The Coddling of the American Mind

[Pragma]

Read this interview recently and I wanted to post it for comment re: free speech on college campuses:

Greg Lukianoff on 'The Coddling of the American Mind' - The Atlantic

As a professor, I see some truth to the trends mentioned.

From the article:

In that story, “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Lukianoff, a First Amendment lawyer and the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (fire), and Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, observed that “in the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like,” and argued that capitulating to requests to banish certain ideas from classrooms and campus events would likely increase student anxiety and depression, rather than ameliorate it.

Three years later, political polarization has only increased, as has anxiety among young people. And unrest on college campusescontinues. “Everything’s speeding up,” Lukianoff says. Haidt and Lukianoff recently published a book, also titled The Coddling of the American Mind, where they go into more detail about the three “Great Untruths” they believe are behind free-speech controversies at America’s universities:

• “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker,” or the idea that exposure to offensive or difficult ideas is traumatic
• “Always trust your feelings,” or the notion that feeling upset by an idea is a reason to discount it
• “Us versus them,” or homogenous tribal thinking that leads people to shame those whose views fall outside that of their group

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted343839]

I think there are some truths here also, though I also suspect many of these proclamations are magnified by straw man arguments, demonstrating the author's point perhaps in a way that is unintended. College professors are historically one of America's favorite cultural punching bags, so there is this knife's edge separating anti-intellectualism and intellectual activism.

Maybe the book is more nuanced though - have you read it? (I haven't.)

Related: try Galileo's Middle Finger by Alice Dreger.

 

[Pragma]

I think there are some truths here also, though I also suspect many of these proclamations are magnified by straw man arguments, demonstrating the author's point perhaps in a way that is unintended. College professors are historically one of America's favorite cultural punching bags, so there is this knife's edge separating anti-intellectualism and intellectual activism.

Maybe the book is more nuanced though - have you read it? (I haven't.)

Related: try Galileo's Middle Finger by Alice Dreger.

Thanks for the rec - I will check that out!

No I’ve not read the book but came across the article in The Atlantic over lunch recently. The general “untruths” I pasted were interesting to me because I’ve made similar observations over several years. The intolerance for other messages and the black and white thinking about sociopolitical ideologies (and labeling that results) are usually what I see on my campus.

 

[MCParent]

I actually don’t feel like I see a lot of this. I teach a class with some potentially controversial content (human sexuality), but nothing has ever come up (I do put the sexual assault material online so people can go through it on their own without it being conspicuous that they missed that class). The campus organizations I’ve been involved with have been social justice oriented, but have never been in favor of trying to shut other people down (the opposite, actually, in making efforts to engage with other groups on some common grounds when possible).

In class I think a lot of it has to do with how you present controversial topics. If you make *everyone* have to defend their positions, and say why you’re doing that, I think it goes over better.

Also, big white male. I don’t know if that makes it different.

 

[PsyDr]

People all never heard of the term “academic freedom”, the 1940 statement, the Meyers v U Missouri case, or the more recent David Healy v u of Toronto....

 

[Pragma]

People all never heard of the term “academic freedom”, the 1940 statement, the Meyers v U Missouri case, or the more recent David Healy v u of Toronto....

Yes we recently had to review some of this material to update a policy at my institution.

I don’t encounter it so much in class, as there are not a lot of politically-charged topics in my courses, and a lot of my students are nontraditional. But I notice it around campus and when I’ve sat on committees where students participate.

 

[Sanman]

More to the issue, I think that campuses are not free/safe spaces, but rather more consumer-focused spaces. As college tuition rises, students are getting more savvy about the fact that they are the customer to be pacified rather than the student that is judged . There are a lot of issues besides free speech on campus, such as being barred from failing students, that contributes to them being coddled. The issues being discussed seem like sx of that customer-centric attitude.

