Which perspectives are welcome here?

[InternHopeful2015]

As a woman who identifies as females and appreciate the OPs position, I would like to comment on how much the term "toxicity masculinity" bothers me. I just find the terminology to be counter productive to having progress as it is received by many, including myself, as being a derogatory terms used towards men. It seems the conversation and movements would be better off without it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GradStudent2020]

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 tend to find 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 the change 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".

I would never encourage a client to remain in a toxic environment. If a client was on a forum like this I would help them identify non-masochistic ways of getting what they perceive they need (advice, support, humor).

 

[GradStudent2020]

As a woman who identifies as females and appreciate the OPs position, I would like to comment on how much the term "toxicity masculinity" bothers me. I just find the terminology to be counter productive to having progress as it is received by many, including myself, as being a derogatory terms used towards men. It seems the conversation and movements would be better off without it.

Would you mind sharing why it bothers you?

 

[Sanman]

I would never encourage a client to remain in a toxic environment. If a client was on a forum like this I would help them identify non-masochistic ways of getting what they perceive they need (advice, support, humor).

If all of your clients are able to leave and not remain in any so-called "toxic" environment that they encounter, they are pretty privileged. Most of mine would have no choice. Then again, I have a feeling we would have very different definitions of the word toxic.

 

[GradStudent2020]

If all of your clients are able to leave and not remain in any so-called "toxic" environment that they encounter, they are pretty privileged. Most of mine would have no choice. Then again, I have a feeling we would have very different definitions of the word toxic.

Very few of my clients are able to leave the toxic environments they reside in. That doesn’t mean I should normalize the toxic environment or even encourage them to use their resources to attempt to change that environment. What an exhausting and fruitless endeavor.

There are many that have learned healthier boundaries around chosen environments that include toxic patterns of behavior. Social environments and online environments.

 

[calimich]

I’ve read most of this thread and truly appreciate the dialogue. To address @msgeorgeeliot's 3 questions:

Does it bother people here that multiple women say that they do not post anymore because of the aforementioned aggressive behavior?

Does it bother people here to know that I’m getting PMs from women who are intimidated to weigh in on this thread?

Does it bother people here that applicants and graduate students are missing out on the voices of female psychologists that they might relate to?

Yes to all three.

Some of my other thoughts…

While I was not surprised by how the thread began and who some of the first posters were, I was confused as to why they felt the need to jump right into the discussion when they were explicitly asked to wait. Were you offended? Trying to make a point? Feeling left out? Something else?

However, similar response patterns seem to happen to other questions. A question like, “Are there any students/grads of XX program here who can share their experiences?” is often answered by some of those same frequent/quick-to-respond posters with tangentially related information, advice to steer clear of XX program, questions about the applicant’s motivation / school selection process, or other questions which appear to be less about answering the question and more about giving one’s opinion, again.

What then usually happens if the OP tries to direct the thread back to their original question, they are told something like “this is what you really need to know.”

The tone conversation is also interesting and to me plays out congruent with power dynamics. On one side I see a dynamic from frequent posters something like, “I’m not like this in real life” or “Don’t assume the way I act on SDN reflects my clinical skills.” But, when a new poster/student seeking advice dismisses tangential responses to their questions they are met with statements like, “if you can’t take advice on here you’ll never handle clinical supervision” or “the ability to take criticism and reflect is a hallmark of clinical training.” This feels incongruent to me – frequent posters claim their online persona is not reflective of “real life” or their clinical skills while new posters are not given that same grace.

To wax philosophically for a moment – this is real life. Whether you’re typing on a computer or talking face-to-face, this is it. There are a few posters who own their abrasiveness and are congruent (i.e., “I like to argue on here and face-to-face”). For me, those folks are easier to understand, and I think I might respect more (still reflecting on this) then those who claim “this isn’t the real me.” I understand the need to censor oneself in certain spaces, the need to hold back parts of ourselves. I think we all, to some extent, enjoy playing dress up, make believe, and letting other sides of our personality out. However, is this the space? Why here?

