Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Discuss applications to the clearing house (and to courses that are not in the clearing house system), screening assessments, interviews, reserve lists, places, etc. here
HWoody
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:14 am

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by HWoody » Tue May 14, 2019 5:51 pm

Good points. I wonder if it is even more nuanced than that. I am very much aware in certain BME communities, that the more able students will be pushed into the more traditional (read prestigous) healthcare roles such as medicine, pharmacy or dentistry, and there is a strong stigma in taking a psychology degree.
One way to test this theory may be to look at whether there are more BAME psychiatrists (who have obviously gone down the medical training route but must be interested in mental health) than clinical psychologists. Anecdotally it feels like there are more male psychiatrists than psychologists (maybe because it is better paid / perceived as more prestigious - so maybe that's where a lot of the male candidates go).

Advertisement
Pearson Clinical Assessment publishes a wide range of assessments to support psychology professionals including the Gold Standard Wechsler range. To view our range please visit: pearsonclinical.co.uk/cpf
mr0860
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:08 pm

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by mr0860 » Tue May 14, 2019 6:01 pm

lakeland wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 3:02 pm
No, because men are not disadvantaged as a group
Would you mind elaborating on this slightly? I assume you're referring to average earnings, but why is that the relevant metric to use for advantage/disadvantage? If we use other metrics with more of a direct link to mental health (e.g. completed suicides, homelessness), then there's good evidence to suggest that men are disadvantaged as a group.
lakeland wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 3:02 pm
They just choose not to apply for Psychology for various reasons.
Which reasons in particular, do you think? Are they substantively different to the reasons which lead women to not apply for Engineering?
lakeland wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 3:02 pm
Also, as JDan14 said, men are over-represented at senior CP levels (8B and above), so seems to me that if they choose this route, they're doing just fine.
I'm struggling to see how that's relevant for addressing the gender imbalance in current applicants.

HWoody
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:14 am

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by HWoody » Tue May 14, 2019 6:03 pm

In terms of age, I think this is far less important, but I'm prepared to be corrected on this. Training is one relatively short part of someone's career. Qualified Clinical Psychologists span a vast age range, so I think there is age diversity within the profession already.
I would disagree with this but then I'm biased as an older applicant! :-)

I think the key advantage of older applicants is bringing new skills and ideas into the profession, in the same way as most people are suspicious of "career politicians" who've never been outside of the political sphere, I think it is beneficial for the sector to have people enter from different walks of life.

Also I think it can be beneficial for service users to have some older people in junior CP / AP roles. For instance, I have a relative who has seen a psychologist complaining about seeing someone (I assume an AP) who looked like they'd 'just left school'.

Obviously young applicants get older so it's not an issue in the same way as other minorities, it's more that the older CPs traditionally will also probably be more senior / in management roles so potentially less accessible to service users.

AnsweringBell
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:01 am

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by AnsweringBell » Tue May 14, 2019 9:11 pm

mr0860 wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 6:01 pm

Would you mind elaborating on this slightly? I assume you're referring to average earnings, but why is that the relevant metric to use for advantage/disadvantage? If we use other metrics with more of a direct link to mental health (e.g. completed suicides, homelessness), then there's good evidence to suggest that men are disadvantaged as a group.
For the record, I kind of hate weighing in on this for the same reasons Lakeland mentioned about (absolutely correctly) not expecting marginalised people to do the labour to help get other people up to speed on issues they face. It's not our responsibility.

But, to my reading, what Lakeland is clearly saying here is that if the (small number) of men who enter into the profession are more often in positions of power (8C/8D) than female clinical psychologists... then men are not suffering the effects of discrimination in this profession. Their gender is not holding them back from progressing. No one's disputing the fact that there are serious problems that disproportionately impact men, and these are a cause for real concern here. But that's not the same thing that's being talked about. The reasons men may not be applying to psychology earlier on in their careers may be related to toxic ideas around caring professions and whose responsibility it should be to look after others (ie the women)... but the ones who choose to take this up... are they held back because they're men? The numbers don't suggest so.