 

[WisNeuro]

More to the issue, I think that campuses are not free/safe spaces, but rather more consumer-focused spaces. As college tuition rises, students are getting more savvy about the fact that they are the customer to be pacified rather than the student that is judged . There are a lot of issues besides free speech on campus, such as being barred from failing students, that contributes to them being coddled. The issues being discussed seem like sx of that customer-centric attitude.

All about them Benjamins. As state and federal funding for education continue to decrease, more money is made up from loans and other funding sources. Need to keep butts in the seats. somehow. If you fail those students out early, you're missing out on years of tuition.

 

[deleted343839]

More to the issue, I think that campuses are not free/safe spaces, but rather more consumer-focused spaces. As college tuition rises, students are getting more savvy about the fact that they are the customer to be pacified rather than the student that is judged . There are a lot of issues besides free speech on campus, such as being barred from failing students, that contributes to them being coddled. The issues being discussed seem like sx of that customer-centric attitude.

Bingo. And no one has perfected the art of grade groveling and complaints to administration like the children of the donor class.

 

[Pragma]

Bingo. And no one has perfected the art of grade groveling and complaints to administration like the children of the donor class.

Or alternatively, “I didn’t plagiarize - the professor is racist. I didn’t get an A because of their racism.”

A newer phenomenon but I’ve observed it happening more often at my institution (which is very liberal and highly diverse). But to be fair, that’s not the typical approach taken by students - it just seems to come up more often lately based on discussions with colleagues (both white and POC).

 

[deleted343839]

Or alternatively, “I didn’t plagiarize - the professor is racist. I didn’t get an A because of their racism.”

A newer phenomenon but I’ve observed it happening more often at my institution (which is very liberal and highly diverse). But to be fair, that’s not the typical approach taken by students - it just seems to come up more often lately based on discussions with colleagues (both white and POC).

I've not personally encountered this form of grade groveling but it's been a popular bogeyman in my part of the country for a couple of decades.

 

[Pragma]

I've not personally encountered this form of grade groveling but it's been a popular bogeyman in my part of the country for a couple of decades.

it’s happened to me once. It was in the context of a student plagiarizing the same assignment more than once after being given a clear explanation and opportunity to rewrite, then turning in the same thing again. The allegation came after I gave them a zero. Seemed mostly like a last resort. There was a grievance procedure that the student dropped and later on they agreed that they had plagiarized. But it cost me some time documenting all interactions (as is always the case with plagiarism).

But I have colleagues (even people of color) that have gotten these allegations right out of the gate. I think it is the direction the culture is moving.

I think it is ultimately applying explanatory value to legitimate concerns about systematic sexism, racism, etc. in a ubiquitous/monolithic way without giving sufficient weight to other explanations or perspectives that is troubling within the broader academic culture. There’s defitely heterogeneity between institutions but the skew is obvious.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

surprised we haven't had more Jordan P discussion on this board lol

 

[WisNeuro]

surprised we haven't had more Jordan P discussion on this board lol

Oh god, please don't bring the Incel culture into this one.

 

[MCParent]

I've seen a lot more vague and unclear syllabi than I've seen grade groveling students. Some of the professors who complain about it have labyrinthian syllabi, don't include rubrics, etc.

 

[Sanman]

Or alternatively, “I didn’t plagiarize - the professor is racist. I didn’t get an A because of their racism.”

A newer phenomenon but I’ve observed it happening more often at my institution (which is very liberal and highly diverse). But to be fair, that’s not the typical approach taken by students - it just seems to come up more often lately based on discussions with colleagues (both white and POC).

Not plagarism, but a similar issue happened to a good friend of mine. Two students complained about him to the dept chair after he let them know that they would be failing his class. They complained that given their circumstances they should be given the chance to make up the work (both working class, one hispanic female). This was after not showing up to more than two classes during most of the semester and missing the mid-term. He was told by the chair that he was to allow them to make up the the work and that he was not allowed to fail them in so many words (messing up his grading schedule as an adjunct teaching 5 classes at two different schools). He resigned from that gig at the end of the semester.

