanks for the clarification. I better understand your stance.

My use of "hysterical" was definitely intentional, for that very reason.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Tone and professionalism is an interesting question. This is legitimate, published commentary written by the executives of Behavior Analysis Certification Board (the credentialing body for ABA) that is so biting in tone that I'm almost surprised it didn't start out with "Justin, you ignorant slut..." (SNL reference): The Registered Behavior Technician™ Credential: A Response to Leaf et al. (2017)

 

[WorkLifeBalance]

I appreciate your triple-yes to my questions, as not many have responded at all. The absence of response is kinda wild. Perhaps it’s my “fault” because I’m a somewhat polarizing figure here. I guess it’s radical to say this truth out loud: I am a woman who genuinely does not care if men think I’m a bitch when I raise my concerns. But jeez, really? It’s more fun to snipe and try to dunk on me/other women and to sarcastically perform for each other.

I am not clear (but am interested) in why you perceive my OP as “aggressive” and “abrasive” when I literally said, lots of guys here rule! But some of the behaviors by some of you are really upsetting!

I do not appreciate your (and others’) suggestion that I should essentially go somewhere else if I want to contribute as I do. Based in part on my lived experience that I have been generous in (and somewhat punished for) sharing, I obviously find meaning in trying to help make communal spaces into safer and healthier places for women (in particular) to thrive.

You originally asked how I could gauge gender the way I do. It’s really not difficult, but then again, it’s a hidden curriculum that you may not have studied. And that’s ok. I wish I weren’t so fluent in it myself.

I'm curious how you know which gender all the posters identify as - is there any chance you're making assumptions based on behaviors? Those who act in a certain way must be male, and those who act differently are female? I'm truly curious - I've been a long-time reader of this forum, and I have no idea about the gender identity of most of the frequent posters.

 

[Sanman]

3) I don't send students to SDN for information anymore. I don't come here with my own questions, either. That's fine and I'm pretty sure the SDN regulars don't miss me or the students I might send here. I do think the problems women (and some men) are raising in this thread seriously detract from the capacity of this forum to serve as a space for productive interactions among students and psychology professionals. I think that's a bad thing, but I get the sense that many of the most frequent posters do not. This is basically their space for blowing off steam by being internet trolls. Too bad for everyone else, I guess.

If you're reading this as an SDN regular and think it doesn't apply to you, there's a good chance it doesn't....props to you for sticking around. If you're reading it and thinking about how stupid I am and how you might pithily illustrate all of my logical errors to me, it probably does.

You know, I don't disagree with this other than the fact that I obviously would not refer to myself as an internet troll. Some might consider me this and others might find me to be a more reasonable poster. That said, I come here to blow off steam and sometimes I help other people. If others want to be regular posters and continue to contribute in a manner other than the way I do more power to them. However, if the message is that you are leaving the place and discouraging others from coming here, I don't think anyone that you may disagree with will care and likely no change will come about. Those who don't show up get exactly zero votes. If you want change best to come and be an example of what you want. Asking for other people to change so that you may be more comfortable is unlikely to work and we all know this. How many clinicians here would tell a client to avoid a situation and wait for the other person to change their behavior? As all those bumper stickers misquoting Gandhi say "Be the change you wish to see in the world".