Which perspectives are welcome here?

[StellaB]

---

Members do not see this ad.

As I understood the OP, the request was for the first X number of responses to be from self-identified female posters. While I’m sure that rankled people, I’m not sure why that has been interpreted as “no men allowed, ever!”

There is a certain type of exhaustion that comes with having to explain every detail of your experience when it isn’t the dominant / perceived “standard” (ie white, straight, male in many circles). Sometimes people just want to have their experiences believed without having a public rectal exam.

I’m curious about the posters here who seem rankled by the overall theme of this thread: why is this topic so bothersome? Especially since there are a lot of us on here who are not trying to tone-police in the sense of forcing you to stop being snarky?

If the point is to say, hey, this behavior is well within your rights, but also it’s a bummer, at times seems anathema to the goal of SDN (“helping students”), and is generally perceived to be unwelcoming, do you have any response to that? Because if it’s just not a concern to you, then why is this thread a concern? Just ignore the whole thing, we can’t kick you off the forum, what difference does it make to you personally?

 

[WisNeuro]

@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]

Responding to comments aimed at me, is not bothering someone as I define it. I will not refrain from responding to a conversation of which I am a part of. That is an unreasonable request, and merely constitutes a roundabout method of trying to censor someone and shut down discussion. I can be asked to not tag people. That is a reasonable request.

 

[WisNeuro]

Because if it’s just not a concern to you, then why is this thread a concern? Just ignore the whole thing, we can’t kick you off the forum, what difference does it make to you personally?

I would imagine most anyone would wish to engage in a conversation in which that person or group of people are explicitly "called out." The level of concern probably varied greatly from perception of personal affronts, to a genuine desire to engage in conversation to better understand the concepts being discussed.

 

[deleted480308]

As I understood the OP, the request was for the first X number of responses to be from self-identified female posters. While I’m sure that rankled people, I’m not sure why that has been interpreted as “no men allowed, ever!”

There is a certain type of exhaustion that comes with having to explain every detail of your experience when it isn’t the dominant / perceived “standard” (ie white, straight, male in many circles). Sometimes people just want to have their experiences believed without having a public rectal exam.

I’m curious about the posters here who seem rankled by the overall theme of this thread: why is this topic so bothersome? Especially since there are a lot of us on here who are not trying to tone-police in the sense of forcing you to stop being snarky?

If the point is to say, hey, this behavior is well within your rights, but also it’s a bummer, at times seems anathema to the goal of SDN (“helping students”), and is generally perceived to be unwelcoming, do you have any response to that? Because if it’s just not a concern to you, then why is this thread a concern? Just ignore the whole thing, we can’t kick you off the forum, what difference does it make to you personally?

I think accusations need to be addressed.

“This forum is treating women unfairly and I don’t want any men to speak until I get x number of women to reply” has a number of things in it that deserve substantiation and questioning. Partially for verification and partially to identify things to be addressed if verified.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

Responding to comments aimed at me, is not bothering someone as I define it. I will not refrain from responding to a conversation of which I am a part of. That is an unreasonable request, and merely constitutes a roundabout method of trying to censor someone and shut down discussion. I can be asked to not tag people. That is a reasonable request.

That’s a thoughtful compromise. Thanks for offering it.

 

[Sanman]

As I understood the OP, the request was for the first X number of responses to be from self-identified female posters. While I’m sure that rankled people, I’m not sure why that has been interpreted as “no men allowed, ever!”

There is a certain type of exhaustion that comes with having to explain every detail of your experience when it isn’t the dominant / perceived “standard” (ie white, straight, male in many circles). Sometimes people just want to have their experiences believed without having a public rectal exam.

I’m curious about the posters here who seem rankled by the overall theme of this thread: why is this topic so bothersome? Especially since there are a lot of us on here who are not trying to tone-police in the sense of forcing you to stop being snarky?

If the point is to say, hey, this behavior is well within your rights, but also it’s a bummer, at times seems anathema to the goal of SDN (“helping students”), and is generally perceived to be unwelcoming, do you have any response to that? Because if it’s just not a concern to you, then why is this thread a concern? Just ignore the whole thing, we can’t kick you off the forum, what difference does it make to you personally?