 

[Pragma]

I've seen a lot more vague and unclear syllabi than I've seen grade groveling students. Some of the professors who complain about it have labyrinthian syllabi, don't include rubrics, etc.

Not plagarism, but a similar issue happened to a good friend of might. Two students complained about him to the dept chair after he let them know that they would be failing his class. They complained that given their circumstances they should be given the chance to make up the work (both working class, one hispanic female). This was after not showing up to more than two classes during most of the semester and missing the mid-term. He was told by the chair that he was to allow them to make up the the work and that he was not allowed to fail them in so many words (messing up his grading schedule as an adjunct teaching 5 classes at two different schools). He resigned from that gig at the end of the semester.

There are definitely things that certain professors are not clear about (typically ones that have been around for awhile) that help prevent some of these issues - clarity in syllabi, rubrics, applicable assignments, etc.

But you also have to consider the demographic and contextual characteristics of the student body. I work at a minority-serving institution with a lot of first-generation college students and nontraditional students from lower SES backgrounds. I routinely spend a lot of time speaking with students that clearly haven't had guidance with how to approach coursework, frequently granting extensions for students who have socioeconomic problems mid-semester, and providing some professional development advice to help them approach future work more effectively. It's probably a much bigger part of my job where I am than it is for professors at other institutions, but I have no problem with this role given the needs of the student body. "Grade groveling" in my institutional context is often for financial reasons - which might explain why grade inflation seems even worse here than it does at neighboring institutions.

 

[Sanman]

There are definitely things that certain professors are not clear about (typically ones that have been around for awhile) that help prevent some of these issues - clarity in syllabi, rubrics, applicable assignments, etc.

But you also have to consider the demographic and contextual characteristics of the student body. I work at a minority-serving institution with a lot of first-generation college students and nontraditional students from lower SES backgrounds. I routinely spend a lot of time speaking with students that clearly haven't had guidance with how to approach coursework, frequently granting extensions for students who have socioeconomic problems mid-semester, and providing some professional development advice to help them approach future work more effectively. It's probably a much bigger part of my job where I am than it is for professors at other institutions, but I have no problem with this role given the needs of the student body. "Grade groveling" in my institutional context is often for financial reasons - which might explain why grade inflation seems even worse here than it does at neighboring institutions.

To be more clear, my friend works with lower SES and non-trad students all the time. This was at a private 4 yr school (non-competitive) and the students had not shown up to class in more than two months and had already missed the mid-term. My friend routinely makes exceptions for those that struggle and need help including allowing multiple re-writes of papers and flexible office hours to improve grades. He much prefers that community college where he works for the diverse backgrounds and people willing to work hard. However, he also believes it is important to take responsibility for your actions because this would never cut it in the real world. The many others he teaches were able to speak to him about specific issues and receive accommodations. Most importantly, they bothered to show up.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I once had a student that complained about my teaching of the efficacy of antidepressant medication. Not the merits of the evidence but that it made this student feel bad. I feel I provide a very balanced examination and not a rabid antipsychiatry point of view. I found the comments very curious. Was I supposed to not teach about this? Was I supposed to provide a warning? I've had other smaller examples but this was most blatant.

I don't know if this is a trend or an anomaly. I do not have any evidence that this phenomenon has become more prevalent.

 

[clausewitz2]

I’ve never encountered grade groveling.

What I encounter is more a blanket assumption of political ideology, a perception of freedom to rip and make fun of the right side of the aisle and a strong tendency for no counter perspectives to be offered to left of the aisle statements. But, that’s primarily amongst faculty and graduate students in my experience.

You must not teach a lot of premeds

 

[Pragma]

I’ve never encountered grade groveling.

What I encounter is more a blanket assumption of political ideology, a perception of freedom to rip and make fun of the right side of the aisle and a strong tendency for no counter perspectives to be offered to left of the aisle statements. But, that’s primarily amongst faculty and graduate students in my experience.