There are other online communities where snark, rudeness, and abrasiveness are literally the stated group norms. People choose to go there, they know what to expect, and they get it.

Are those the community norms we want here? They aren’t the ones I want.

I thought the suggestion that @msgeorgeeliot seek other online spaces in order to find the community she desires was interesting. Why not the other way around? If you want to be rude/aggressive/snarky/harsh, why not join a space where those are the norms?

I try my best to be kind to people, whether face-to-face or from behind a computer screen. It feels good to me to be kind. I imagine those folks who are continually harsh/abrasive/rude/snarky also feel good about it, otherwise they wouldn’t continue the behavior. I’m not sure we’ll change anyone’s behavior here, but I do think we can collectively co-create the community we want. I’ve mostly stopped directly calling out posters and rather used the “report” button more often. It’s what the mods have asked for (thanks for your work!) and I think a way to help cultivate the space I desire.

All for now…kinda went all over the place….thanks for engaging.

 

[Sanman]

Very few of my clients are able to leave the toxic environments they reside in. That doesn’t mean I should normalize the toxic environment or even encourage them to use their resources to attempt to change that environment. What an exhausting and fruitless endeavor.

There are many that have learned healthier boundaries around chosen environments that include toxic patterns of behavior. Social environments and online environments.

Isn't that exactly what this thread is aimed at doing though?

 

[GradStudent2020]

Isn't that exactly what this thread is aimed at doing though?

Maybe that’s what the OP is trying to do. You’d have to ask them.

 

[deleted480308]

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?

I take issue with the implication that the unsubstantiated claim the problem is uniquely male and victim uniquely female.

I’ve seen no reason for gender to be a part of this discussion yet

 

[GradStudent2020]

I take issue with the implication that the unsubstantiated claim the problem is uniquely male and victim uniquely female.

I’ve seen no reason for gender to be a part of this discussion yet

Oh. Would you like to take it up with one of the posters that said that? Has anyone? I haven’t.

 

[deleted480308]

Oh. Would you like to take it up with one of the posters that said that? Has anyone? I haven’t.

That was the point of the thread, the the degree that the OP tried to dictate gender of allowed responses

 

[GradStudent2020]

That was the point of the thread, the the degree that the OP tried to dictate gender of allowed responses

It seems like there’s some disagreement over the “point of the thread.”

I’m not trying to be obtuse. Why are your comments directed at me?

 

[StellaB]

The tone conversation is also interesting and to me plays out congruent with power dynamics. On one side I see a dynamic from frequent posters something like, “I’m not like this in real life” or “Don’t assume the way I act on SDN reflects my clinical skills.” But, when a new poster/student seeking advice dismisses tangential responses to their questions they are met with statements like, “if you can’t take advice on here you’ll never handle clinical supervision” or “the ability to take criticism and reflect is a hallmark of clinical training.” This feels incongruent to me – frequent posters claim their online persona is not reflective of “real life” or their clinical skills while new posters are not given that same grace.

You are absolutely right about this dynamic. The other one that seems incongruent to me is how certain posters (who are legitimate experts in their areas) insist to new, poorly informed posters that their opinions should carry more weight (this part is understandable), but then abdicate any responsibility for their sarcasm carrying more weight. In my mind, either you want your posts taken more seriously / weighted more heavily, or you don't.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

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.

Hi @WorkLifeBalance , you’re absolutely right that I make some assumptions on this topic, some of which can be utterly off the mark.
@AbnormalPsych and @futureapppsy2 have helped me think about this question more carefully.

I am sincere about owning my mistakes, which I am working hard to communicate on this thread. I also own the fact that I am *extremely* attentive to gender-relevant dynamics in my life, both on- and offline. As a female psychologist with a certain set of life experiences, I am attuned to this data because it enhances my emotional and physical safety.