I think for many of us, such a request is a slippery slope to stifling conversation and personal freedom. Does that mean all of us can start a thread and mandate only that agree with us contribute? At the end of the day, you can start a thread. However, everyone is free to respond, that is why the OP cannot remove people.

On the flip side, how would it feel if I made a post suggesting the women here are too sensitive and I only want hear from men about it?

 

[StellaB]

I would imagine most anyone would wish to engage in a conversation in which that person or group of people are explicitly "called out." The level of concern probably varied greatly from perception of personal affronts, to a genuine desire to engage in conversation to better understand the concepts being discussed.

I did not realize you had been specifically called out, my bad.

 

[WisNeuro]

That’s a thoughtful compromise. Thanks for offering it.

Of course, though I'd say it's less of a compromise and more just following the TOS. Blatant re-tagging a handle has been used as harassment before in the SPF forums and constitutes a clear TOS violation. It does nothing to advance a discussion and is solely used as harassment. It's dumb and childish.

I will however, refuse to abide by any direct call to censor what I consider reasonable responses within a discussion. I will also defend that right to everyone here, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. I believe that people like to lump some groups together and falsely assume were a monolith that moves in lockstep. Anyone who has been here for a while will know that real history. Several of us on here have been on the same and opposing sides of many debates. I've argued quite vehemently against erg before, against sb247 before, among many others. 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. One of the reasons I tend to call out the lazy character attacks that persist in such threads. People are allowed to disagree with each other and still like each other.

 

[foreverbull]

I’m still waiting to hear why when the OP asked for female respondents first, others stepped in immediately. It sounds like (from what has been said so far) some feathers got ruffled so to speak (supposedly because of semantics) and is worth exploring further.

Is this really just an issue of how it was worded (semantics — I.e. men were “called out”), or was it somehow upsetting that a woman asked for women to speak first?

Point being, if @msgeorgeeliot had simply mentioned that she was curious about power and gender in this forum and wished to hear from 10 women first, would male posters have responded right away anyway? And if so, why?

The bigger question is, would it ever have been okay to ask for a certain group to answer without others stepping in right away? Because stepping in without specific knowledge/experience to answer to certain questions IS a pattern substantiated in here by certain posters at times, and one that I’m genuinely curious about in terms of motivations.

 

[StellaB]

I think accusations need to be addressed.

“This forum is treating women unfairly and I don’t want any men to speak until I get x number of women to reply” has a number of things in it that deserve substantiation and questioning. Partially for verification and partially to identify things to be addressed if verified.

What would qualify in your eyes as sufficient “verification”? I am asking this in good faith, because I want to be heard but I’m not sure I can picture how this process of verification would be completed in this format without a little leap of faith or trust on your (collective) part.

 

[WisNeuro]

I did not realize you had been specifically called out, my bad.

It was a broader comment. Though, while I have been called out, both directly and indirectly, I still stand that it is unreasonable to request that anyone refrain from commenting, even if comments are not aimed particularly at them.

 

[WisNeuro]

The bigger question is, would it ever have been okay to ask for a certain group to answer without others stepping in right away? Because stepping in without specific knowledge/experience to answer to certain questions IS a pattern substantiated in here by certain posters at times, and one that I’m genuinely curious about in terms of motivations.

The idea that those posters have no specific experience/knowledge is in itself a topic which could be debated hotly over many dozens of forum pages.

 

[StellaB]

On the flip side, how would it feel if I made a post suggesting the women here are too sensitive and I only want hear from men about it?

Since that’s a topic that comes up all around women in many spaces, all our lives, and the pain is especially sharp in these particularly trying political times, I think it would probably feel at once familiar and overwhelmingly sad.

 

[foreverbull]

The idea that those posters have no specific experience/knowledge is in itself a topic which could be debated hotly over many dozens of forum pages.

Perhaps we could debate that point, but meanwhile the broader discussion would be lost in the service of debating it.

Could you speak to the questions?