This has been my experience too - but at a traditional university. My institution also has a very strong union presence, which has pros and cons. Two of the cons are very proactive and vocal opposition to alternative viewpoints on most political matters (and public shaming of alternative views), and an “us vs. them” mentality that characterizes interactions with administration in a more hostile manner than seems necessary to me. It’s a bit disappointing because it only feeds the trends noted in the book/article.

You must not teach a lot of premeds

I haven’t spent much time teaching at a medical school aside from guest lecturing, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find more political diversity there.

 

[clausewitz2]

This has been my experience too - but at a traditional university. My institution also has a very strong union presence, which has pros and cons. Two of the cons are very proactive and vocal opposition to alternative viewpoints on most political matters (and public shaming of alternative views), and an “us vs. them” mentality that characterizes interactions with administration in a more hostile manner than seems necessary to me. It’s a bit disappointing because it only feeds the trends noted in the book/article.

I haven’t spent much time teaching at a medical school aside from guest lecturing, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find more political diversity there.

I was talking about groveling. I think there probably is more diversity ideologically in a medical school than many top-tier undergrad institutions, since medicine is one of the acceptable career paths for people who are good at science but have very strong religious beliefs that don't sit well with most non-clinical academics.

If you’re referencing groveling, the premeds I have worked with and given grades to have all been in the context of directed individual study and honors thesis work and they’ve been awesome. Work hard. Care about what they’re doing.

As someone who has taught premeds at the university level and then actually became one, you have gotten very lucky. Whining about grades and grubbing for points is a major past-time for most. There are good reasons for why this is the case but the subculture is very obnoxious in this respect.

 

[GenSurgONLY]

Take a look at the ford thread. Apparently, this place is a hive of misogynistic thought.

Could easily be seen as “ideas we don’t like such as presumption of innocence” = misogyny. Seems consistent with protection from ideas or so called “safe
spaces.”

Yes. Groupthink is a killer of intellect. Funny because as a survivor one side seems to be psychic as to how many of us feel in regards to Ford. It’s no wonder some don’t seek mental health just from lurking through posts on here.

Had a friend tell me that his “psychologist” allowed their political ideas to permeate into his paid sessions. So much so, he left for someone else. That’s crossing a professional line.

 

[WisNeuro]

The coddling and intellectual turtling down is not a college campus phenomenon, that's just a convenient punching bag that plays well in certain media. It's more a symptom of the runs to the edges by large segments of the population. People curate their news feeds to what they want to hear that plays into their myopic worldview. Then, people will shoehorn things to fit their preconceived narrative, rather than taking in information and making a decision from that. Heck, we even saw a doctoral level individual make up facts about PTSD to fit an already come to conclusion. Some of it is regular ol cognitive biases, but a lot of it is just the direction the country has drifted in recent years.

 

[Pragma]

The coddling and intellectual turtling down is not a college campus phenomenon, that's just a convenient punching bag that plays well in certain media. It's more a symptom of the runs to the edges by large segments of the population. People curate their news feeds to what they want to hear that plays into their myopic worldview. Then, people will shoehorn things to fit their preconceived narrative, rather than taking in information and making a decision from that. Heck, we even saw a doctoral level individual make up facts about PTSD to fit an already come to conclusion. Some of it is regular ol cognitive biases, but a lot of it is just the direction the country has drifted in recent years.

Disagree, there is something very unique about college campuses that cultivates this phenomenon. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen outside of that context.

I work at one and you could consider me a “closet moderate” because of the vitriol that is considered acceptable to dish out on a day to day basis against any non-leftist viewpoint. Your political positions and how politically active you are in the union even factors into tenure decisions (unofficially).

Hell someone even got shouted down at a committee meeting for suggesting the use of electronic candles instead of open flames at campus protests to make them more manageable for the fire department and safer for all involved.

 

[WisNeuro]

Heh.

Certainly there are biases. I am biased. I freely admit that. I didn’t make anything up regarding ptsd.

