Which perspectives are welcome here?

[Sanman]

In total sincerity and with respect (and I’m monitoring my regular use of this dialogue technique as an opener) — I cannot think of a single situation or context in which I do not monitor my own behavior. That includes my behavior in women-centered/social justice spaces (as brought up by @futureapppsy2 , these can be filled with bad behavior as well).

My attention to self-monitoring doesn’t mean that I always get it “right.” Far from it. I can hurt people’s feelings. I can overgeneralize. I can sometimes get pissed at the wrong people. The best I can do is listen, acknowledge my errors, and make amends as needed.

As @calimich pointed out, we do have an opportunity here to talk about the kind of community we want to have. It’s my opinion that conscious self-monitoring by individuals is a feature of any healthy community, but that may just be my biased lens as someone who has been culturally conditioned to monitor my behavior and the impact of that behavior on people around me.

I monitor myself in many circumstances as well. More so recently due to real world consequences of not "fitting in" with certain cultures. That said, I have never really been good at fitting in and not speaking my mind. I was also president of the HS debate club and enjoyed arguing points.

I guess one of the things I value about this place is the ability to be brutally honest without concern that my views mean that the people "in power" don't overlook me for promotions or shun me generally. As a double minority in this field, I don't have a lot of spaces where I feel I can do that.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

I monitor myself in many circumstances as well. More so recently due to real world consequences of not "fitting in" with certain cultures. That said, I have never really been good at fitting in and not speaking my mind. I was also president of the HS debate club and enjoyed arguing points.

I guess one of the things I value about this place is the ability to be brutally honest without concern that my views mean that the people "in power" don't overlook me for promotions or shun me generally. As a double minority in this field, I don't have a lot of spaces where I feel I can do that.

Same. Thanks for your response.

 

[Osminog]

I'm appalled that this thread exists. A liberal in a majority-liberal profession on a majority-liberal forum is complaining about how she's not being accommodated enough.

I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative, and whenever I post anything even remotely politics-related on SDN, it's promptly followed by a heap of criticism and chastisement. The notion that it's difficult to be feminist or a "social justice advocate" on SDN is nothing short of laughable. Again, I can't believe this thread exists.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

I guess that’s where I don’t understand. Why not argue back? Scientific debate and legal debate don’t work on a “I don’t want to hurt my opponents feelings”. It’s an exchange of ideas. Hopefully some are better than others.

Hi @PsyDr , I appreciate your question. Do you mean (in a super-rough hypothetical paraphrase of your pithy comment): “Why not argue in the free/neutral marketplace of ideas that exists independent of identity factors, cultural conditioning, and other multifactorial variables?” If I got that right, I guess my response is that I don’t think that such a place exists. I’m interested in your feedback on that.

 

[PsyDr]

Hi @PsyDr , I appreciate your question. Do you mean (in a super-rough hypothetical paraphrase of your pithy comment): “Why not argue in the free/neutral marketplace of ideas that exists independent of identity factors, cultural conditioning, and other multifactorial variables?” If I got that right, I guess my response is that I don’t think that such a place exists. I’m interested in your feedback on that.

That is not what I said. That is not what I meant. That is not what I believe.

It seems that part of the discussion is that some members avoid discussion on a variety of issues. Some attributed that avoidance to perceived negative styles of communication of others. It would seem that there is a framework in science and related academia where debate, is a common means to arrive at knowledge. Debate seems to be based upon some conflict.

If the idea is to encourage others to contribute more, how is this accomplished while maintaining the ability to debate?

 

[StellaB]

That is not what I said. That is not what I meant. That is not what I believe.

It seems that part of the discussion is that some members avoid discussion on a variety of issues. Some attributed that avoidance to perceived negative styles of communication of others. It would seem that there is a framework in science and related academia where debate, is a common means to arrive at knowledge. Debate seems to be based upon some conflict.

If the idea is to encourage others to contribute more, how is this accomplished while maintaining the ability to debate?

Good point. One of the downsides of debate (obviously, I love a good debate) is that, unlike the scientific process, sometimes good debate skills win the day instead of the actual merits of the argument. We can disagree on whether the proposed method of calling for certain people to start the discussion is a good one - I'm not sure how I feel about it myself. As a new teacher, one of the things that was impressed upon me is that the introverts in a class often have a lot to say, but are unlikely to talk unless invited to / a space is made. Extroversion is an awesome trait. Those of us who grew up in families that encouraged speaking up are lucky for that. But extroverts and people comfortable with a raucous debate are not the only ones with worthy opinions. In the interest of science, can we be experimental in how we try to invite a space for a greater variety of ideas?