The answer to the broader question being implied here is the same answer to the (ridiculous) question of whether white people can experience racism. Or if skinnier women can face the same discrimination that fat people do. The answer is no - because the systems of oppression in place that disadvantage marginalised groups from the gates don't apply here. You may experience prejudice and difficulties in various ways, but your gender isnt an extra barrier you have to overcome to get to the same place. This is what we have to consider when we look at disadvantage/advantage.

(I've spent 20 minutes writing this out and I'm actually a bit angry for feeling like I, or another woman, needs to do that. And at myself for being tempted to apologise for being vehement or passionate about this. And about the heavily conditioned assumptions about how I need to emotionally manage my message to be heard by a male audience.)

User avatar
Saf
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by Saf » Tue May 14, 2019 9:29 pm

mr0860 wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 6:01 pm
lakeland wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 3:02 pm
No, because men are not disadvantaged as a group
Would you mind elaborating on this slightly? I assume you're referring to average earnings, but why is that the relevant metric to use for advantage/disadvantage? If we use other metrics with more of a direct link to mental health (e.g. completed suicides, homelessness), then there's good evidence to suggest that men are disadvantaged as a group.
lakeland wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 3:02 pm
They just choose not to apply for Psychology for various reasons.
Which reasons in particular, do you think? Are they substantively different to the reasons which lead women to not apply for Engineering?
lakeland wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 3:02 pm
Also, as JDan14 said, men are over-represented at senior CP levels (8B and above), so seems to me that if they choose this route, they're doing just fine.
I'm struggling to see how that's relevant for addressing the gender imbalance in current applicants.

Men, specifically white, cisgendered straight men are the world's least disadvantaged group of people in the context of systemic oppression. This doesn't mean that this group of people does not experience adversities, but rather than these are not as a result of their social identities. This goes beyond earnings and literally affects every part of life.

Men are consistently less likely to apply for psychology from college onwards, this is different from facing barriers that make it difficult for women to apply for engineering ie systemic sexism, constructs of gender roles etc. Women aren't less likely to apply to engineering because of a matter of choice but as a result of the difficulties of entering a male-dominated field. Actually, the fact that men are over-represented in senior roles is very relevant. It shows that even in fields where men are largely under-represented, they still have access to more power and more pay. In fact, it highlights my previous points in that their gender does not pose as adversity in itself.

Given the diversities discussed in this post, it is concerning to me that "older" applicants, whatever this actually means and men are considered as less likely to get on the course. I know of many a cohort with trainees over the age of 40 and neither age nor being a man is systemically disadvantaged when it comes to dclin selection. Also neither of these groups of people are subject to internalised prejudice. We verbally make a big deal about the lack of diversity in CP but very often fail to acknowledge the role psychology had in the oppressing and dehumanising of ethnic minorities, particularly black people. We also fail to acknowledge the internalised biases of the selection process, which are very rarely led by non-white CP. Even if those on selection dont identify as racist, they fail to acknowledge that they are part of a system of institutionalised racism, which they absorb and benefit from, ie if we actively tried to increase the number of ethnic minorities on courses this would be experienced as taking these places from white applicants.

AnsweringBell
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:01 am

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by AnsweringBell » Tue May 14, 2019 9:33 pm

My reply can be ignored now. Saf's is the one.

mr0860
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:08 pm

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by mr0860 » Tue May 14, 2019 10:30 pm