Seriously, man. You mischaracterized traumatic memories in PTSD several times. Even clinicians/providers with a passing interest in PTSD could have called out the blatant issues. It was pretty bad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Disagree, there is something very unique about college campuses that cultivates this phenomenon. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen outside of that context.

I work at one and you could consider me a “closet moderate” because of the vitriol that is considered acceptable to dish out on a day to day basis against any non-leftist viewpoint. Your political positions and how politically active you are in the union even factors into tenure decisions (unofficially).

I think college campuses are a particular environment that lends itself to the phenomenon taking place, I agree. But, it's an extension of the issue, not the etiology of the issue. I think both sides do it, just in different arenas. I'm no fan of censorship, as long as it is not advocating/inciting violence. If anything, the recent college culture of blocking certain talkers has just made those people more popular and financially successful, it's a stupid tactic on the part of the protestors. For many of these, just let them have the talk and see about 12 people show up. But, the shutting out of different viewpoints is hardly the domicile of just one ideological viewpoint.

 

[WisNeuro]

BS.

I have interviewed people with ptsd who could literally take you to the spot where it happened, tell you exactly what they did after, who they talked to, etc. It is not abnormal. Neither is what ford presented. My only point was in that that you could spin almost any scenario relative to presentation of detail and you likely would in this situation based on political affiliation. To argue otherwise strains credulity.

BS indeed. At several points you claimed her testimony was incompatible with PTSD. You got called out on it several times, and just brushed it aside and changed your tune.

 

[Pragma]

I think college campuses are a particular environment that lends itself to the phenomenon taking place, I agree. But, it's an extension of the issue, not the etiology of the issue. I think both sides do it, just in different arenas. I'm no fan of censorship, as long as it is not advocating/inciting violence. If anything, the recent college culture of blocking certain talkers has just made those people more popular and financially successful, it's a stupid tactic on the part of the protestors. For many of these, just let them have the talk and see about 12 people show up. But, the shutting out of different viewpoints is hardly the domicile of just one ideological viewpoint.

But it is ubiquitous in those settings. I think you are minimizing it way too much and you definitely are not close to it.

 

[WisNeuro]

Did not do so.

I said she provided nothing that could be corroborated that had been corroborated. I never said she didn’t have ptsd or that her story was inconsistent with ptsd. If I gave that impression it was unintentional.

I'd urge you to go back and re-read the quotes. Many things about "There's nothing here that should lead anyone to believe this." At times you did use corroborate, but many times you intimated that not remembering certain details was evidence of her lack of veracity.

 

[WisNeuro]

But it is ubiquitous in those settings. I think you are minimizing it way too much and you definitely are not close to it.

I definitely agree with you that it is ubiquitous there. I just don't think it's the cause of the problem, I think it's a symptom of the problem.

 

[Pragma]

I definitely agree with you that it is ubiquitous there. I just don't think it's the cause of the problem, I think it's a symptom of the problem.

I’d say it’s both - but not sure we’ll settle that one. Not the sole etiology but part of it for some.

 

[WisNeuro]

I’d say it’s both - but not sure we’ll settle that one. Not the sole etiology but part of it for some.

We'll talk it out over at Clutch

 

[WisNeuro]

Correct. Believe equals evidence that moves you from he said she says. I referenced the lack of details as a problem for moving the needle beyond she said.

It wasn't about moving the needle, you intimated that her account was not consistent with PTSD and thus a lie. Not that there wasn't enough to corroborate, but that she was lying. It definitely seemed like the needle was moved, just in the direction of disbelief for you, rather than an agnostic, we don't know middle ground.

 

[WisNeuro]

Didn’t. But whatever you say.

You do you, man.

 

[clausewitz2]

It’s more of a consequence of who seeks out doing research in a demanding lab in my opinion.

Yeah I was talking about teaching them, like, you know, in a class.

 

[clausewitz2]

There are grades in a lab.

Why is it so hard for you to sit with the idea that maybe your experience isn't actually normative?