Edit: Add for clarification - I don't mean to suggest women are introverts, or that this has to be seen through a gendered lens - it was just a general point about inviting certain voices to the table who might otherwise avoid a debate, leaving the whole debate less dynamic and inclusive.

 

[cara susanna]

I just wanted to add that I supported a woman only thread just because I'd like to hear different perspectives from the usual ones (as much as I do enjoy the latter), especially related to issues that women face in our field. If it turned into men bashing, I would lose interest.

I'm appalled that this thread exists. A liberal in a majority-liberal profession on a majority-liberal forum is complaining about how she's not being accommodated enough.

I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative, and whenever I post anything even remotely politics-related on SDN, it's promptly followed by a heap of criticism and chastisement. The notion that it's difficult to be feminist or a "social justice advocate" on SDN is nothing short of laughable. Again, I can't believe this thread exists.

You must not be in the other boards that I read. I can name at least one sub forum that regularly discusses politics and conservatives are the clear majority.

 

[PsyDr]

Good point. One of the downsides of debate (obviously, I love a good debate) is that, unlike the scientific process, sometimes good debate skills win the day instead of the actual merits of the argument. We can disagree on whether the proposed method of calling for certain people to start the discussion is a good one - I'm not sure how I feel about it myself. As a new teacher, one of the things that was impressed upon me is that the introverts in a class often have a lot to say, but are unlikely to talk unless invited to / a space is made. Extroversion is an awesome trait. Those of us who grew up in families that encouraged speaking up are lucky for that. But extroverts and people comfortable with a raucous debate are not the only ones with worthy opinions. In the interest of science, can we be experimental in how we try to invite a space for a greater variety of ideas?

If it is a given that the current social environment in which we live and practice is relatively static, then at what point are such accommodations helpful and at what point are they harmful? Or is it the case that promoting new learned behaviors, such as assertiveness, would be more helpful?

 

[deleted480308]

If it is a given that the current social environment in which we live and practice is relatively static, then at what point are such accommodations helpful and at what point are they harmful? Or is it the case that promoting new learned behaviors, such as assertiveness, would be more helpful?

I would think affirming that all people are allowed to talk would be more appropriate than trying to decide when certain groups are allowed to

 

[StellaB]

If it is a given that the current social environment in which we live and practice is relatively static, then at what point are such accommodations helpful and at what point are they harmful? Or is it the case that promoting new learned behaviors, such as assertiveness, would be more helpful?

This is a really worthwhile question about values. Personally, I value assertiveness very highly. But not so highly that I don't want to accommodate other styles of communication. Believe me, coming from an Italian family, if you don't shout, you aren't heard. But also, everyone shouting all the time means that not a lot of opinions are changed, and new information doesn't always make its way in. There's a balancing act here.

 

[StellaB]

I would think affirming that all people are allowed to talk would be more appropriate than trying to decide when certain groups are allowed to

That's a fine opinion that not everyone shares

 

[deleted480308]

That's a fine opinion that not everyone shares

And a bunch of people thought rosa should move to the back or rosie should go back to the kitchen when the men folk returned.....but being unanimous isn’t the reason that barring people from action because of their demographic is the wrong thing to do.

Some things are just wrong because they are wrong

 

[StellaB]

And a bunch of people thought rosa should move to the back or rosie should go back to the kitchen when the men folk returned.....but being unanimous isn’t the reason that barring people from action because of their demographic is the wrong thing to do.

Some things are just wrong because they are wrong

I do not understand why a request to hear from one group first, including dissenters, is being equated to systematic racism and segregation of an entire class of people that lasted decades and resulted in countless brutal deaths. The analogy that seems more apt to me is like, Sadie Hawkins Dance, where girls are supposed to ask the boys out? I mean, maybe I'm wrong here, but this just seems like a fairly hyperbolic (histrionic?) response to a request that was 1) not observed anyway, 2) not enforceable, and 3) not really a big deal?

 

[PsyDr]

This is a really worthwhile question about values. Personally, I value assertiveness very highly. But not so highly that I don't want to accommodate other styles of communication. Believe me, coming from an Italian family, if you don't shout, you aren't heard. But also, everyone shouting all the time means that not a lot of opinions are changed, and new information doesn't always make its way in. There's a balancing act here.

I think that depends on the outcome data. Is someone is on the severe end of agreeableness or introversion or whatever actually going to benefit from those traits in clinical psychology? And what is the effect of promoting or fostering those traits on others?

And to what extent are the accommodations guided by nonscientific values? And is that fair and equal?