If some posters here cannot relate to my life experiences and coping strategies, I am sincerely glad for you. That said, I do not and will not respond to demands for engagement from posters who are engaging in bad faith in order to try to dunk on me. (To be clear, I do not see you in this way, @WorkLifeBalance )

My general answer to your question is: it’s a combination of factors. It’s actually pretty common in my experience (which is biased toward attending to certain types of info, as is true for everyone) that many posters self-disclose their gender identity (ie, interpretation is not required). I also rely on heuristics and behavioral data to inform my evaluations (again, something we all do based on our specific biases for particular types of info). Example: when two or more posters are tandem-piling on me to enjoy a bit of intellectual fun at my expense, it’s pretty easy to guess.

 

[deleted480308]

It seems like there’s some disagreement over the “point of the thread.”

I’m not trying to be obtuse. Why are your comments directed at me?

What specifically do you think is the point of the thread?

 

[deleted480308]

And i'll add that you did seem to support the notion of gender separation in the thread

I stopped posting on this forum due to the experiences you shared. Thank you for opening this conversation. The problems are well illustrated by the responses on this post. Instead of giving some (politely, mindfully requested) room for female voices, posters have jumped in with sarcasm.

Unfortunately, you forget that women do not get to decide who should/shouldn’t be part of ANY conversation. At least that’s the reality here.

It’s interesting that the posters railing against waiting until women commented are often the first to tell posters they don’t belong in other conversations. They don’t belong because their school, their background, their experience, their opinions, etc. are not up to snuff. ‍♀

I am so grateful that the toxicity in this forum is not reflected in our field as a whole.

Thanks for trying to have this conversation.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

@AbnormalPsych and @futureapppsy2 have helped me think about this question more carefully.

Ditto to you @msgeorgeeliot and the rest. This has been a good dialogue and thread to read.

 

[GradStudent2020]

And i'll add that you did seem to support the notion of gender separation in the thread

I asked the OP if I understood the point of this thread on the 1st or 2nd page, if you’d like to check that comment and her response.

I took no offense that the OP, interested specifically in the experience of female posters, asked for men to briefly refrain from commenting.

I never claimed “the problem is uniquely male and victim uniquely female.” I actually made a statement that directly contradicts this assertion.

So, again. Why are your comments directed at me?

 

[deleted480308]

I asked the OP if I understood the point of this thread on the 1st or 2nd page, if you’d like to check that comment and her response.

I took no offense that the OP, interested specifically in the experience of female posters, asked for men to briefly refrain from commenting.

I never claimed “the problem is uniquely male and victim uniquely female.” I actually made a statement that directly contradicts this assertion.

So, again. Why are your comments directed at me?

this doesn't sound like a disagreement with the gender based premise

@msgeorgeeliot,

There are a lot of people on this thread that continue to expect/demand you contort yourself. Rephrase your comments and questions! Make them more palatable! How dare you attempt to provide a space for female voices first?

Is it really so difficult/offensive that men on this forum read and reflect on women’s experiences before jumping in with their own?

Many posters are denying that the behavior patterns here are problematic, denying that they have anything to do with toxic masculinity, and telling the OP that the conversation should not exist or only exist in pm.

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

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.

 

[GradStudent2020]

this doesn't sound like a disagreement with the gender based premise

I never stated/claimed/or implied “the problem is uniquely male and victim uniquely female.”

If you are dead-set on misinterpreting what was written, that’s fine. If you want to have some sort of useful dialogue, feel free to ask a question.

 

[deleted480308]

I never stated/claimed/or implied “the problem is uniquely male and victim uniquely female.”

If you are dead-set on misinterpreting what was written, that’s fine. If you want to have some sort of useful dialogue, feel free to ask a question.

If you are now denying the premise of OP that women have a uniquely difficult experience here at the hands of "toxic masculinity" and therefore require some segregated time to speak in a female only situation...then I guess we're on the same page now. It sure seemed to the contrary based on your posts,but I stand corrected

 

[GradStudent2020]

If you are now denying the premise of OP that women have a uniquely difficult experience here at the hands of "toxic masculinity" and therefore require some segregated time to speak in a female only situation...then I guess we're on the same page now. It sure seemed to the contrary based on your posts,but I stand corrected

Toxic masculinity is perpetrated by men and women. Toxic masculinity harms men and women. Toxic masculinity is (often) experienced differently by men and women (IRL, and on this forum. )

 

[psych.meout]

Toxic masculinity is perpetrated by men and women. Toxic masculinity harms men and women. Toxic masculinity is (often) experienced differently by men and women (IRL, and on this forum. )

Ok, then can we refer to the responses made by you and others in this thread (e.g., "histrionic," hysterical," "dickish," "jerks with poor social skills") as "toxic femininity?"