AnsweringBell wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:11 pm
But, to my reading, what Lakeland is clearly saying here is that if the (small number) of men who enter into the profession are more often in positions of power (8C/8D) than female clinical psychologists... then men are not suffering the effects of discrimination in this profession. Their gender is not holding them back from progressing.
But presumably the people who now occupy the senior roles are those who initially trained a couple of decades ago, so how is it relevant to the current gender imbalance in recruitment?
AnsweringBell wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:11 pm
No one's disputing the fact that there are serious problems that disproportionately impact men, and these are a cause for real concern here. But that's not the same thing that's being talked about. The reasons men may not be applying to psychology earlier on in their careers may be related to toxic ideas around caring professions and whose responsibility it should be to look after others (ie the women)... but the ones who choose to take this up... are they held back because they're men? The numbers don't suggest so.
I'm not necessarily agreeing that that's the only or the most significant reason why men not be attracted to the profession, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is. Wouldn't that be a valid reason for male-only scholarships? After all, the justification for female-only scholarships in Engineering is that girls are exposed to toxic ideas that they're not suited to careers in STEM fields, so the incentives are a way of countering that. Why shouldn't the same apply in Psychology?
AnsweringBell wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:11 pm
...but your gender isnt an extra barrier you have to overcome to get to the same place. This is what we have to consider when we look at disadvantage/advantage.
But doesn't this depend on what metric we use? Sure, if we use career progression as our indicator of privilege, then it seems clear that women need to overcome additional barriers relative to men. But what about the various other areas in which men are pretty clearly at a disadvantage?
AnsweringBell wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:11 pm
(I've spent 20 minutes writing this out and I'm actually a bit angry for feeling like I, or another woman, needs to do that. And at myself for being tempted to apologise for being vehement or passionate about this. And about the heavily conditioned assumptions about how I need to emotionally manage my message to be heard by a male audience.)
Sorry that you feel angry, but that's up to you. I'm passionate about this topic too. I find it tragic that suicide is the biggest killer of men under 45 in the UK, and I think discussions around why men appear comparatively reluctant to engage with clinical psychology (as practitioners or as clients) is certainly pertinent to that issue. I don't really appreciate your implication that my input, which I don't think is particularly controversial, is to blame for your anger/guilt response.

mr0860
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:08 pm

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by mr0860 » Tue May 14, 2019 10:54 pm

Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:29 pm
Men, specifically white, cisgendered straight men are the world's least disadvantaged group of people in the context of systemic oppression. This doesn't mean that this group of people does not experience adversities, but rather than these are not as a result of their social identities. This goes beyond earnings and literally affects every part of life.
If the disadvantages which men experience are not as a result of their social identities, then what are they a result of? Take the gender imbalance in suicide, for example. The explanation which is offered quite frequently (typically by progressives rather than conservatives) is that society conditions men to repress their emotions, and to avoid seeking help when they're struggling. Isn't that a disadvantage which is experienced as a result of their social identity?
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:29 pm
Men are consistently less likely to apply for psychology from college onwards, this is different from facing barriers that make it difficult for women to apply for engineering ie systemic sexism, constructs of gender roles etc. Women aren't less likely to apply to engineering because of a matter of choice but as a result of the difficulties of entering a male-dominated field.
What explanation would you offer for why men choose not to apply for psychology then? If there are no societal barriers, then would it be down to some sort of innate difference in preferences between men and women?
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:29 pm
Actually, the fact that men are over-represented in senior roles is very relevant. It shows that even in fields where men are largely under-represented, they still have access to more power and more pay. In fact, it highlights my previous points in that their gender does not pose as adversity in itself.
But you're neglecting the fact that those who are now in senior roles entered the profession years and years ago, when there was less of a gender imbalance amongst Psychology students (perhaps it was even biased slightly towards men, as the majority of professions were). I'm not sure why you're regarding that statistic as being relevant to the current gender imbalance in recruitment.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:29 pm
Given the diversities discussed in this post, it is concerning to me that "older" applicants, whatever this actually means and men are considered as less likely to get on the course. I know of many a cohort with trainees over the age of 40 and neither age nor being a man is systemically disadvantaged when it comes to dclin selection. Also neither of these groups of people are subject to internalised prejudice.
Sorry, but the statistics that are collected by Clearing House are a little more compelling to me than your personal opinions about whether or not older people and men are systematically disadvantaged.