I do think that one can explore the merits of an idea by applying it broadly. If it is unfair for one gender, it is unfair for both.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I do not understand why a request to hear from one group first, including dissenters, is being equated to systematic racism and segregation of an entire class of people that lasted decades and resulted in countless brutal deaths. The analogy that seems more apt to me is like, Sadie Hawkins Dance, where girls are supposed to ask the boys out? I mean, maybe I'm wrong here, but this just seems like a fairly hyperbolic (histrionic?) response to a request that was 1) not observed anyway, 2) not enforceable, and 3) not really a big deal?

I wonder how supportive others would be of a thread in which a male poster noted some complaint against women on the forum then asked only to allow men to respond for the first 10 posts.

I can't imagine that would go over well or make anyone on that side feel included, valued, or equal.

 

[StellaB]

I think that depends on the outcome data. Is someone is on the severe end of agreeableness or introversion or whatever actually going to benefit from those traits in clinical psychology? And what is the effect of promoting or fostering those traits on others?

And to what extent are the accommodations guided by nonscientific values? And is that fair and equal?


I do think that one can explore the merits of an idea by applying it broadly. If it is unfair for one gender, it is unfair for both.

What if it wasn't about gender but was instead about culture? Communication styles are radically different across cultures; is it not premature to assume that the current American style is the best / most scientific / getting us closes to the world we want?

 

[deleted480308]

I do not understand why a request to hear from one group first, including dissenters, is being equated to systematic racism and segregation of an entire class of people that lasted decades and resulted in countless brutal deaths. The analogy that seems more apt to me is like, Sadie Hawkins Dance, where girls are supposed to ask the boys out? I mean, maybe I'm wrong here, but this just seems like a fairly hyperbolic (histrionic?) response to a request that was 1) not observed anyway, 2) not enforceable, and 3) not really a big deal?

Of course it wasn’t observed. It shouldn’t have even been slightly entertained at all.

The response is because it should be spoken out loud that it was an unacceptable request and people should know that

And yes, trying mute voices (even temporarily) due to gender is a big deal

 

[StellaB]

I wonder how supportive others would be of a thread in which a male poster noted some complaint against women on the forum then asked only to allow men to respond for the first 10 posts.

I can't imagine that would go over well or make anyone on that side feel included, valued, or equal.

I agree in the vacuum of ideas. In the real world, men are not discriminated against, underpaid, undervalued, etc. anywhere near the level of women in society at large. There's a reason we have never had anything even close to adequate political representation by size of the population. There's a reason women's bodies are regulated by law in ways men's bodies are not. In the vacuum of ideas, you're right, men deserve the same space. In the messy world we live in, men have more space as a baseline.

 

[PsyDr]

What if it wasn't about gender but was instead about culture? Communication styles are radically different across cultures; is it not premature to assume that the current American style is the best / most scientific / getting us closes to the world we want?

I absolutely never said American culture is the best. I also never commented upon the world anyone wants.

It is the culture in which we practice.

 

[deleted480308]

I agree in the vacuum of ideas. In the real world, men are not discriminated against, underpaid, undervalued, etc. anywhere near the level of women in society at large. There's a reason we have never had anything even close to adequate political representation by size of the population. There's a reason women's bodies are regulated by law in ways men's bodies are not. In the vacuum of ideas, you're right, men deserve the same space. In the messy world we live in, men have more space as a baseline.

Bodies are regulated?

 

[StellaB]

Bodies are regulated?

Exactly my point.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I agree in the vacuum of ideas. In the real world, men are not discriminated against, underpaid, undervalued, etc. anywhere near the level of women in society at large. There's a reason we have never had anything even close to adequate political representation by size of the population. There's a reason women's bodies are regulated by law in ways men's bodies are not. In the vacuum of ideas, you're right, men deserve the same space. In the messy world we live in, men have more space as a baseline.

That is all true. I'm just not sure how that counteracts the fact that requesting preference on this forum for one group/gender is the exact thing you are saying is the problem. The argument has shifted in your statement to be somewhat of a strawman based on broader cultural practices, not practices being advocated here. One could easily argue and extend this exact reasoning to any sort of privileged or underrepresented group. The behavior does not equate to engendering equality. As I said before, it does little except further a 'us v them' mentality. This is why it is an objectionable practice to me and why I would not respect this request no matter who made it of any group.