It's almost like you've gendered speech you don't like to implicitly shut down debate about it. It's fine to disagree about things like tone, word choice, etc., but it's incredibly disingenuous to selectively apply scrutiny and to insinuate sexism without substantiating it (you know, the thing you explicitly eschewed).

 

[GradStudent2020]

Ok, then can we refer to the responses made by you and others in this thread (e.g., "histrionic," hysterical," "dickish," "jerks with poor social skills") as "toxic femininity?"

It's almost like you've gendered speech you don't like to implicitly shut down debate about it. It's fine to disagree about things like tone, word choice, etc., but it's incredibly disingenuous to selectively imply scrutiny and to insinuate sexism without substantiating it (you know, the thing you explicitly eschewed).

I didn’t use any of those phrases. Do you not understand the phrase toxic masculinity? Does that construct bother you?

It’s almost like you think all posters you disagree with are part of one hive mind?

 

[GradStudent2020]

Ok, then can we refer to the responses made by you and others in this thread (e.g., "histrionic," hysterical," "dickish," "jerks with poor social skills") as "toxic femininity?"

It's almost like you've gendered speech you don't like to implicitly shut down debate about it. It's fine to disagree about things like tone, word choice, etc., but it's incredibly disingenuous to selectively imply scrutiny and to insinuate sexism without substantiating it (you know, the thing you explicitly eschewed).

I would think if there were a parallel construct of toxic femininity it would focus more on how conformity to certain aspects of femininity can be harmful to society as a whole.

 

[psych.meout]

I didn’t use any of those phrases. Do you not understand the phrase toxic masculinity? Does that construct bother you?

It’s almost like you think all posters you disagree with are part of one hive mind?

Again, you're missing the point entirely. The things you and others here are attacking as "toxic masculinity" are very much the same things that you all are doing in this thread (e.g., snark, sarcasm, insults, denigrating one's character, misattributing motives, trying to shut down certain discussions or individuals). Thus, either you are also exhibiting toxic masculinity in these behaviors or what is being criticized has nothing to do with toxic masculinity and is a separate topic.

 

[psych.meout]

I would think if there were a parallel construct of toxic femininity it would focus more on how conformity to certain aspects of femininity can be harmful to society as a whole.

I'm satirizing your misuse of "toxic masculinity" by misusing "toxic femininity."

 

[GradStudent2020]

Again, you're missing the point entirely. The things you and others here are attacking as "toxic masculinity" are very much the same things that you all are doing in this thread (e.g., snark, sarcasm, insults, denigrating one's character, misattributing motives, trying to shut down certain discussions or individuals). Thus, either you are also exhibiting toxic masculinity in these behaviors or what is being criticized has nothing to do with toxic masculinity and is a separate topic.

I didn’t characterize any of those behaviors as toxic masculinity. Did someone else? I’ve mentioned toxic masculinity, but haven’t provided specific examples.

Believe it or not, we aren’t all the same person.

 

[psych.meout]

I didn’t characterize any of those behaviors as toxic masculinity. Did someone else? I’ve mentioned toxic masculinity, but haven’t provided specific examples.

Believe it or not, we aren’t all the same person.

Ok, then what, specifically, here qualifies as "toxic masculinity" that you've brought it up so many times in reference to what everyone is discussing?

 

[GradStudent2020]

Ok, then what, specifically, here qualifies as "toxic masculinity" that you've brought it up so many times in reference to what everyone is discussing?

I’ve already declined to justify my experiences or concerns to you. If you don’t understand the concept, google is your friend. If you’d like to see examples, read through some past threads.