AnsweringBell
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:01 am

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by AnsweringBell » Tue May 14, 2019 11:40 pm

Because it would mean continued labour, I'm not going to reply to your individual points on either mine or Safs posts - because to me the points represent a fair few of the typical logical fallacies that suggest we won't be getting to a shared understanding on this topic anytime soon (if at all). And I'm not going to invest more time into that. But I'd like to beg you to please, especially clinically, when a person from a group that you're not a part of tells you their experience of the world (in a way that you'll likely never experience - e.g. different race, gender, socioeconomic group)... And that is a perspective that comes from a place of systemic oppression in one form or another... Accept that it's valid, even if you don't think it gels with your experience. Or fits in with your metrics. Listen. Try to assimilate other people's valid experiences into your world view without defensiveness, and maybe even consider where your own biases might have influenced your assessment of the information.

mr0860
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:08 pm

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by mr0860 » Tue May 14, 2019 11:43 pm

AnsweringBell wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:40 pm
I'd like to beg you to please, especially clinically, when a person from a group that you're not a part of tells you their experience of the world (in a way that you'll likely never experience - e.g. different race, gender, socioeconomic group)... And that is a perspective that comes from a place of systemic oppression in one form or another... Accept that it's valid, even if you don't think it gels with your experience. Or fits in with your metrics. Listen. Try to assimilate other people's valid experiences into your world view without defensiveness, and maybe even consider where your own biases might have influenced your assessment of the information.
Oh the irony!
Last edited by miriam on Wed May 15, 2019 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: user has been warned for this post. Men are not held back by systemic oppression, however they experience some negative effects of the very same patriarchal norms that feminists are striving to challenge

User avatar
Saf
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by Saf » Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm

mr0860 wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 10:54 pm
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:29 pm
Men, specifically white, cisgendered straight men are the world's least disadvantaged group of people in the context of systemic oppression. This doesn't mean that this group of people does not experience adversities, but rather than these are not as a result of their social identities. This goes beyond earnings and literally affects every part of life.
If the disadvantages which men experience are not as a result of their social identities, then what are they a result of? Take the gender imbalance in suicide, for example. The explanation which is offered quite frequently (typically by progressives rather than conservatives) is that society conditions men to repress their emotions, and to avoid seeking help when they're struggling. Isn't that a disadvantage which is experienced as a result of their social identity?
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:29 pm
Men are consistently less likely to apply for psychology from college onwards, this is different from facing barriers that make it difficult for women to apply for engineering ie systemic sexism, constructs of gender roles etc. Women aren't less likely to apply to engineering because of a matter of choice but as a result of the difficulties of entering a male-dominated field.
What explanation would you offer for why men choose not to apply for psychology then? If there are no societal barriers, then would it be down to some sort of innate difference in preferences between men and women?
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:29 pm
Actually, the fact that men are over-represented in senior roles is very relevant. It shows that even in fields where men are largely under-represented, they still have access to more power and more pay. In fact, it highlights my previous points in that their gender does not pose as adversity in itself.
But you're neglecting the fact that those who are now in senior roles entered the profession years and years ago, when there was less of a gender imbalance amongst Psychology students (perhaps it was even biased slightly towards men, as the majority of professions were). I'm not sure why you're regarding that statistic as being relevant to the current gender imbalance in recruitment.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 9:29 pm
Given the diversities discussed in this post, it is concerning to me that "older" applicants, whatever this actually means and men are considered as less likely to get on the course. I know of many a cohort with trainees over the age of 40 and neither age nor being a man is systemically disadvantaged when it comes to dclin selection. Also neither of these groups of people are subject to internalised prejudice.
Sorry, but the statistics that are collected by Clearing House are a little more compelling to me than your personal opinions about whether or not older people and men are systematically disadvantaged.
I'm not sure you understand social identities in the context of adversity. The very example you give is an extension of what I was previously saying. Men are taught to suppress their emotions and that it's "weak" to seek support because this is traditionally attributed to women in an attempt to position them as inferior. However, adversities experienced by men are not as a direct result of being considered the lesser gender. Men in senior positions did not enter the profession "years and years ago". The higher you get in the NHS, regardless of role, the more likely that those positions are filled with men. These are not opinions, these are facts. The fact that men are not systemically oppressed or subject to internalised biases is not "my personal opinion", they're patriarchial constructs with some very real life consequences.

It sounds like you're quite set on your ideas about men being disadvantaged in both the world and within psychology and reluctant to unpack this further. I am going to make the assumption that you are a white man and if psychology is the field you are in/intent to be in, you have some learning and reflecting to do about how your position is experienced by others, especially the people accessing your services. People in positions of power should understand systemic privileges and oppressions (and that's not even touching on intersectionality) and need to be able to look beyond themselves and think about how their social identity enables them to move through this world.