 

[StellaB]

That is all true. I'm just not sure how that counteracts the fact that requesting preference on this forum for one group/gender is the exact thing you are saying is the problem. The argument has shifted in your statement to be somewhat of a strawman based on broader cultural practices, not practices being advocated here. One could easily argue and extend this exact reasoning to any sort of privileged or underrepresented group. The behavior does not equate to engendering equality. As I said before, it does little except further a 'us v them' mentality. This is why it is an objectionable practice to me and why I would not respect this request no matter who made it of any group.

I didn’t like the request on a personal level. But I think I understand the spirit of it differently - more like the recent thread about ABA controversy and the OP there asking for people with ABA experience to weigh in. Granted, she didn’t ask for people without that experience to hold off for a minute.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I didn’t like the request on a personal level. But I think I understand the spirit of it differently - more like the recent thread about ABA controversy and the OP there asking for people with ABA experience to weigh in. Granted, she didn’t ask for people without that experience to hold off for a minute.

That's entirely a different request.

 

[deleted480308]

Exactly my point.

You going to stick with mystique here or would you consider clarification?

 

[StellaB]

'Just leave that to hang like the bad fart it is.'

Peep Show (2003) - S08E01 Jeremy Therapised clip with quote 'Just leave that to hang like the bad fart it is.' Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the...

getyarn.io

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

RIP I’m dead, nice knowing y’all

 

[Pragma]

I’d be really happy to see SDN remain a place for uninhibited discussion. Tone policing is ineffective and exhausting for all involved.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

Tone policing is ineffective and exhausting for all involved.

I could not agree more!

Good to hear from you.

 

[Pragma]

Heck, I've had pretty heated discussions with people on here and later had a cocktail with them in person listening to jazz off of Bourbon Street during a conference.

Try a ghost tour next time!

 

[Pragma]

I could not agree more!

Good to hear from you.

I was so busy getting “OG” tattooed to my right bicep that I missed out on hundreds of posts and feelz!

What I appreciate about this forum is that it is an internet forum and the opinions here might more accurately depict “real life” than “real life” these days. I come here to be real, not filtered. I think that freedom is something not to be squandered. I’ve been a jerk before. So what? Who hasn’t. Plenty of jerks here on all sides of the argument. I’ll still have a sazerac with you - I don’t discriminate (consciously)!

 

[deleted480308]

'Just leave that to hang like the bad fart it is.'

Peep Show (2003) - S08E01 Jeremy Therapised clip with quote 'Just leave that to hang like the bad fart it is.' Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the...

getyarn.io

It’s disappointing that amidst calls for sincere conversation you’re resorting to memes instead of clarifying your statements to someone engaging in good faith

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

It’s disappointing that amidst calls for sincere conversation you’re resorting to memes instead of clarifying your statements to someone engaging in good faith

Sorry, you’re right (sincerely). The bodies of girls, women, and pregnant people are regulated by the state in terms of their reproductive rights, including the (currently) federally guaranteed right to abortion.

Edit: In case it’s not evident to everyone (sincerely), pregnant people don’t usually experience an unwanted pregnancy without a man’s participation. In the most violent scenarios, people get raped and typically do not want to be pregnant as a result. But sometimes state politicians, Supreme Court justices, et al have the attitude of, “too bad, so sad for you, because #allbabiesmatter” (until they’re out of the womb at least).

I resorted to humor earlier in part because literally no one needs for this thread to get warped into a debate about abortion rights, but this was a memorable moment from the Kavanaugh hearings. (Please let’s not get stuck here; I am responding in good faith.)

User Clip: Can Kavanaugh think of any law regulating a man's body?

Judge Brett Kavanaugh struggles to answer Sen. Kamala Harris

www.c-span.org

 

[deleted480308]

Sorry, you’re right (sincerely). Pregnant people’s bodies are regulated by the state in terms of their reproductive rights, including the (currently) federally guaranteed right to abortion.

Edit: In case it’s not evident to everyone (sincerely), pregnant people don’t usually experience an unwanted pregnancy without a man’s participation. In the most violent scenarios, people get raped and do not want to be pregnant as a result. But sometimes state politicians, Supreme Court justices, et al have the attitude of, “too bad, so sad for you, because #allbabiesmatter (until they’re out of the womb at least).

I resorted to humor earlier in part because literally no one needs for this thread to get warped into a debate about abortion rights, but this was a memorable moment from the Kavanaugh hearings. (Please let’s not get stuck here; I am responding in good faith.)

User Clip: Can Kavanaugh think of any law regulating a man's body?

Judge Brett Kavanaugh struggles to answer Sen. Kamala Harris

www.c-span.org

I really appreciate the clarification because I was legitimately lost.