 

[psych.meout]

I’ve already declined to justify my experiences or concerns to you. If you don’t understand the concept, google is your friend. If you’d like to see examples, read through some past threads.

Ah, so the gender politics version of this thread:

PHD Education-concentration in counseling education and supervision

I wish we could balance statement like, I intend to make a distinction between immigration mental health evals and immigration psych evals. with never defining either term.

forums.studentdoctor.net

 

[deleted480308]

Toxic masculinity is perpetrated by men and women. Toxic masculinity harms men and women. Toxic masculinity is (often) experienced differently by men and women (IRL, and on this forum. )

I'm calling bull on the whole notion of "toxic masculinity". There is good behavior and bad behavior. It's not masculine or feminine to be a jerk.

It is however bad behavior to state an entire gender doesn't get to talk because of their gender

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

Humor is a tonic, and I am seriously dying to make a joke about relative tolerance of emotional discomfort, but I WILL REFRAIN. Because #collegiality

Good night peeps, and I eagerly await the perspective of @Psycycle when she has time to weigh in.

 

[MCParent]

I'm calling bull on the whole notion of "toxic masculinity". There is good behavior and bad behavior. It's not masculine or feminine to be a jerk.

It is however bad behavior to state an entire gender doesn't get to talk because of their gender

As a masculinity researcher—toxic masculinity refers to a specific combination of misogyny, homophobia, and zero sum competitiveness mostly studied in prison populations. It’s not a synonym for when a man is a jerk or when a man sits with his knees apart on a bus or whatever.

 

[deleted480308]

As a masculinity researcher—toxic masculinity refers to a specific combination of misogyny, homophobia, and zero sum competitiveness mostly studied in prison populations. It’s not a synonym for when a man is a jerk or when a man sits with his knees apart on a bus or whatever.

That’s an interesting thing I didn’t know. Thanks for sharing

I still find the term improper, even used as you say it was originally studied. Now I see I don’t know that I’ve ever seen someone use it accurately in public discourse (to your definition here)

 

[GradStudent2020]

As a masculinity researcher—toxic masculinity refers to a specific combination of misogyny, homophobia, and zero sum competitiveness mostly studied in prison populations. It’s not a synonym for when a man is a jerk or when a man sits with his knees apart on a bus or whatever.

Could you share more? My understanding is that things like aggression, maintaining control, poor social-emotional competence (by design), repression of “feminine” emotion (ex. Empathy), and benevolent sexism can also all fall within toxic masculinity. Would you say that toxic masculinity is only restricted to the areas you listed?

 

[WisNeuro]

Could you share more? My understanding is that things like aggression, maintaining control, poor social-emotional competence (by design), repression of “feminine” emotion (ex. Empathy), and benevolent sexism can also all fall within toxic masculinity. Would you say that toxic masculinity is only restricted to the areas you listed?

The problem with expanding a term to fit whatever narrative a person is pursuing is that you make the term anything to anyone, sliding the solipsism slope. At which point, the term loses any actual meaning whatsoever.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I'm a bit surprised by the general notion that if we had solely social justice-based discussions that included the sole voices of X group of marginalized people, there would be no toxicity or drama or whatever. I most definitely see the value in spaces for people from marginalized groups (including woman) to discuss their experiences without having to constantly explain or justify (and I'm in a few groups like that myself), but my research heavily involves marginalized (often multiply marginalized) people, and I have a fair number of friends and colleagues who do social justice work full-time, including some who are in prominent national roles. There's *plenty* of toxic, abusive, arrogant, and hostile behavior in those circles, including in-group doxing and relentless public shaming, witch hunts, dogpiling someone with literally hundred of comments for a single debatable statement, etc. The spaces are still valuable, but they are far from a utopia.

 

[MCParent]

Could you share more? My understanding is that things like aggression, maintaining control, poor social-emotional competence (by design), repression of “feminine” emotion (ex. Empathy), and benevolent sexism can also all fall within toxic masculinity. Would you say that toxic masculinity is only restricted to the areas you listed?

I’m not sure why you’d think that unless your understanding of toxic masculinity is based solely on the pop culture use of it.