 

[foreverbull]

Didn’t. But whatever you say. I strongly feel that uncorroborated claims shouldn’t derail a political appointment.

Okay. But later in that thread, you disagreed with Wisneuro when he said he believed that the claims warranted anindeoendent investigation. As you said before, Ford only came forward as a political move and it was “pointless.” All it takes from the accused is a simple “no” answer, no reported assault history for BK, and lack of witnesses to corroborate for you to completely dismiss Ford’s claims because of the political timing, despite admitting that reporting assault generally doesn’t go well for women in this country (you seemed more concerned about how it goes for the accused, however, saying Clarence Thomas’ reputation is bad despite his position of high power in this country as a sitting judge even after Hill’s allegation because of some websites that bash him).

You admitted that you were very skeptical from the start, which is not a balanced approach to truth-seeking. You’re not the only person approaching the hearings in this way, of course (on either side of the spectrum) but it certainly doesn’t bode well for folks who’ve experienced sexual assault in this country or encourage people who’ve experienced sexual assault to speak up when folks say it’s “pointless” if it happened many years ago and they can’t remember every detail perfectly AND they aren’t allowed to report it at a certain time because it will be seen as “politically-motivated.”

The only other witness, Judge, would be strongly motivated to not corroborate if he participated and there’s no statute of limitations in the state. Doesn’t make his word any more valid (or BK’s word, for that matter), than Ford’s claim.

 

[Pragma]

I’m mourning the loss of my thread. Can we please get back to complaining about coddled students?

I was in an interesting meeting recently where campus protests were being discussed. There was discussion of limiting unplanned/spontaneous protests to particular locations on campus, generally outdoors or in certain common areas. Rationale was to give the police/authorities a heads up for bigger planned protests and to be sure the university could adequately prepare spaces as appropriate around campus. Also to allow the University to still function while still allowing spontaneous protests.

Faculty were outraged, indicated that students would not be able to shut down controversial conservative speakers at will if there were any location restrictions placed on them.

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

someone in the other thread argued that using terms like “cisgender” is an indicator of cultural competence and not a reflection of political ideology. While I can relate to that in the context of therapy, I disagree in the context of everyday parlance. Use of that terminology in real life is a pretty solid indicator of radical left political perspective.

But why though? I was confused when you said this earlier too. I just don’t get what’s so radical about this word unless you don’t believe in the concept of “cisgender.”

 

[MCParent]

It’s not about whether I believe it or not. It’s about where the language comes from. I would never use that term in casual conversation unless I was talking to a trans person and likely only in a therapeutic environment.

I think the idea is that those of us who can advocate for something without risking being threatened for it (this is, to me, a relevant and accurate use of "privilege") DO use terms like that in conversation with others, so that they DO ask what it means. That's why cisgender people put the "he/him/his"/"she/her/hers" pronouns in their email signatures along with a "what are these" link, or wear the same buttons at APA. Trans people alone should not be the only ones who have to tell everyone what transgender means.

 

[foreverbull]

A feminist glossary because we didn't all major in gender studies


It’s not about whether I believe it or not. It’s about where the language comes from. I would never use that term in casual conversation unless I was talking to a trans person and likely only in a therapeutic environment.
There’s nothing particularly wrong with the term but if it’s part of your normal lexicon I think it’s a pretty good proxy indicator of political ideology.

I'm confused about what you're saying here. I looked at the definitions, and I"m not sure what we're supposed to be taking away from the definition of cisgender. Because it is used by feminists in certain circles, it isn't a term for everyone else to use in everyday conversation and means that you're a radical leftist if you do?

 

[Pragma]

Alright well since my thread went the shreds .

I don't know JS personally but I do know that over the past ~7 years on this forum since I joined, he has usually been a voice of reason on most issues and has been a very helpful contributor. I think that JS made a mistake by saying that using language like patriarchy, cisgender, and misogyny meant that someone was a part of a radical political group. That is overstating things and I hope that he can recognize that. That said, I think it might be an issue of semantics and heated discussion. I'm going to make another post to try to address some of that in the near future. But I appreciate everyone's genuine curiosity and interest in understanding each other's point of views that I have seen so far in this thread.