 

[WisNeuro]

Could you speak to the questions?

Which specific question? There are dozens of unanswered questions in this thread.

 

[Sanman]

Since that’s a topic that comes up all around women in many spaces, all our lives, and the pain is especially sharp in these particularly trying political times, I think it would probably feel at once familiar and overwhelmingly sad.

I think that cuts both ways in these times. Telling people (men in this case) that this is one more place they need to monitor their behavior can be triggering. Especially for those of us that never did anything particularly wrong in the first place. We all have a history.

 

[deleted480308]

I’m still waiting to hear why when the OP asked for female respondents first, others stepped in immediately. It sounds like (from what has been said so far) some feathers got ruffled so to speak (supposedly because of semantics) and is worth exploring further.

Is this really just an issue of how it was worded (semantics — I.e. men were “called out”), or was it somehow upsetting that a woman asked for women to speak first?

Point being, if @msgeorgeeliot had simply mentioned that she was curious about power and gender in this forum and wished to hear from 10 women first, would male posters have responded right away anyway? And if so, why?

The bigger question is, would it ever have been okay to ask for a certain group to answer without others stepping in right away? Because stepping in without specific knowledge/experience to answer to certain questions IS a pattern substantiated in here by certain posters at times, and one that I’m genuinely curious about in terms of motivations.

I would assume so, because the effort to mute an entire gender (even if it’s pitched as temporary) isn’t something that should be abided.

What would qualify in your eyes as sufficient “verification”? I am asking this in good faith, because I want to be heard but I’m not sure I can picture how this process of verification would be completed in this format without a little leap of faith or trust on your (collective) part.

If someone is saying women are being systematically treated wrongly due to being women i would expect a link to that happening. It’s not an unfair level of investigation. It’s been asked for here and immediately dismissed as an overbearing request, it isn’t

 

[foreverbull]

Which specific question? There are dozens of unanswered questions in this thread.

The ones in the same post you responded to.

I’m still waiting to hear why when the OP asked for female respondents first, others stepped in immediately. It sounds like (from what has been said so far) some feathers got ruffled so to speak (supposedly because of semantics) and is worth exploring further.

Is this really just an issue of how it was worded (semantics — I.e. men were “called out”), or was it somehow upsetting that a woman asked for women to speak first?

Point being, if @msgeorgeeliot had simply mentioned that she was curious about power and gender in this forum and wished to hear from 10 women first, would male posters have responded right away anyway? And if so, why?

The bigger question is, would it ever have been okay to ask for a certain group to answer without others stepping in right away? Because stepping in without specific knowledge/experience to answer to certain questions IS a pattern substantiated in here by certain posters at times, and one that I’m genuinely curious about in terms of motivations.

 

[WisNeuro]

The ones in the same post you responded to.

About why people responded to the original post? I doubt there is any one answer. I imagine some people saw a deliberately provocative post and responded in kind. I imagine some of those posters would respond in a similar manner no matter what the content was, because that it how things have pretty much always gone here. I'd also guess that as it is a hot button issue, with poorly defined and broad definitions, it would happen in pretty much any setting, particularly when presented in a way in which provocation was likely intentional. Probably other reasons people responded, you'd have to ask them personally for their own motivations and such. Or, you can do as other posters have done and infer whatever motivation you wish to confirm what you want to believe.

 

[StellaB]

I would assume so, because the effort to mute an entire gender (even if it’s pitched as temporary) isn’t something that should be abided.

If someone is saying women are being systematically treated wrongly due to being women i would expect a link to that happening. It’s not an unfair level of investigation. It’s been asked for here and immediately dismissed as an overbearing request, it isn’t

The link is all the women on here saying that this is our perception. Let’s not pretend this is a trial with consequences. No one is going to jail or even getting shunned from SDN. I think it’s a problem, as the OP asked, that a big number of women have this perception of this forum. Whether it’s true or not, a lot of people seem to feel this way, and I think that’s worth addressing without a grand jury process

 

[WisNeuro]

The link is all the women on here saying that this is our perception. Let’s not pretend this is a trial with consequences. No one is going to jail or even getting shunned from SDN. I think it’s a problem, as the OP asked, that a big number of women have this perception of this forum. Whether it’s true or not, a lot of people seem to feel this way, and I think that’s worth addressing without a grand jury process

I would refrain from using "all women here" as that is actually not the case. Just as "all men" here do not share the same beliefs.