I’ve already declined to justify my experiences or concerns to you. If you don’t understand the concept, google is your friend. If you’d like to see examples, read through some past threads.

Civility in discourse is a two way street.

 

[GradStudent2020]

The problem with expanding a term to fit whatever narrative a person is pursuing is that you make the term anything to anyone, sliding the solipsism slope. At which point, the term loses any actual meaning whatsoever.

The problem with this forum is that thoughtful, sincere questions are met with immediate criticism.

 

[WisNeuro]

The problem with this forum is that thoughtful, sincere questions are met with immediate criticism.

The problem with those questions, is that they are rarely sincere.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Ok, then can we refer to the responses made by you and others in this thread (e.g., "histrionic," hysterical," "dickish," "jerks with poor social skills") as "toxic femininity?"

It was actually me who introduced those terms to thread (with the exception of “hysterical”, which was introduced in a reply to me and not as a description of anayone here’s behavior). I’m rather masculine (phenotypically at least), and those words can be considered “toxic,” but I don’t think they meet the definition of “toxic masculinity” as originally proposed in this thread, or as refined by other posters. Nevertheless, I’ll own those terms as far as this thread is concerned. I stand by my use of them. I’m also open to it being toxic femininity, but will first require an operationalization of that term.

You are focused on those terms. I think you’ll find if you go back and look at them, that I was actually using them as examples of of sources of variance that were not toxic masculinity, and trying to introduce a counter argument to some of the OPs claim.

 

[GradStudent2020]

I’m not sure why you’d think that unless your understanding of toxic masculinity is based solely on the pop culture use of it.



Civility in discourse is a two way street.

It appeared you wanted to share your knowledge in the area. Apparently I misunderstood. And, no, my exposure to the concept is not based solely on pop culture.

 

[mlwg1]

I think that debates over the semantics of specific terms can distract from the sentiment that is being expressed. The OP was reflecting on what she believes to be an imbalance of power in the forum. The opening post didn’t even include these words that are being parsed.

 

[GradStudent2020]

The problem with those questions, is that they are rarely sincere.

I have no interest in engaging in dialogue with you. I don’t have you on “ignore” at the moment, but I’d like to request you stop responding to my comments. Your snarky comments don’t add anything to the conversation.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have no interest in engaging in dialogue with you. I don’t have you on “ignore” at the moment, but I’d like to request you stop responding to my comments. Your snarky comments don’t add anything to the conversation.

The ignore button is there for you if you wish. If you don't want to meaningfully engage, that's up to you. Seems to be a rampant part of the problem here.

 

[deleted480308]

I think that debates over the semantics of specific terms can distract from the sentiment that is being expressed. The OP was reflecting on what she believes to be an imbalance of power in the forum. The opening post didn’t even include these words that are being parsed.

I think agreeing on what words mean is definitely part of detailed conversation

 

[GradStudent2020]

The ignore button is there for you if you wish. If you don't want to meaningfully engage, that's up to you. Seems to be a rampant part of the problem here.

I’m happy to have meaningful conversation. Responding to jabs questioning the sincerity of my comments is a waste of time and a distraction from the actual conversation.

 

[WisNeuro]

I’m happy to have meaningful conversation. Responding to jabs questioning the sincerity of my comments is a waste of time and a distraction from the actual conversation.

Considering the discussion includes tone and good faith discussion, in addition to the actual content of the thread, the concept would seem very germane to the conversation at several junctures.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

Considering the discussion includes tone and good faith discussion, in addition to the actual content of the thread, the concept would seem very germane to the conversation at several junctures.

@WisNeuro , I am being as sincere as I can possibly be in saying this. I respect you. I respect @GradStudent2020 . As I see it, she is essentially asking you to stop bothering her (as she defines being bothered). Why are you persisting in bothering her?

I really don’t care to get into a pissing match (see what I did there?) with any one individual on here. My intent is to highlight behaviors that align with my originally expressed concern. As you said, we can all use a little more reflection around here (self included).

[ducks for cover]