We aren’t going to agree on abortion or it’s implications to the post referencing it but I think we can avoid that rabbit trail altogether

Thanks

 

[Sanman]

I agree in the vacuum of ideas. In the real world, men are not discriminated against, underpaid, undervalued, etc. anywhere near the level of women in society at large. There's a reason we have never had anything even close to adequate political representation by size of the population. There's a reason women's bodies are regulated by law in ways men's bodies are not. In the vacuum of ideas, you're right, men deserve the same space. In the messy world we live in, men have more space as a baseline.

However, in the real world, women also outnumber men in this profession. So it can also be argued that you are trying to silence a minority voice in the field. Something to chew on...

 

[Pragma]

However, in the real world, women also outnumber men in this profession. So it can also be argued that you are trying to silence a minority voice in the field. Something to chew on...

Yeah but the balance of power varies. Plenty of old white guys that won’t retire out there. But for me - all female supervisors/bosses for the most part. Hearing complaints about the patriarchy never hits home for me in terms of lived experience, just feels like an abstract idea that I happen to have not experienced professionally.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

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.

Mike Parent, I would really appreciate anything further that you’d be willing to share on this topic, including (but not solely) its relationship to APA’s public stance on masculinity (tbh I’m worried about getting the words wrong so am trying to be general here). I recognize the intellectual and emotional labor that this entails. With gratitude.

 

[Sanman]

Yeah but the balance of power varies. Plenty of old white guys that won’t retire out there. But for me - all female supervisors/bosses for the most part. Hearing complaints about the patriarchy never hits home for me in terms of lived experience, just feels like an abstract idea that I happen to have not experienced professionally.

Definitely, never felt it myself. I've had a mix of supervisors/bosses though. Mostly male on the neuropsych/assessment side and female on the therapy side. More female than male overall. All but one were white though.

Point being, the real world is a bit messy.

 

[PsyDWannabe]

Just as in real life, it is usually those with the most power/benefits within the structure that have the most dismissive, derailing, and derisive attitudes towards the mere discussion of changing the structure. I am not sure what's worse: the utter lack of insight and self awareness being shown by some of the more 'popular' users or the full awareness yet willful indifference to the points brought up by the OP.

It just makes me laugh because even the posts calling out people for engaging in maladaptive communication style while calling out people, are engaging in the same maladaptive style while calling out people. That statement means exactly what it says.

And for the sake of contributing productively, I agree with everything the OP said and a good 70% of the responses accusing her of seeking confirmation are literally confirming everything she said.


p.s. assuming this board is remotely reflective of the field at large, albeit speaking from the vantage point of my especially non-diverse specialty, it is not such a leap to assume certain key demographics of the participants in our little circle. So miss me with the faux outrage of "well how do you know what demographic I am??" because it adds about as much to this conversation as "I know you are but what am I?" It SCREAMS a consciousness of guilt, and does nothing but deflect and further derail.

p.p.s if being an a-hole on this site means so much to you that you choose to e-die on the 6-page hill of defending your right to be so despite it being made abundantly and justly clear how that behavior is affecting the comfort of other users of the forum, then I TRULY am very very worried about your mental health.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

If it is a given that the current social environment in which we live and practice is relatively static, then at what point are such accommodations helpful and at what point are they harmful? Or is it the case that promoting new learned behaviors, such as assertiveness, would be more helpful?

Hi @PsyDr , sincere question: why should we take as a given that our current social environment is relatively static?

Re: your questions about personality/temperament: to be as empirical as possible in terms of OCEAN: I am open to new (even and especially uncomfortable) experiences, highly conscientious, selectively extroverted, pretty disagreeable by temperament, and I will cut anyone who calls me neurotic.

 

[MCParent]

Mike Parent, I would really appreciate anything further that you’d be willing to share on this topic, including (but not solely) its relationship to APA’s public stance on masculinity (tbh I’m worried about getting the words wrong so am trying to be general here). I recognize the intellectual and emotional labor that this entails. With gratitude.