 

[foreverbull]

About why people responded to the original post? I doubt there is any one answer. I imagine some people saw a deliberately provocative post and responded in kind. I imagine some of those posters would respond in a similar manner no matter what the content was, because that it how things have pretty much always gone here. I'd also guess that as it is a hot button issue, with poorly defined and broad definitions, it would happen in pretty much any setting, particularly when presented in a way in which provocation was likely intentional. Probably other reasons people responded, you'd have to ask them personally for their own motivations and such. Or, you can do as other posters have done and infer whatever motivation you wish to confirm what you want to believe.

Thanks for the response, but I actually meant to my post that you specifically responded to about people posting without knowledge (in which I asked if it’s ever okay for people to ask members of a group to respond first and whether it was about semantics or something else). Those questions were what I was particularly curious about if you could go back to them.

 

[WisNeuro]

Thanks for the response, but I actually meant to my post that you specifically responded to about people posting without knowledge (in which I asked if it’s ever okay for people to ask members of a group to respond first and whether it was about semantics or something else). Those questions were what I was particularly curious about if you could go back to them.

I am generally not in agreement in restricting anyone's comment in any public forum, for any topic. I do think if a restricted topic is desired, a private group is the way to go. For example, a comment could have been made about who wishes to participate in a private discussion to be added to a PM group. And, if after a discussion is had, if members wish to have a more open community discussion, another thread can be created.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

I would refrain from using "all women here" as that is actually not the case. Just as "all men" here do not share the same beliefs.

I don’t think Stella’s intention was to suggest that all self-identified women on this thread share the same beliefs. That’s obviously untrue. I read it as “all the women (but not #allwomen) who disclosed that they are troubled by certain patterns of interaction constitute the evidence you are requesting”

#notallmen
#notallwomen
#notallhumanswhosegenderIDisdifferent

Welcome to SDN Psychology: Weekend Edition

I appreciate how this thread is evolving and hope it continues

 

[foreverbull]

I would assume so, because the effort to mute an entire gender (even if it’s pitched as temporary) isn’t something that should be abided.

I think how you interpreted this was interesting. A onetime request for women to respond first before men was seen as an attempt to “mute” men rather than an attempt to encourage women to respond and men responding as well, just a little later. Not fully censoring a group, but asking for responses later. Not even in every thread, but simply one thread.

Does that mean you don’t ever think it’s okay to request that people from a certain background or with a certain kind of experience to respond first ever in this forum?

I think we’re getting at the foundation of the differences in perspectives here. I don’t have a problem not stepping in when there’s a discussion about neuropsych assessments or other areas out of my expertise or when folks ask for people with a specific experience/background to answer, which sometimes happens and seems like a reasonable request as long as it’s not every single thread (and my experience has been that it isn’t every thread in here anyway, so this doesn’t seem to be an issue for me). Other folks see this differently, perhaps?

 

[StellaB]

I would refrain from using "all women here" as that is actually not the case. Just as "all men" here do not share the same beliefs.

What I meant was: all of the women on this thread who are saying this are the link.

 

[WisNeuro]

What I meant was: all of the women on this thread who are saying this are the link.

Fair enough, that makes sense.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I am generally not in agreement in restricting anyone's comment in any public forum, for any topic. I do think if a restricted topic is desired, a private group is the way to go. For example, a comment could have been made about who wishes to participate in a private discussion to be added to a PM group. And, if after a discussion is had, if members wish to have a more open community discussion, another thread can be created.

I think this is a reasonable compromise, but I suspect it'll also get some side eye because why should they have to go elsewhere to have a discussion? That theme seems to be common in today's world (in the USA), but I'm not sure there is an easy solution because the divide on many issues is becoming more and more polarized/extreme.

