Hi Everyone,

I have clearly missed some of the dialogue but what I'm struck by when pondering the thread on "isms" is that the diverse responses suggest a tension that we often feeling around the science of psychology more broadly: the tension between variable centered and person centered analyses. Which one reveals the more accurate perspective. In an ideal world, they converge. But sometimes they do not.

 

We have all found ourselves, at times, as individuals who do not mirror the aggregate. To me, it appears that some posters are implying that, because they as an individual do not resonate with the aggregate experience of sexism being highly prevalent, they feel victimized by the aggregate and/or dismissive of the validity of the aggregate. Maybe that experience can aide us in being more humble scientists? It could perhaps provoke a willingness to not dismiss the exceptions to the aggregate as error variance or interpreted as not significantly meaningful? I don't know.

 

In a nutshell, I think we are all “-istic”. Every single one of us. And in that way, I suppose Yancy's comments aren't entirely aversive to me. However, I'm not convinced that Yancy knows what my specific "isms" are when/if he considers my demographics. The “-isms” that I embody…some with awareness and some without…are a not-insignificant part of what it actually means to be me. BUT, they are unique to me. I’d go so far as to say my unique combination of types, intensities, and self-awareness of “isms” might be comparable to a characterological fingerprint. We all have one…but no two are quite the same.

 

As a clinician and psychological researcher, I strive to be accepting of everyone having their fingerprint of “isms”. I also accept how profoundly messy it is when these diverse fingerprints from individual people overlay one another and cloud ability to make out what role each fingerprint is playing in a given encounter.

 

As a person more generally…I think people who have “isms” suck. Yet, I have “isms.” So what do I do with that? Maybe I look around to find like-minded others and decide that my “isms” aren’t that and instead reflect reality/morality/science (which one is valued depends on my audience, right?). That way, I can look at other people with “isms” I don’t like and feel superior with the added bonus of feeling a sense of belonging with others.




Okay, final thoughts: I also don't know if the list has a sense of humor but will venture forward with a spirit of humor intended. Levity is sometimes helpful around heavy issues. I like to prowl fashion boards on Pinterest. Most of those posts though are for younger women and feature street style. More academic fashion bloggers (yes, that's a thing) tend to be short-lived. Presumably the publish or perish realities curb their enthusiasm and they find that have to direct all of their energy over to tenure track realities. Last night I was searching to see if any new academic fashion bloggers have emerged that I could start to follow. Pretty innocuous. But this is what my search found for me...the reviews on are hilarious (My favorite is the note from "the librarians"): Amazon’s Halloween “Delicious Women's Phd [sic] Darling Sexy Costume.” 

 

For those men and women who wonder if sexism is highly prevalent at the aggregate, even if it doesn't personally resonate with them as an individual....I wonder if this might be a bit of a humorous poke that shines light on an aggregate reality. There isn't a Delicious Men's PhD Darling Sexy Costume. Lest I sound like I'm incriminating men let me point out that the costume is worn, presumably voluntarily, by women. Collusion by women...or even exploitation for personal gain...doesn't make sexism less real in at the aggregate and, at times, harmful at the level of the individual. 


Happy Halloween,

Jennifer

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1