I think some of the mythicopoet dudes used the phrase toxic masculinity really early but so far as I can tell it didn’t have a really clear meaning there.
Kupers and a few people studied it as an extreme misogyny / homophobia (sort of; it actually has more to do with presenting oneself as some kind of alpha male hetero being rather than dislike for gay people per se) / zero sum competitiveness within highly dysfunctional prison systems (eg prison systems in which rape is literally used to earn social capital and to crush others). The idea was ported to a few other highly dysfunctional contexts such as violently dysfunctional fraternities or workplaces in which sexual harassment and assault occurred.
That work is a few decades old and it sort of faded out. It seemed to have been picked up again, I can’t tell from where, as a strange version of the original concept in places like Buzzfeed and Jezebel and Reddit where it means things like sitting with your knees apart. We don’t usually use the term in masculinity research; I used it once in a recent paper when we were looking at rumination over dysfunctional online behaviors (heh.) but it was because I was using that specific Kupers triad in the paper.
The APA guidelines never use the phrase toxic masculinity. You might think they do, because the weird alt right criticisms that were not based on, you know, actually reading the thing, said it did. The guidelines are pretty pedestrian and just describe how traditional masculine socialization can be limiting (like, hey maybe being so afraid of expressing emotion that you’re not able to say “I love you” to you own children is not healthy). That’s not really a big deal; the guidelines for practice with women do the same thing w gender role socialization and eating pathology but that’s so obvious it might not even seem to be a parallel to many people.

Thanks for asking so nicely, though my earlier sarcastic post was more of a reaction to someone who seemed to be demanding from others what they would not give others.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

I think some of the mythicopoet dudes used the phrase toxic masculinity really early but so far as I can tell it didn’t have a really clear meaning there.
Kupers and a few people studied it as an extreme misogyny / homophobia (sort of; it actually has more to do with presenting oneself as some kind of alpha male hetero being rather than dislike for gay people per se) / zero sum competitiveness within highly dysfunctional prison systems (eg prison systems in which rape is literally used to earn social capital and to crush others). The idea was ported to a few other highly dysfunctional contexts such as violently dysfunctional fraternities or workplaces in which sexual harassment and assault occurred.
That work is a few decades old and it sort of faded out. It seemed to have been picked up again, I can’t tell from where, as a strange version of the original concept in places like Buzzfeed and Jezebel and Reddit where it means things like sitting with your knees apart. We don’t usually use the term in masculinity research; I used it once in a recent paper when we were looking at rumination over dysfunctional online behaviors (heh.) but it was because I was using that specific Kupers triad in the paper.
The APA guidelines never use the phrase toxic masculinity. You might think they do, because the weird alt right criticisms that were not based on, you know, actually reading the thing, said it did. The guidelines are pretty pedestrian and just describe how traditional masculine socialization can be limiting (like, hey maybe being so afraid of expressing emotion that you’re not able to say “I love you” to you own children is not healthy). That’s not really a big deal; the guidelines for practice with women do the same thing w gender role socialization and eating pathology but that’s so obvious it might not even seem to be a parallel to many people.

Thanks for asking so nicely, though my earlier sarcastic post was more of a reaction to someone who seemed to be demanding from others what they would not give others.

Genuine chef’s kiss for this info. I think I also know the pain of my psych sister who made the first request. It hurts to be disregarded because we don’t know the exactly right words. I bet this is a universal hurt.

 

[PsyDr]

Hi @PsyDr , sincere question: why should we take as a given that our current social environment is relatively static?

Re: your questions about personality/temperament: to be as empirical as possible in terms of OCEAN: I am open to new (even and especially uncomfortable) experiences, highly conscientious, selectively extroverted, pretty disagreeable by temperament, and I will cut anyone who calls me neurotic.

IMO: psychology is neither sociology nor any sort of social planning field. While society is mildly changing, nothing seems like a radical departure, given all the possible ways in which humans could live. It seems to me that psychologists (and psychiatrists) end up losing credibility when they attempt to "change society". Seems a throwback from the 60s, where Rogers almost took us out of the entire getting paid by insurance. Most CBT and even psychoanalysis focuses upon helping the individual to be as adaptive as possible in the environment at hand. Remember, Darwinism is about the survival of the most adaptable, not strongest.

The OCEAN question is something I think was being peripherally discussed by Stella, which may be more of the heart of your discussion. There is clear evidence that some big 5 traits are correlated with gender. But, I don't think this is a uniquely gender issue.

That being said, overcoming the negative effects of personality traits would seem more desirable for any gender, rather than having others accommodate the effects of those traits. Someone on the severe side of A, male or female, would still benefit from learning how to be assertive in contract negotiations, psychotherapy, and even defending themselves in legal proceedings. Someone with high N, male or female, with factor loading on volatility would likely benefit from learning to at least hide this, rather than demand their coworkers, patients, family, and friends just suck it up.

 

[Justanothergrad]

IMO: psychology is neither sociology nor any sort of social planning field. While society is mildly changing, nothing seems like a radical departure, given all the possible ways in which humans could live. It seems to me that psychologists (and psychiatrists) end up losing credibility when they attempt to "change society". Seems a throwback from the 60s, where Rogers almost took us out of the entire getting paid by insurance. Most CBT and even psychoanalysis focuses upon helping the individual to be as adaptive as possible in the environment at hand. Remember, Darwinism is about the survival of the most adaptable, not strongest.