 

[StellaB]

I think this is a reasonable compromise, but I suspect it'll also get some side eye because why should they have to go elsewhere to have a discussion? That theme seems to be common in today's world (in the USA), but I'm not sure there is an easy solution because the divide on many issues is becoming more and more polarized/extreme.

The problem with a private discussion is that it will be invisible to people who want to lurk or who might come across it in the future.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think this is a reasonable compromise, but I suspect it'll also get some side eye because why should they have to go elsewhere to have a discussion? That theme seems to be common in today's world (in the USA), but I'm not sure there is an easy solution because the divide on many issues is becoming more and more polarized/extreme.

I can empathize with this notion, but, if you are having a conversation in a wholly public arena, everyone in that arena is a potential participant. It is that way in every public forum, internet, or IRL. No one is saying that the conversation can't take place at all, they just can't limit it to certain participants, particularly when the conversation is about everyone in the arena.

 

[deleted480308]

The link is all the women on here saying that this is our perception. Let’s not pretend this is a trial with consequences. No one is going to jail or even getting shunned from SDN. I think it’s a problem, as the OP asked, that a big number of women have this perception of this forum. Whether it’s true or not, a lot of people seem to feel this way, and I think that’s worth addressing without a grand jury process

”whether it’s true or not”.....that’s something that would need to be established

I think how you interpreted this was interesting. A onetime request for women to respond first before men was seen as an attempt to “mute” men rather than an attempt to encourage women to respond and men responding as well, just a little later. Not fully censoring a group, but asking for responses later. Not even in every thread, but simply one thread.

Does that mean you don’t ever think it’s okay to request that people from a certain background or with a certain kind of experience to respond first ever in this forum?

I think we’re getting at the foundation of the differences in perspectives here. I don’t have a problem not stepping in when there’s a discussion about neuropsych assessments or other areas out of my expertise or when folks ask for people with a specific experience/background to answer, which sometimes happens and seems like a reasonable request as long as it’s not every single thread (and my experience has been that it isn’t every thread in here anyway, so this doesn’t seem to be an issue for me). Other folks see this differently, perhaps?

You are correct that I would always oppose a desire to silence an entire gender/sex/orientation/religion. Temporary or not is irrelevant to me

 

[StellaB]

I can empathize with this notion, but, if you are having a conversation in a wholly public arena, everyone in that arena is a potential participant. It is that way in every public forum, internet, or IRL. No one is saying that the conversation can take place at all, they just can't limit it to certain participants, particularly when the conversation is about everyone in the arena.

No one was trying to absolutely limit it. Look, I agree that the suggestion was provocative and I can understand why that ruffled feathers. But let's not be black and white about it - asking someone to hold off so that others with potentially similar experiences could come forward before the tribunal process got started does not equal silencing the other posters forever. On the one hand, there are a lot of legitimate questions about the complaints raised on this thread. On the other, there is a negative reaction to the idea that the complainers should be able to try and discuss, describe, and outline the parameters of the problems as we see them before answering pointed questions about them. It gives me the impression that there is a lack of curiosity, and an attempt to circle the wagons and stifle discussion, whether that is the intention or not.

 

[StellaB]

”whether it’s true or not”.....that’s something that would need to be established

And who do you propose should serve as the trier of fact? This idea is not feasible on its face.

 

[WisNeuro]

No one was trying to absolutely limit it. Look, I agree that the suggestion was provocative and I can understand why that ruffled feathers. But let's not be black and white about it - asking someone to hold off so that others with potentially similar experiences could come forward before the tribunal process got started does not equal silencing the other posters forever. On the one hand, there are a lot of legitimate questions about the complaints raised on this thread. On the other, there is a negative reaction to the idea that the complainers should be able to try and discuss, describe, and outline the parameters of the problems as we see them before answering pointed questions about them. It gives me the impression that there is a lack of curiosity, and an attempt to circle the wagons and stifle discussion, whether that is the intention or not.