 

[Pragma]

In the vein of this thread, maybe I should signal virtues or do something to approximate that.


I learned a lot growing up after I left my homogenous neighborhood, and leaned heavily politically left for a long time during and after college, upsetting my white evangelical parents. Things that turned me off initially (circa initial post-9/11 war protests) were the violence in language and demeanor at war protests. I was against the wars but didn’t want to be associated with the anti-war movement because of how ridiculous the things they said were. They burned effigies of George W. and chanted “**** the President” over and over, and I could not see how that was useful at all towards convincing others to take them seriously.


In graduate school, I went through a pretty intense process of understanding my privilege through close relationships with others that were part of minority groups (women, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, etc). I questioned the term privilege through the lens of someone that had to deal with a lot of socioeconomic burdens (trauma, alcoholic parent, family bankruptcy, bailing out the family through student loans, yada yada yada), but still maintained a vividly clear understanding of how I was being treated differently by patients, colleagues, and students as a white heterosexual male due to systemic problems with racism, sexism, etc. That’s some real **** and I don’t question it at all. There is different treatment and it happens.


But nowadays, the emphasis on understanding these issues seems to fall apart by suggesting that racism, sexism, etc. are explanatory variable for any human problem. “I got fired from my job – racism”. “I didn’t get the grade I wanted – sexism”. I don’t discount the fact that some of these things happen and are the result of racism or sexism, because I am 100% sure that they do. But what I do question is the extent to which people take personal responsibility for their situations as opposed to blaming others.


After having several years of life/professional experiences, to question how these terms are utilized as a teacher/clinician seems to sometimes on this forum mean that you will get labeled as bigot in some way. Dialogue should be there. I am sympathetic to these issues and try to make sure I think about them with every client I deal with, as cultural competence is a lifelong process and I have not hesitated to pick up the phone to ask some of my colleagues (people of color and sexual minorities) if I have a blind spot or might be somehow insensitive.

 

[deleted106747]

My apologies relative to the thread but I actually think it is relevantly, part of the coddling and some of the divide we see on college campuses versus “real life.”

Some of this has to do with language. I have no problem with the terms or concepts. But, look how “misogyny” was applied in the other thread. I don’t think using the term “misogyny” means you’re part of a radical left group. I do think it’s a good indicator when you’re using it because you’re angry that people are arguing for presumption of innocence and gender equality.

“Mansplain” is a gender hostile term, also employed in the other thread, from the same general vernacular tree that is again a language attribute common to the coddled safe space crowd often used to aggressively shut down positions that are not part of the echo chamber.

But, aside from those things, I think outside of academic circles and very left leaning parts of the world you will not find people speaking that way. And, it’s not because they’re bigots or need to be “woke.” I think part of the coddling here is a creation of “other” via language choices that become commonplace in one group and not so in another.

I could be wrong, but that’s what I see.

I guess it doesn't appear to me that the language creates the "other" - the other was created a long time ago by who got opportunities and who didn't. I recognize that postmodern analysis of this does lead to broad categories; that being said, the history of art, literature, politics, music, science - somehow largely comparatively lacks females (among other demographics). So was it the language or historical norms that created the "other" - is the creation of the language not reactive? Or is it some blend of both?
In a similar vein, I get the gendered hostility of "mansplain." I think part of the problem is that these terms do get tossed around like weapons when they aren't necessarily happening and they can be used to shut people down. But it's nuanced also. It does happen. For example, I've been working out for twenty years but I still get approached by men in an instructive manner about what kinds of exercise I'm doing and why (unsolicited). Stuff like that gets pretty darn annoying, and even more annoying is when I get annoyed and then get called an angry feminist. Flip side is, there was someone in my grad program that used his/her demographics as a get out of jail free card for every nasty thing she/he said or did. It was horrible and there was no discourse. Which I do think is relevant to this thread.
To much ad hominem on both sides.

 

[biscuitsbiscuits]

A feminist glossary because we didn't all major in gender studies

It’s not about whether I believe it or not. It’s about where the language comes from. I would never use that term in casual conversation unless I was talking to a trans person and likely only in a therapeutic environment.

There’s nothing particularly wrong with the term but if it’s part of your normal lexicon I think it’s a pretty good proxy indicator of political ideology.

I'm still confused. "Cisgender" just means the opposite of "transgender" and is apparently credited to a biologist in 1994 (I just looked it up because I didn't know where it came from precisely). Took too long to keep saying "not transgender, the opposite of transgender" I guess? What word would you prefer to use to communicate that someone is not transgender?

It would be a part of anyone's lexicon inasmuch as they'd need to use it. You know? I have two sisters. One is a trans woman. So maybe it comes up more for me than it would for you. But if you had occasion to use it, casually or not, I guess I just don't understand what the objection would be.

 

[GenSurgONLY]

BS.

I have interviewed people with ptsd who could literally take you to the spot where it happened, tell you exactly what they did after, who they talked to, etc. hell, I can think of one right now that also included a moderate traumatic brain injury and hours of unconsciousness after the event. It is not abnormal. Neither is what ford presented. My only point was in that that you could spin almost any scenario relative to presentation of detail and you likely would in this situation based on political affiliation. To argue otherwise strains credulity.

Thank you! As someone who was sexually assaulted (with PTSD) I can remember everything! The smell, the room, the chair, what I was wearing, etc. I know a real testimony about one’s accounts when I see one(look at the gymnasts who came out against Larry Nassar. Those are tears and anguish.)I will say it again and again that Ford is manipulative and lying. Women are abusers too! I.e Asia Argento.

Thanks for going against the groupthink!

 

[WisNeuro]

Interesting that you rail against the claim that people speak for you, and then you turn around and proceed to speak for all sexual assault victims erroneously. Groupthink, indeed.

 

[GenSurgONLY]

Okay. But later in that thread, you disagreed with Wisneuro when he said he believed that the claims warranted anindeoendent investigation. As you said before, Ford only came forward as a political move and it was “pointless.” All it takes from the accused is a simple “no” answer, no reported assault history for BK, and lack of witnesses to corroborate for you to completely dismiss Ford’s claims because of the political timing, despite admitting that reporting assault generally doesn’t go well for women in this country (you seemed more concerned about how it goes for the accused, however, saying Clarence Thomas’ reputation is bad despite his position of high power in this country as a sitting judge even after Hill’s allegation because of some websites that bash him).

You admitted that you were very skeptical from the start, which is not a balanced approach to truth-seeking. You’re not the only person approaching the hearings in this way, of course (on either side of the spectrum) but it certainly doesn’t bode well for folks who’ve experienced sexual assault in this country or encourage people who’ve experienced sexual assault to speak up when folks say it’s “pointless” if it happened many years ago and they can’t remember every detail perfectly AND they aren’t allowed to report it at a certain time because it will be seen as “politically-motivated.”

The only other witness, Judge, would be strongly motivated to not corroborate if he participated and there’s no statute of limitations in the state. Doesn’t make his word any more valid (or BK’s word, for that matter), than Ford’s claim.

If she lies to the FBI, she is just as much on the hook. Criminal charges should be brought because it slaps in the face of survivors like myself. I can’t stand false accusations and there should be consequences for such actions(I.e UVA rape story). I have never met a fellow survivor who can’t recall key details of a sexual assault. Some “minor gaps in details like maybe the day of the week”, possible, but not even remembering who took you your home(only one who knows the address could do that). That’s one of many discrepancies.

To assume all survivors feel a certain way about this case is exactly what Joe is talking about.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have never met a fellow survivor who can’t recall key details of a sexual assault.

Really? I've met dozens who can't. A mountain of literature would also back this up.