The OCEAN question is something I think was being peripherally discussed by Stella, which may be more of the heart of your discussion. There is clear evidence that some big 5 traits are correlated with gender. But, I don't think this is a uniquely gender issue.

That being said, overcoming the negative effects of personality traits would seem more desirable for any gender, rather than having others accommodate the effects of those traits. Someone on the severe side of A, male or female, would still benefit from learning how to be assertive in contract negotiations, psychotherapy, and even defending themselves in legal proceedings. Someone with high N, male or female, with factor loading on volatility would likely benefit from learning to at least hide this, rather than demand their coworkers, patients, family, and friends just suck it up.

I agree with you about the traits being corrected with, but not ultimately a big determination of, personality. FFM differences by gender, ethnicity, age, etc are largely meaningless in terms of their effect sizes. That doesn't deflate the Internalizing/Externalizing differences that emerge moving beyond the normative range of personality, but it highlights your general point about the need to focus on adaptive function regardless of gender.

As an aside, I hate the CANOE/OCEAN/etc acronyms. Factor extractor order matters after all. But that's a topic for another thread.

 

[cara susanna]

I want to say that I think requesting men to respectfully step back so the women can voice their viewpoints first on a thread that is, essentially, asking for the viewpoints of women about the climate of this forum is not the same as "muting" an entire gender. No one's stopping people from posting in terms of rules - this thread is a prime example of that. My understanding is that, although it was not phrased the most diplomatically, OP was just asking if other women on this board felt the same way as she did.

 

[StellaB]

I want to say that I think requesting men to respectfully step back so the women can voice their viewpoints first on a thread that is, essentially, asking for the viewpoints of women about the climate of this forum is not the same as "muting" an entire gender. No one's stopping people from posting in terms of rules - this thread is a prime example of that. My understanding is that, although it was not phrased the most diplomatically, OP was just asking if other women on this board felt the same way as she did.

Completely agree.

Also, re: adapting to the environment / the supposed stasis of said environment: there is a balance between the need for assimilation / adaptation by non-majority individuals and the need for assimilation / adaptation for majority. Especially as our society reaches a tipping point in the coming decades with shifts of power slowly making their way through via the diversification of our population and forward striving of women. Accommodating different communication styles and seeking input from those who aren’t consistently the loudest is just something the majority might have to learn to adapt to, in order to be the most successful in the changing environment.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I want to say that I think requesting men to respectfully step back so the women can voice their viewpoints first on a thread that is, essentially, asking for the viewpoints of women about the climate of this forum is not the same as "muting" an entire gender. No one's stopping people from posting in terms of rules - this thread is a prime example of that. My understanding is that, although it was not phrased the most diplomatically, OP was just asking if other women on this board felt the same way as she did.

Asking someone to wait for others to respond is substantially different than asking for those of a certain group to respond. The later is focused on inviting inclusion, the former is not because the goal is to limit (if even for a limited amount of time) the participation of another group. You can ask for participation without asking for exclusion. Women clearly have a very valuable viewpoint on the environment here. So do men. So does everyone.

 

[deleted106747]

I don't see anything wrong with asking men to hold off until the female perspective is delivered. I don't see anything wrong in another thread asking women to hold off until the male perspective is delivered. It's not shutting down communication; it's offering a space for a perspective based on a category, then opening up the discussion.

There is an unfortunate dynamic on this board that seems to confuse the concept of personal responsibility with the language of blame. I am a strong believer in personal responsibility as well as the concept that although certain things are not our fault, we still are responsible to deal with them. However, when someone comes to this board with a genuine concern and the response is blaming, that shuts down discourse. For example, awhile ago someone came here asking for tips on how to navigate a large six figure debt. I understand the horrified reaction from some posters, but piling on with insults is pointless. It's already done. She wasn't considering taking out the six figure debt, she already had it. So why rub salt in the wound? Just give her tips if you have them, and otherwise talk to someone else offline about her choices. And continue on here to advise people who are considering the debt to not do it - while the power of that choice is still theirs.

As for me, I'm a female board certified licensed psychologist in a supervisory position. I'm saying that not to toot my own horn, but to relay why some responses get frustrating to me. I posted a question awhile ago asking colleagues on this board for their language in communicating their unique positions and expertise to colleagues that basically don't understand how we are different than counselors, social workers and so on. The initial responses I got (from male posters) were along the lines of, well why are you different? Why do you think you'd have anything else to offer your job than a social worker? As if I'd never thought of that. The tone was condescending, the post derailed my question, and it was frustrating. Because I'm not a newbie and I don't want to be talked to like one. As for gender, if Jon Snow had posted that same question, I suspect he would have gotten respectful responses and be spoken to like an equal. Is it entirely based on gender? I don't know. But I do believe that factor is at play to some degree.