I don't think all, or even most of the posters are trying to stifle discussion. If anything, I imagine many people are trying to expand the discussion and clarify some things out of curiosity, particularly when ill defined concepts and comments are made about specific groups. Once again, teh reasons are more nuanced and multifactorial than many want to see or admit to themselves.

 

[deleted480308]

And who do you propose should serve as the trier of fact? This idea is not feasible on its face.

Every user decides for themselves. But if the pitch to the users of the forum is “women here are mistreated and that’s why we don’t want to be here” it is germane to ask, “please show us who did what so that we can decide if we agree and then address it”. Maybe that’s a mod action if sever enough, maybe that’s the cohort largely telling someone to improve their behavior as peers, maybe it’s pointing out a miscommunication that wasn’t meant as mistreatment, maybe it’s telling someone they are wrong

So when an accusation is made, and in turn there is a call to action....there needs to be some fact finding

 

[StellaB]

Being snarky or cold to newcomers/students on SDN is well within your rights. But it’s also a bummer, at times seems anathema to the goal of SDN (“helping students”), and is generally perceived to be unwelcoming by a lot of people, particularly women.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I’m still waiting to hear why when the OP asked for female respondents first, others stepped in immediately. It sounds like (from what has been said so far) some feathers got ruffled so to speak (supposedly because of semantics) and is worth exploring further.

Among other things, I find it problematic when someone assumes that another group should not respond until called upon or, more extreme, that this board should have an informal policy in which people in a public forum should be required to be invited into a conversation in order to contribute to it. There is an assumption of value added to the conversation with a underlying purpose of stacking the deck against the group asked to remain out of the conversation for a period of time. Imagine starting a thread entitled "PhD versus PsyD" and then requesting that PsyD don't talk until PhD post a certain number of points. The idea is clearly emphasizing an 'us v them' mentality and creates a problematic discourse from the start because of that. I can't imagine that approach to discussion being welcomed if the earnest assumption is that both are equal contributors to the conversation.

 

[WisNeuro]

Being snarky or cold to newcomers/students on SDN is well within your rights. But it’s also a bummer, at times seems anathema to the goal of SDN (“helping students”), and is generally perceived to be unwelcoming by a lot of people, particularly women.

I think it is a question as to how prevalent this actually is within the forum. I do think it happens, but I also think the situation is set up often in which someone asks a question, gets defensive at reasonable replies that don't fit with what they wanted to hear, and lashes out, prompting the obvious snarky backlash.

 

[StellaB]

When a jury tries to figure out whether to believe a witness, one of the typical questions they might ask themselves is: what motive would this witness have to lie?

So, what motive would the people on this thread who are sharing their experiences have to lie here? There is no award. Honestly, I find it a bit embarrassing to be sharing these things, I don't like telling people that something hurts my feelings or makes me feel insecure.

 

[StellaB]

I think it is a question as to how prevalent this actually is within the forum. I do think it happens, but I also think the situation is set up often in which someone asks a question, gets defensive at reasonable replies that don't fit with what they wanted to hear, and lashes out, prompting the obvious snarky backlash.

I have certainly seen this a number of times. But I've also seen it where the - let's call ourselves "mature posters" - engage in snide comments at the outset, prompting the defensiveness and over-the-top, silly, and frankly sad, "money is no object!" arguments that then become a blood-in-the-water feeding frenzy with collateral damage.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Speaking for myself, I’ve often times seen “I only want members of X group to speak” mean in practice “I only want people who agree with me to speak” and people of that group who disagree with the person who made that request but who do fit X group membership are called out as not being gay/trans/female/disabled/POC/etc “enough” or simply being walking monuments to internalized sexism/homophobia/transphobia/ableism/racism/etc. it’s hard because internalized -isms are definitely a real thing and a problem but so are differing and varied opinions among members of the same broad group. It’s very tricky.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I have certainly seen this a number of times. But I've also seen it where the - let's call ourselves "mature posters" - engage in snide comments at the outset, prompting the defensiveness and over-the-top, silly, and frankly sad, "money is no object!" arguments that then become a blood-in-the-water feeding frenzy with collateral damage.