I won't be responding to you any further as it is laborious and it is not my responsibility to educate you on gender inequality.
Last edited by miriam on Wed May 15, 2019 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: User has been warned for this post. this post is sexist, antagonistic and disrespectful of other people's identities or minority characteristics

mr0860
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:08 pm

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by mr0860 » Wed May 15, 2019 9:21 am

I appreciate you've said you'e not going to reply again, and of course that is your right. However, I'll reply to this message as if we were continuing the discussion, because I think it's important not to allow your radical views on gender to go unchallenged. I think it's rather telling that you're not willing to directly defend your position by directly addressing any of my comments.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm
I'm not sure you understand social identities in the context of adversity. The very example you give is an extension of what I was previously saying. Men are taught to suppress their emotions and that it's "weak" to seek support because this is traditionally attributed to women in an attempt to position them as inferior.
So, in other words, men do experience a particular form of adversity as a result of their social identity? This is exactly what you said doesn't happen. Even if we accept your contention that this is a by-product of a patriarchal worldview designed to position women as inferior (which I don't, but just for the sake of argument), it does not in any way detract from the fact that men experience numerous disadvantages as a direct result of these societal expectations, just as women do.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm
Men in senior positions did not enter the profession "years and years ago".
No, of course not, these positions are just handed out as soon as you complete the DClin - but only if you're a man! What guff.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm
The fact that men are not systemically oppressed or subject to internalised biases is not "my personal opinion", they're patriarchial constructs with some very real life consequences.
But you've already admitted that men are subject to internalised biases, in that they're viewed as "weak" if they do not suppress their emotions. The very real life consequences of this are the striking gender differences that emerge with respect to completed suicides, to homelessness, to drug and alcohol abuse. That's not even to mention the gender differences which emerge in relation to other societal biases, such as the differences in overall life expectancy, in military deaths, in industrial deaths, in homicides, in prison sentencing, and so forth.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm
I am going to make the assumption that you are a white man..
Make whatever assumption you like, it's not really relevant.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm
...and if psychology is the field you are in/intent to be in, you have some learning and reflecting to do about how your position is experienced by others, especially the people accessing your services.
Do you really think my position is more fringe and radical than yours, especially amongst the general public? Outside the bubble of social science academia and Clinical Psychology (which, as we've seen, is a disproportionately white middle-class female profession), these views are seen as ludicrous and there's increasing backlash to them. For example, polling has suggested that fewer than 1 in 5 young women in the UK would describe themselves as feminist, although the majority agree with the principles of women's rights and gender equality.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm
People in positions of power should understand systemic privileges and oppressions (and that's not even touching on intersectionality) and need to be able to look beyond themselves and think about how their social identity enables them to move through this world.
Again, you're making the implicit assumption that "moving through the world" is more easy for men than it is for women. I assume that your metric for moving through the world is salary/seniority/power, where there are demonstrable gender differences. But why are these the only relevant gender differences? If life is so easy for men as a group, then why do we see these gender differences in suicide, homelessness, drug/alcohol abuse, overall life expectancy, and so on? Why can we not acknowledge that both women and men are disadvantaged by societal biases?

Furthermore, by focusing only on social identities, you're ignoring other group factors that might be more relevant for career progression (particularly socio-economic status) and you're also ignoring the role of individual experiences. Let's say that you're right in your assumption that I'm a white man (and let's throw in the idea that I'm cisgendered and heterosexual too), but we'll add in the caveats that I'm from a working-class family and experienced significant familial problems throughout my childhood. Now I'll make the assumption that you are an upper-middle-class, privately-educated white woman who had a stable upbringing, like many in the profession. If these two characterisations are accurate, then which of us faced the greater challenge in becoming a qualified Psychologist (or reaching any senior position)? Why should we only look through the lens of gender?
Last edited by miriam on Wed May 15, 2019 5:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: also, this post is antagonistic and disrespectful of other people's identities or minority characteristics

lakeland
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:18 pm

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by lakeland » Wed May 15, 2019 9:37 am

Actually deleting this because CBA to argue with a men's rights activist.