Women get messages to shut up all the time. That's just our reality. Words like "hysterical" or "emotional" are used. When I started one of my jobs, I was professional, polite, and competent. When a social worker was hired to work under me, the head of the department described me to him as "Very competent. Emotional, but competent." I had become angry once, when he said he would not provide me a space to work in, saying I'd have to come in early and find out who had called off sick and work in their office for the day, every day. No, I did not scream, I did not cry, I did not threaten. I simply became angry and advised him & someone else in leadership that I would be leaving the position if they could not provide me as a licensed psychologist a space to work. But that was the result of female justified anger. I'm emotional. Of course, the social worker was wary of me for awhile which did not make my job any easier. This is not an isolated incident. Stuff like this has been occurring to me or others my entire career. A psychiatrist using my first name to a patient, and referring to me as a "girl" would be the most recent. It gets frustrating. And when it's mirrored on this forum, I think it takes courage to point it out. For the males who are thinking that this isn't gendered, I'd ask you to try to think of the last time someone called you emotional, hysterical, or a "boy."

That said, yes, it goes too far. People grab power and use it. In my graduate program, one person in particular used categories to justify their (yes this grammatically incorrect but I don't want to reveal too much) standpoint on everything and became the tone police for the entire department while getting away with egregious behavior themselves. It was horrid. There was no discourse after a certain point. Everyone would sit silently in class. It baffled new professors coming in. No one felt comfortable communicating when they were there, so no one did. And no one learned from others' experiences, which was really sad.

That's not happening on this forum. The fact that this thread exists and people feel comfortable responding makes that point. Thank you, @msgeorgeeliot, for posting it.

 

[Sanman]

There is an unfortunate dynamic on this board that seems to confuse the concept of personal responsibility with the language of blame. I am a strong believer in personal responsibility as well as the concept that although certain things are not our fault, we still are responsible to deal with them. However, when someone comes to this board with a genuine concern and the response is blaming, that shuts down discourse. For example, awhile ago someone came here asking for tips on how to navigate a large six figure debt. I understand the horrified reaction from some posters, but piling on with insults is pointless. It's already done. She wasn't considering taking out the six figure debt, she already had it. So why rub salt in the wound? Just give her tips if you have them, and otherwise talk to someone else offline about her choices. And continue on here to advise people who are considering the debt to not do it - while the power of that choice is still theirs.

As for me, I'm a female board certified licensed psychologist in a supervisory position. I'm saying that not to toot my own horn, but to relay why some responses get frustrating to me. I posted a question awhile ago asking colleagues on this board for their language in communicating their unique positions and expertise to colleagues that basically don't understand how we are different than counselors, social workers and so on. The initial responses I got (from male posters) were along the lines of, well why are you different? Why do you think you'd have anything else to offer your job than a social worker? As if I'd never thought of that. The tone was condescending, the post derailed my question, and it was frustrating. Because I'm not a newbie and I don't want to be talked to like one. As for gender, if Jon Snow had posted that same question, I suspect he would have gotten respectful responses and be spoken to like an equal. Is it entirely based on gender? I don't know. But I do believe that factor is at play to some degree.

Not sure about gender being any part of it for me, in the way you suggest at least. I don't think I knew you were female until this post (not sure I thought about it).

That may be part of the issue though. Communication styles do vary with gender. Guys get told to 'suck it up and stop whining' all the time, including in this thread. So, I do wonder if some harshness has to do with who you 'think' the poster is rather than the reality.

 

[deleted106747]

Not sure about gender being any part of it for me, in the way you suggest at least. I don't think I knew you were female until this post (not sure I thought about it).

That may be part of the issue though. Communication styles do vary with gender. Guys get told to 'suck it up and stop whining' all the time, including in this thread. So, I do wonder if some harshness has to do with who you 'think' the poster is rather than the reality.

Like I said, maybe or maybe not. I haven't posted about my dissertation yet, but yes, styles do vary by gender. Personally, I've never wanted to get to the point where I think I know everything, so I will ask for advice which may lead to that sort of response. But should it? Also, I believe the people who did respond are aware of my gender.

I'm the mother of a boy, so I think a lot about how he is being socialized as well. There is a lot that concerns me about what boys are taught is acceptable and what is not.