As a general rule, I want to state for the record I object formally to ever being called mature.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have certainly seen this a number of times. But I've also seen it where the - let's call ourselves "mature posters" - engage in snide comments at the outset, prompting the defensiveness and over-the-top, silly, and frankly sad, "money is no object!" arguments that then become a blood-in-the-water feeding frenzy with collateral damage.

That definitely happens at times, though I am not sure how that specifically applies to a conversation about gender, as the communication style seems to be a consistent thing, rather than directed at a specific perceived group. The amount of "damage" done is a debatable concept as I believe the terms victim and damage are applied far too loosely and are frankly insulting to people who are actually victimized.

 

[WisNeuro]

As a general rule, I want to state for the record I object formally to ever being called mature.

How about aged, wise, or senior member? 😉

 

[Justanothergrad]

How about aged, wise, or senior member? 😉

Wise?

Well. First time for everything I suppose.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

I think that cuts both ways in these times. Telling people (men in this case) that this is one more place they need to monitor their behavior can be triggering. Especially for those of us that never did anything particularly wrong in the first place. We all have a history.

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.

 

[PsyDr]

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 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.

 

[StellaB]

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.

I think she’s demonstrating the willingness to argue back; that’s what this whole thread is about, no?

My concern is that psychology as a whole is pretty overwhelmingly white and privileged, and given the nature of our work, this delegitimizes our whole field to a certain extent because the homogeneity of the perspectives is a serious weakness. If this is a site students are coming to for information about the field, as it was for me, we might be setting a pretty sad example at times, and exacerbating the issue of non dominant voices feeling that psychology isn’t the space for them. I also worry that it plays into the predatory for-profit schools’ marketing that good schools are overly elitist. So when I say “collateral damage,” I’m not referring to someone’s feelings being hurt (they’ll live), I’m referring to the death by a thousand cuts process of making the field of psychology seem hostile to minority voices.

 

[msgeorgeeliot]

There is a certain type of exhaustion that comes with having to explain every detail of your experience when it isn’t the dominant / perceived “standard” (ie white, straight, male in many circles). Sometimes people just want to have their experiences believed without having a public rectal exam.

Among other things, I find it problematic when someone assumes that another group should not respond until called upon or, more extreme, that this board should have an informal policy in which people in a public forum should be required to be invited into a conversation in order to contribute to it. There is an assumption of value added to the conversation with a underlying purpose of stacking the deck against the group asked to remain out of the conversation for a period of time. Imagine starting a thread entitled "PhD versus PsyD" and then requesting that PsyD don't talk until PhD post a certain number of points. The idea is clearly emphasizing an 'us v them' mentality and creates a problematic discourse from the start because of that. I can't imagine that approach to discussion being welcomed if the earnest assumption is that both are equal contributors to the conversation.

I want to juxtapose these two good points, as I basically agree with both of them despite their different flavors.

I also want to join with Stella in amplifying her point about exhaustion. That is why I made my OP and invited women to speak first. In doing so, I was conscious to *not* solicit a chorus of “YAS GIRL YAS.” I stated clearly that responders did not need to agree with me and that I just wanted to hear from them first, because many of my favorite voices here are often MIA. This is sometimes (as they have disclosed) because they also feel exhausted by dynamics in which gender *may* be a factor.

Due to my automatic habit of self-monitoring, I acknowledged that I would probably be put on blast for daring to ask for what I wanted. My OP was both sincere and a bit of a social experiment. And frankly, like Stella, I would also love to avoid talking about my hurt feelings, and then submitting to additional exhaustion in being asked to justify them.

 

[WisNeuro]

Field is definitely overwhelmingly white. Though, at least for the under 60 crowd, also predominantly female. As for this site, I think demographic variables are far too often assumed, sometimes quite falsely. It's already been brought up that some posters have been falsely labeled in one group or the other simply because of their viewpoints. Also, I don't think it's out of bounds for people to ask for examples of some of these "thousand cuts." Are these examples objective, subjective, unique to the field, or more broad?

Enjoyable discussion, but now I need to go out and enjoy the weather and get some pics of our infant apple picking. Later y'all.