User avatar
Saf
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by Saf » Wed May 15, 2019 9:46 am

mr0860 wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 9:21 am
I appreciate you've said you'e not going to reply again, and of course that is your right. However, I'll reply to this message as if we were continuing the discussion, because I think it's important not to allow your radical views on gender to go unchallenged. I think it's rather telling that you're not willing to directly defend your position by directly addressing any of my comments.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm
I'm not sure you understand social identities in the context of adversity. The very example you give is an extension of what I was previously saying. Men are taught to suppress their emotions and that it's "weak" to seek support because this is traditionally attributed to women in an attempt to position them as inferior.
So, in other words, men do experience a particular form of adversity as a result of their social identity? This is exactly what you said doesn't happen. Even if we accept your contention that this is a by-product of a patriarchal worldview designed to position women as inferior (which I don't, but just for the sake of argument), it does not in any way detract from the fact that men experience numerous disadvantages as a direct result of these societal expectations, just as women do.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm
Men in senior positions did not enter the profession "years and years ago".
No, of course not, these positions are just handed out as soon as you complete the DClin - but only if you're a man! What guff.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm
The fact that men are not systemically oppressed or subject to internalised biases is not "my personal opinion", they're patriarchial constructs with some very real life consequences.
But you've already admitted that men are subject to internalised biases, in that they're viewed as "weak" if they do not suppress their emotions. The very real life consequences of this are the striking gender differences that emerge with respect to completed suicides, to homelessness, to drug and alcohol abuse. That's not even to mention the gender differences which emerge in relation to other societal biases, such as the differences in overall life expectancy, in military deaths, in industrial deaths, in homicides, in prison sentencing, and so forth.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm
I am going to make the assumption that you are a white man..
Make whatever assumption you like, it's not really relevant.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm
...and if psychology is the field you are in/intent to be in, you have some learning and reflecting to do about how your position is experienced by others, especially the people accessing your services.
Do you really think my position is more fringe and radical than yours, especially amongst the general public? Outside the bubble of social science academia and Clinical Psychology (which, as we've seen, is a disproportionately white middle-class female profession), these views are seen as ludicrous and there's increasing backlash to them. For example, polling has suggested that fewer than 1 in 5 young women in the UK would describe themselves as feminist, although the majority agree with the principles of women's rights and gender equality.
Saf wrote:
Tue May 14, 2019 11:54 pm
People in positions of power should understand systemic privileges and oppressions (and that's not even touching on intersectionality) and need to be able to look beyond themselves and think about how their social identity enables them to move through this world.
Again, you're making the implicit assumption that "moving through the world" is more easy for men than it is for women. I assume that your metric for moving through the world is salary/seniority/power, where there are demonstrable gender differences. But why are these the only relevant gender differences? If life is so easy for men as a group, then why do we see these gender differences in suicide, homelessness, drug/alcohol abuse, overall life expectancy, and so on? Why can we not acknowledge that both women and men are disadvantaged by societal biases?

Furthermore, by focusing only on social identities, you're ignoring other group factors that might be more relevant for career progression (particularly socio-economic status) and you're also ignoring the role of individual experiences. Let's say that you're right in your assumption that I'm a white man (and let's throw in the idea that I'm cisgendered and heterosexual too), but we'll add in the caveats that I'm from a working-class family and experienced significant familial problems throughout my childhood. Now I'll make the assumption that you are an upper-middle-class, privately-educated white woman who had a stable upbringing, like many in the profession. If these two characterisations are accurate, then which of us faced the greater challenge in becoming a qualified Psychologist (or reaching any senior position)? Why should we only look through the lens of gender?
I’m a black African refugee.

mr0860
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:08 pm

Re: Issues with Diversity in Clin Psy Trainees Recruitment

Post by mr0860 » Wed May 15, 2019 1:48 pm

Saf wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 9:46 am
I’m a black African refugee.
Great, but given the question I posed was a hypothetical, it's not really relevant. I've not confirmed your assumption that I'm white and male, for example, because I don't think that's relevant either.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests