1. On pg. 422, Prochaska and Norcross state that women are taught to internalize while men externalize-men drink. This results in typical behaviors specific to genders like drinking in men and phobias and panic disorders in women. My question is women often cry more often than men; is that considered an external coping skill? And I thought that men had higher rates of anxiety attacks; aren’t anxiety attacks caused by internalizing ones feelings of anxiety and stress?
2. Prochaska and Norcross portray the dominant culture as a overt culture which is actively seeking to lure minorities into denying their cultural-group. “Often clients must face the truth about themselves – that they hold the norms of dominant culture in high esteem and denigrate aspects of their own culture, denying their heritage and family group,” (p. 441). This seems a bit extreme to me. In undergrad many of the cultural students that I had contact with had found a way to integrate the dominant culture and their own in a way that did not completely deny their heritage. I would argue that everyone’s culture is slightly different than the dominant culture (we are all unique), and have each found a way to integrate society constraints and requirements into our own families culture. As a person whose family culture was extremely divergent from the dominant culture, I feel that the interaction between the dominant culture and my own is much less hostile and rather more symbiotic in nature. (Prochaska &Norcross, 2003). Rebecca Kulzer
1) Something that struck me in this chapter was the emphasis on the fundamental attribution error (p. 381) by Prochaska and Norcross. Basically they explain how if a therapist is working with a female client who is in the work force, there should be careful attention paid to the dichotomy between resistance and psychopathology. In other words, there is a tendency to misread the woman's behavior as pathological instead of responsive to their situation. I wondered how it could be that a therapist would make such a mistake. I know things can slip through the cracks, but it also seems to me that a solid, responsible therapist who is following their client would be able to tell that their female client's difficulty would be reactionary and not pathological. I appreciate the insight by the authors, but I am surprised that this is actually an error that is made...maybe I need another example of it to better illustrate things.
2) I found the section on interpersonal conflicts to be very stimulating, especially the part about communication (p. 387). It seems like a paragraph or blurb that anyone should read before entering a heterosexual marriage. "Men tend to express anger...women tend to express pain and needs" (p. 387). This is something that is vital for both men and women to understand, especially in the context of a marriage. For professional use, however, I will certainly need to be cognizant of this when working with clients. Men will delve into certain emotions and not others. Women would be more prone to bring certain emotions into therapy. The key will be discovering what these emotions are for the individual and conceptualizing it from there. It is good to know the gender tendencies, but there are also no clear cut rules of thumb. I wonder what it would be like to experience the atypical scenarios such as women who tend to exhibit anger and/or men who exhibit pain and needs. Any thoughts?
Response to Rebecca's #2
I think you are definitely correct in your assessment that people are unique especially in their methods of integrating cultures. I can relate greatly with this being raised in a Iranian-American culture. There are certain aspects of my identity that are clearly produced by my Iranian heritage, and others that are clearly American. For me, my cultural identity is vastly different than other Iranian-Americans that I know who are my age. I think this personal example for me illustrates the point that you are nicely making.
1) In their discussion of male sensitive therapy, Prochaska and Norcross (p. 391) talk about the four stereotypes of “true masculinity.” What is interesting to me is not that these four stereotypes exist, but rather that they point out the bind that men are placed in that they cannot possibly succeed in. The truth is that masculinity is a fragile thing, a fleeting thing. It is the first thing that leaves a man for any sort of deviant behavior. And men are raised from an early age to live into these things, only to have it be reversed upon them later in life. Is it any wonder that the problems that men face, and cause, exist, if this is the root issue?
2) I am very interested in non-traditional ways of doing therapy with men. My limited interactions thus far have shown that more experiential ways of relating are much more helpful that discussing the issue. For men (accepting that generalities are flawed), it seems that discussing the issue is an intellectual one that simply does not allow for emotive processing. Doing something is a much better way to help a man engage his emotions, until he learns an emotional language and becomes more comfortable with it. If therapy is to help people engage their emotions, then a finding way into the emotional world of the male client that might not start at talk therapy might be useful.
3) At Bobby’s #2, I think that we will have to always be aware that tendencies don’t translate into actualities. The trick, with all the various dimensions of a client’s world, is to understand what is normative for the group, and then see how the client relates to the group. Women may bring more of one emotion to the therapeutic table in general, but to expect that a specific woman would not talk about something is to fail in that most basic skill: empathy. We as therapists need to make sure we meet the clients where they are.
1.) At the risk of offending (not my intent), doesn’t the emphasis of the chapter portray that the definition given of feminist, “a person who believes in and/or advocates the priniciple that women should have … rights equal to those of men,” is not accurate? (Prochaska & Norcross, p. 376). I certainly agree that that should be the goal and by that definition I hope everyone in our class is a feminist. However, the chapter is titled Gender-Sensitive Therapies not Feminist Therapies. Yet the authors spend only 2 1/2 of the chapter’s 24 pages on male-sensitive therapy. That is not equality; it is a minor instance of dominance reversal. An argument that the rest of the book (read: psychotherapy) is male-sensitive is nonsensical since, as the authors point out, the majority of therapy and research has been done by males on female clients (a similar point is made by the authors later in the chapter). Thus, the rest of the book (again, read: psychotherapy) may be more a male view of what mental health should be for women and subsequently that view has then been pushed onto men as what their mental health should like as well. But the very fact that there are differences in “cognitive structures and behavioral patterns,” (Prochaska & Norcross, p.377) suggests that there are likely differences in what constitutes mental health for both genders. My point is that if we are going to have equality (instead of a reversal of the dominate gender) than a recognition that classic psychotherapy was been just as insensitive to men as to women is necessary as is close consideration of gender-sensitive therapies for both sexes. The word “gender” rather than “feminist” sounds like equality but if only women’s needs are considered and represented, it is not.
2.) The author’s brief discussion of male-sensitive therapy does not sound very male-oriented at all to me. First, the gender role strain paradigm does seem to me to belay the current situation men find themselves in – strained between masculinity and feminitity. In short, we are expected to be sensitive and emotional but still largely the breadwinner and always the defenders (to illustrate that, I would ask all the married people – last time you heard a noise in the house, which of you went to check it out? I’m betting 99% of the time it was the husband.) However, the treatments listed (recognize emotional needs, identify sources of (assumedly errant) beliefs, and change those beliefs) do not sound at all like helping men become better men – it sounds like exactly what I said in my first comment - men deciding what was healthy for women and then pushing that onto men. While I agree that emotionality and vulnerability are important for men to discover, a focus on just those things does nothing to encourage men in the roles they have and to recognize the validity and importance of some parts of the masculine image, such as feeling responsible to protect and provide for their families (Prochaska & Norcross, pp. 392-3).
Response to Bobby #2: I think you are right that communication differences are a major issue in marriage. However I think the authors did not go far enough. Communication is not just verbal expression. For example, in the paragraph preceding the authors state “Male-dominated society equates sex with intimacy” (Prochaska & Norcross, p.387). The context insinuates that deep friendship is true intimacy, not sex. But for a married couple I think this is not true at all. Both are extremely important. Men need to be emotionally expressive and have that deep friendship with their wives, but women also need to be sensitive to the need for sexual intimacy in the relationship. However, in our society the common joke is something like, “How often do you have sex, Bob?” “Sex? What’s that? I’m married.” It is socially acceptable for a woman to not want to have sex with her husband, but it is not acceptable for a man to not talk to his wife. She is empowered, he is insensitive. Healthy communication and intimacy both ways are the keys to a marriage that also has equality.
1) Prochaska and Norcross (2007, p. 408) state that some feminist therapists promote androgynous women as the ideal and that these androgynous women are more independent, felixible, and have higher self-esteem. Although I find feminist therapy valuable, this is really a further distortion of the problem that they fight against rather than an ideal. I see the systemic problem of female oppression as a problem of devaluation of feminine characteristics and to do away with femininity altogether through androgyny would be to throw women out the door. Rather, femininity (along with masculinity) needs to be uplifted as desirable for both women and men in varying degrees. This would allow for women to have worth and for men to have more gender flexibility--since, qualities considered feminine (nurturing, kind, etc...) would be of worth to men as well. Both men and women could engage in all the different aspects of life (work, homemaking, etc.) without feeling their identity threatened in doing so.
2) Although I agree with Prochaska and Norcross's criticism of feminist therapy as considering all psychopathology societally induced (2007, p. 414), I think in modern psychotherapy we too often focus on the psychopathology of individuals and neglect the systemic dysfunction of society and its affect on individuals. Racism, sexism, discrimination, and prejudice are not the overarching problems that they once were but they do still exist. Prochaska and Norcross claimed that these messages were “facets of internalized oppression” (2007, p. 397). This would mean that it would be hard to distinguish what is inherent versus environmentally influenced. Do you think that there are traits that are inherent in men and women? In response to Bobby... The author Virginia Valian (1999) has found this fundamental attribution error to be very prevalent and actually outlines research in support of this in her book. She demonstrates that when a woman succeeds in the workplace it is more often attributed to the difficulty of the task (it being easy) and when a man succeeds it is more often attributed to his ability. I think this happens to all of us even though we may be proponents of advancement for women—because we are so influenced by our cognitive schemas and are often unaware of the way in which culture and society have influenced us.
Reference: Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. (pp. 167-186). Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
1.Prochaska and Norcross (2003) discuss how greatly culture places gender expectations on individuals (pp.421-437). They state that "power inequalities and gender-role expectations shape the cognitive structure from the moment a child comes into the world" (p. 421). How are we as Christian therapists supposed to discern what traits or attributes are God-given from those that are societal influences? Further, how do we respond if an individual comes in and is unsure of what gender they want to be or feel they are supposed to be? Are all differences in personality between a male and a female indeed just from one's culture?
2.I'm intrigued by the concept of "culture-bound syndromes" given a few of the examples in the psychopathology section for culture-sensitive therapy(Prochaska & Norcross, 2003, pp.438-439). If someone comes in, for example, truly believing they are demon-possessed or telling us that his/her soul has left the body, how are we going to respond to that? Do you think that our Biblical convictions are going to effect our cultural-sensitive therapy?
In Response to Chris's second comment: I think that is a very accurate point. Men don't seem to need an intellectual conversation if the end goal is to draw upon their emotional feelings. I'd love to hear some examples of the type of non-traditional techniques that you would like to use in these situations!
3. In Response to Jay’s first response: I agree that there tends to be a backlash in psychotherapy when dealing with women. There has been an extreme shift in bias towards genders (to the detriment of males), as evidenced by the numerous pages on female psychotherapy and the two paragraphs on male psychotherapy (Prochaska & Norcross, 2003). It does seem like a severe overcompensation that will turn into a dominant gender reversal. I have heard some say that this would be acceptable since it gives men “a taste of their own medicine.” However, as a femaie myself, while I do advocate for benefitting the female gender I hesitate when considering how it could oppress males. I have no desire that my embracing and fighting for equal rights as a woman should inhibit and prevent the rights of males. I agree that overcompensating for past errors by reversing the dominant gender, is simply adding to the problem. It is not endeavoring to make “the [women’s] rights equal to those of men,” but rather a dangerous swinging to an extreme that simply replaces the dominant gender.
1. I agree with P&N on the idea that the therapeutic relationship is characterized by empowerment and egalitarianism (389). However, this seems easier said than done. While therapists hope to have unconditional positive regard for their clients, they have to gauge what empowerment and egalitarianism looks like for the relationship and how the client view these concepts. How do therapists go about empowering people who believe they are hopeless? How do therapists confront cultural issues that shape clients' views of egalitarianism?
2. It seems incredibly difficult to break males who observe stereotypes in male-sensitive psychotherapy (391). Many are consciously unaware of how they fit into a category because cultural and societal standards are so ingrained in people. Males may be conditioned to assume roles that required them to carry more responsibility than females. I think male-sensitive psychotherapy is helpful in uncovering such hidden characteristics.
3. Respoinse to Hannah's second comment: I also agree with Hannah and the idea that we so oftern focuus on the pathologies of clients, and not on the broader scope of their lives within a tapestry of culture, society, family, or other spheres of life. I think it is important for therapists to develop an understanding of the many factors that have brought a person to where they are in life. Regarding gender issues, a male or a female fits into stereotypes because they are shaped by a long history of patriarchy. This problem does not go away with one person who is in therapy. It is widespread and must be treated with sensitivity.
1. I found the section on women's self-esteem particularly interesting. I agree that many women base a much of their identity, and even value, upon relational aspects of life (431). So, this would at some point effect their self-esteem. If your self-concept or condition of worth is in part how other's view or respond to you, then your self-esteem will be effected greatly by relational issues. Any extreme is probably unhealthy, but as Prochaska and Norcross point out, interdependence and finding some sense of identity in relation with other people is of the Ideal Individual (433).
2. I somewhat disagree with Prochaska and Norcross' assertion about women's tendency to "underestimate their abilities" with declarations like, "I just don't have the ability" and "I can't" (431). I do think that women can be easily interpreted as undermining their ideas and opinions. However, I think this spawns from valuing equal-status or "symmetrical" (You Just Don't Understand, Tannen 1990) relationships so much, that they often preface opinions with many disclaimers and qualifiers. For example, instead of saying something like, "Rogerian practice is the best way to be a therapist," many women might say, "From what I've learned, I feel like, Rogerian therapy is really effective. You might want to try it, but I could be wrong. There are a lot of theories out there." (Okay, I exaggerated that a little bit.) Essentially, I believe women are sensitive to coming off as dictative or dominant, because maintaining an symmetrical relationship is of more value than being right or revered.
In response to Chris' comment on "true masculinity," I completely agree. It's such a tragedy that we allow societal standards that bully people into ill-fitted boxes and then later berate them for being ignorant and unemotional. I can't wait for the day when gender roles disintegrate into the natural fluidity of our creation. I'm not sure if this is totally possible on earth, but I am praying.
1. According to the text, there are two characteristics of the client-therapist relationship in feminist therapy. They are empowerment and egalitarianism. I think that empowerment is very important in therapy because it encourages growth within the client. Egalitarianism, however, I do not agree with. I don't believe the client and therapist should have an equal relationship because it is important for the client to look to the therapist as an influential figure. "Reducing the knowledge discrepancy between the participants, generating mutual goals, increasing the clinician's self-disclosure, and demystifying the process of therapy" (p. 389) may act to decrease the therapists influential role.
2. I found the concept of "gender socialization" to be interesting. It says that women tend to internalize distress while men tend to externalize it. This shows in women through their "mood, phobic, obsessive-compulsive, and panic disorders" (p. 378). Men, on the other hand, tend to display "alcohol and drug abuse and antisocial personality disorder" (p. 378). I think that this is largely due to cultural influence. It is important for us to be aware of these tendencies and hopefully find a way to counterbalance them.
In response to Hannah:
Good thoughts. I do think that there are traits inherent to males and females but it is hard to completely distinguish them because of the strong influence of environment as well. However, certain traits are just naturally more prominent in the different sexes.
1. “Gender role expectations often generate a false sense of self” (p. 397). This stood out to me because it can be addressed from a Rogerian perspective. We might see clients who do not think that they are allowed to feel or think what they really want to feel or think. For example, a man might not think he can be emotional. A woman might think she is not allowed to be angry. How might Rogers have worked with these types of clients? What specific interventions might he use? The book talks about “consciousness raising, choosing, and social liberation” (p. 400) in feminist therapy. Would he help the client in that specific process?
2. The book talks about how men can have difficulty seeking help (p. 411) partly because they would have to show their weak sides and tap into their emotions. I think that it is partly a threat to who they are expected to be as a man. How might Rogers address these conditions of worth and help a male client self actualize in being able to express his emotions?
Response to Chris’s second comment: I think that you raise a valid question in that we might need to think about how we go about therapy with me. Can men express their emotions better by not using words? I think that the answer might possibly be yes. If so, what are some techniques that can be used to help me tap into their emotions without words?
1) I enjoyed learning of the supposedly culturally bound mental illnesses listed on page 439 of Norcross and Prochaska. It is striking how many of the listed “disorders” have spiritual influences embedded within them. It is interesting to think that we are learning integration models in a society which has tried so hard to rip psychology and spirituality apart, whereas if we were taking the same courses in Guatemala or New Guinea integration might simply be assumed. I wonder how this fact will shape the course of therapy for a newly immigrated client. How will we even begin to understand these differing cultural assumptions? It all makes you appreciate the use of true empathy all that much more.
2) When Karlsson speaks of ethnic matching in psychotherapy I feel somewhat wary. I wonder if there is a point at which we are making it too easy on the client and the therapist. Should we clinically prepare the therapy room and therapist him or herself to exactly match the client and their own expectations of therapy? Is it justifiable to match ethnic counselors with their respective populations, or are we just allowing ethnically isolated groups to remain so? I am not arguing that there will never be a place for a native speaking therapist or a culturally savvy psychologist, but I just don’t feel comfortable with the idea of segregating the therapy room based on the fact that a therapist would have to work harder to get to know his or her client.
3) In our last reading for this week from Pope, he addresses the guilt that students and recent graduates feel upon experiencing some sort of physical attraction to one or more of their clients. I think that this problem may be even greater for us as Christian therapists in that we (as a Christian population) already tend to equate sexual thoughts or feelings with wrong-doing and guilt. This could cause many problems as we may be even less likely to report sexual attractions to our supervisors. If we are not comfortable sharing our feelings with others, then it will be nearly impossible to control and utilize such feelings for the good of the client. I think that it’s important to remember here that God judges our actions and not our basic sinful nature. Attraction by itself is not a sin but rather a temptation. It is how we react to temptation that we are judged by.
There were couple of things that surprised me. 1) The author claims that "at an early age, girls begin to devalue themselves..." (p. 378) The author did not have any reference listed for this claim so I am not sure whether it is accurate or not. I do know that it is typical for girls to be encouraged to sacrifice personal gains to benefit others, as the author has written subsequent to the quote above. However, I was somewhat astounded at the author's claim of girls devaluing themselves.
2) Rape statistics in p. 380, was somewhat new. I am aware of the low report rate of rape and sexual harassment cases, but it was eye opening to read how low the actual conviction rate of a assailant is. As the author has stated, it is very unfortunate how the victims are victimized twice through the initial assault and the negative response from the society.
Response to Rebekah Kilman Liu: I agree with the fact that female traits do need to be valued more. However, I am somewhat confused at what the author is trying to get at. The author claims that female traits need to be valued, but a lot of the examples that are given pertain to traits that are generally associated with males. And it seems that some of the stance that the author is making are not culturally sensitive. Females needing to be autonomous, independent, and career oriented is a very contemporary western perception. I'm not sure if this is the best model of approach for female therapy in different cultures.
1. The ideas that the DSM values traits that are culturally more male brings up interesting thoughts when it comes to pathology. If autonomy is traditionally more male and dependency is more female, that seems to contribute to the idea that females are more prone to pathology because they are acting in the way that they are socialized. Expanding on that idea, if women are more victimized sexually because of their cultural role, and sexual trauma happens to a quarter of women, then pathology is almost a scripted part of existence for women based on the roles that have been traditionally prescribed for them, and the victimization that unfortunately befalls many of them (Prochaska & Norcross 377-381).
2. On page 391, Prochaska and Norcross discuss therapy that is sensitive to the social constructs that males face. While this is discussed, I think it should be discussed more in society. I can remember taking a class about gender identity and realizing for the first time that in many families and social constructs men have little to no choice on the ways that they behave, and it can cause a deep woundedness in them. As therapists, particularly for me as a future female therapist who is sensitive to the challenges that my own gender faces, how can I also prepare to be sensitive to the challenges faced by those who are male?
Response to Jay #2
Your comments make me think a little more deeply about my question; what is the best way to encourage the fullness of expression in a man? In many ways it seems that both genders are expected to be super people: women are expected to, if they decide to have a career, be both capable and on-top competitive career person and men are expected to both be the breadwinners and then emotionally sensitive and vulnerable people who turn off other aspects of their person when they come home. I think at the end of all the commenting I am not sure that there is a solution or even a strategy for working towards better balance and health...
1. On page 386 the authors say that "women must come to appreciate the need for personal responsibility - to be happy and healthy themselves. Responsibility involves making time for oneself, nurturing the self in order to nurture others. Many women have to realize that in order to truly love and support others, they must first learn to love and support themselves".
This sounds self evidently true. Indeed I immediately think of women I know who are experiencing difficult circumstances and seem to invariably say something like "I'm not worried about my ex, my life is dedicated to my child". This strikes me as almost a defensive position. I'm hurt and in an effort to cope I'm going to pour all my emotional resources into caring for my child.
I have always felt compelled to tell these women that it's wonderful to hear that your going to pour yourself into your child's life. But, you need to take care of yourself too. You will be a better mother if your happy. I think that entails doing things other than...activities directly related to being a mother.
The problem, I think, is that...I think it really comes off as just my opinion. Is there any empirical evidence that backs this up? I would love to delve into some of that research if it is out there. I realize one of the criticisms of feminist therapy is the lack of research but this wouldn't necessarily fall under that umbrella.
2. I appreciate that there is more of an emphasis on providing treatment oriented toward treating males and on page 393 they give a little description of what that looks like. However, I'm wondering if there is a comprehensive theory for working with children that is unique to both genders and what that looks like. If there is such a theory, are we going to learn that sometime during the course of our program?
I know we have a child and adolescent class but...I've taken that, gotten transfer credit for it, and we didn't cover any kind of comprehensive theory for working with kids. We touched on a lot of different strategies for dealing with various issues that come up when working with kids but none of them included gender specific considerations.
Just curious...I think working with kids, and feeling like I'm making a difference, is tough.
In response to Rebecca's 1st question: According to Hersen, Turner, & Beidel (2007); panic disorders without agoraphobia are present in women twice as often as men and with agoraphobia, three times as often. Furthermore social phobia is more prevalent in women and specific phobias are predominately found in women.
I think we must have different books or I don't know exactly where your reference is... 422 is chapter 13 in my book. On page 378 though they talk about external and internal disorders or problems rather than coping skills. In relation to that, I would say that crying is an internal method of coping because although tears are produced externally the distress that caused those tears was internalized.
1)I thought the arguments for and against androgyny were interesting (p. 388). I think a large part of this debate is whether one believes that gender differences are God-given or results of the Fall. When the differences are culturally imposed and oppressive, I would say we need to strive towards breaking down the differences. However, the aspects that perhaps God intended to be different should be celebrated and valued. The trouble is distinguishing between the two.
2)Another section that struck me was pointing out that sometimes, a woman may decide that alienation is not worth the power she may gain (p. 384). Here, like other places in the chapter, I could not help but to see similarities between gender issues and ethnic issues. The presented problem could just as easily have been a bi-cultural person straddling the line between a more collectivist and more individualistic culture. It may be hard to swallow, but sometimes, the client may choose connectedness over autonomy. We as therapists may have to be ready to accept that.
David Choi, November 23, 2009
In response to Rebeckah Liu's first comment:
I agree that workplaces should be more accommodating for families. I wonder if part of the problem isn't the greed and capitalistic fervor of our country. Most companies are too concerned with the immediate bottom line that it's easy to see people as money making machines. It takes a lot of leadership and insight to implement radical changes to promote family.
1. Prochaska and Norcross claim that both sexes encounter gender role expectations but that women often encounter more severe punishments for not complying with role expectations (p. 426). This struck me as odd however, because within our society it seems that women actually are allowed greater flexibility in which roles they choose to take on than do men. For example, if a woman would like to be a doctor, that is a totally acceptable career choice, however, if a man wants to be a nurse, he often incurs ridicule from his male peers as a result. Or, consider the societal response to stay at home fathers and house husbands. There are countless other examples of this in our society where a man taking on a “feminine” role is criticized. Consequently, it seems that there is more rigid role expectations for men and that they should be incurring the greater punishments for non-compliance, thus I was confused by Prochaska and Norcross’ original assertion.
2.When reading Prochaska and Norcross, I could not help but wonder if the gender socialization in society, which is done prevalently through various media sources and often tells a women that she can “have it all”, also contributes to the self-esteem issues that man y women struggle with. I feel that most women of my generation feel it is okay for them to achieve and be career women. However, I think the bigger attack on women’s self-esteem is the difficulty of dealing with the idea that a woman can have it all and be both the family woman and the working women in equal amounts. Consequently, this idea that you can have it all, seems to impact women ‘s self-esteem negatively from the standpoint that one must make some sacrifices on either end in order to maintain one’s presence in both the domestic and working world, which means she will not be able to achieve the way her male counterparts do without feeling guilty about neglecting her family, and she will not be able to do all that she would like for her family without feeling guilty about neglecting aspects of her career. Consequently, guilt over these sacrifices may often result in lower self-esteem because the woman feels she is failing those around her and her expectations for herself do not match her actual performance in her domestic and work life.
3.Response to Hannah's 1st comment: I totally agree. I think our society in encouraging androgyny is in a subtle way actually devaluing femininity and masculinity. Although, I do not think the concept of androgyny as a whole is negative. Reality is men and women in general are wired differently, however, I think where society has gone astray is in placing greater value and acceptance on masculine traits over feminine traits, which are often viewed as week or irrational. These value judgments are the problem, not the traits themselves. Thus, I contend that if society moves away from these judgments, greater androgyny may result simply by giving individuals the freedom to express whatever traits they possess.
1. From personal experience, I believe that "consciousness raising" is a very crucial part of the therapeutic process. As I've been involved with Asian American ministries since high school, and most of young people are not aware of how the "dominant culture has shaped their views about themselves and their culture" (Prochaska & Norcross, 441). And many are not aware of how their own culture influences/clashes with the dominant culture. For example, although Confucianism is not practiced by Christians, the teachings of Confucious is still deeply rooted in the Asian culture. It affects family life, school life, relationships, etc. The dissonance can cause stress, anxiety, depression, or adjustment issues. To understand and gain competence to see ethnic clients is so important. What do you think is the best way to gain competence- reading, videos, talking with friends, etc?
2. I do not find it surprising that the studies by Abramowitz & Murray in 1983, and Atikinson in 1985 found that "evidence supports preferences for ethnically similar therapists by members of racial minority groups" (Prochaska & Norcross, 448). In my opinion it is because of the same reason why you see ethnic groups hanging together, or why there are specific ethnic churches or ministries. It has to do with a level of understanding you know someone has without having to explain. As an Asian American, there are experiences I went through that only another Asian American understands. Without having to explain it, that person will know what I have experienced and it allows us to skip the explanation. It just makes it easier. As an Asian American therapist, I will know and understand the hardships she went through as an Asian American, (generally speaking), without having them explain. I do not say this to discourage non-Asian therapists to take on Asian clients, because there are clients who will prefer non-Asian therapists! (I am one of them). This chapter just makes me realize that there is much I do not know about other ethnic cultures as well.
Sarah Moon, November 24, 2009.
In response to Rebekah's 2nd comment:
I agree that we should learn to value women and what women are capable of. I think the issue is that everyone has a different view on what this looks like. That's why we have the feminist movement, feminist theology, etc. The definition of what are valuable qualities varies from person to person. And if we want to get into theology, there are different interpretations of what the role of men and women are.
1) On page 401, Norcross and Prochaska discuss "consciousness raising" in feminist therapy. I feel like the therapist could be highly influencing the client and almost projecting their own ideas onto the client. Did I interpret this correctly?
2) Based on Norcross and Prochaska's discussion of "male-sensitive psychotherapy" on pages 410-12; I am curious what this approach would have to saw about a nam with overly feminine characteristics, as defined by society. For example, I had a male friend who was labeled as overly feminine by cultural standard, and therefore assumed that he was homosexual. Over the years, be bought into this gender stereotype and decided that he must be homosexual. How would male-sensitive psychotherapy deal with this issue?
In response to Lauren's question number 2:
This is an interesting question. I think Rogers would try to be non-directive, but ultimately truly non-directive therapy is not possible. So, I think some, but little projection of Roger's ideas would be put on the client
1. “The goal of feminist therapy is to enable the client to change the social, interpersonal, and political environment…” (p. 388). This quote from Prochaska and Norcross is really the root of all social change. We can’t stand on the sidelines of life and expect change to happen on it’s own. Change happens from purposeful and persistent work.
I think you have a great point. I think we also have to be attentive for the male or female client that does not follow the “typical” gender socialization trend.
1. Competent multicultural therapy involves respecting client values. While feminist theory makes some significant contributions to the field of psychology, it is based upon values that may not be shared by clients of all cultures. Like Rogers, feminist therapists approach the client as expert. However, the practice of consciousness raising involves educating clients about sexist social methods (Prochaska and Norcross, 2003). In some cultures, community dependence and distinct gender roles are valued and perceived to be a positive influence on individuals and society - not to be the cause of problems. Clients who ascribe to certain cultures may not wish to change their socialized gender role or desire to fight community oppression. Within this framework, there is great risk of imposing values onto the client as success is measured by the client’s understanding of problems through the feminist worldview as well as actively advocating for change in the greater community. What if a client desires to be financially dependent on her husband and a full time Mom? Hopefully, this choice would be respected by the therapist.
2. Pope’s (2006) work distinguishes sexual feelings from sexual involvement and addresses therapist contemplation of sexual involvement, client characteristics to which therapists are attracted, therapist assessment/reactions and client awareness/mutuality of attraction. It is interesting that while 71 percent of therapists believed clients were not aware when they (the therapist) felt sexually attracted to them, when mutual attraction was assessed, 83 percent of therapists believed that their attraction to a client had been mutual. This number sounds quite high. I find it interesting that the majority of therapists think clients they are sexually attracted to are also mutually attracted to them. I wonder if other factors come into play here?
Response to Bobby #2:
I think culture influences the way men and women express emotion. In some cultures, anger is a ‘typical’ way women express frustration or pain. I think anger can be a sign/indicator of pain for men and women. Anger can be an appropriate response to injustice, pain and abuse and manner of expression can vary. Unfortunately, some churches teach it is wrong to feel angry. It’s encouraging to think we will be able to help clients understand and address this important emotion compassionately and competently.
References
Pope, Kenneth S. (2006). Sexual Attraction to Clients: The Human Therapist and the (Sometimes) Inhuman Training System. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, S(2), 96-111.
Prochaska, J. & Norcross, J. (2003). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
1) Prochaska and Norcross (2003) say, “women’s problems in living are not necessarily psychopathological. Rather, they are frequently reasonable and creative attempts to survive oppressive conditions” (p. 425). They go on to say that when therapists and others commit the fundamental attribution error, they do not take into account the oppressive conditions the women are living under and attribute their problems to their pathology symptoms. I find this tragic, since many people may judge single mothers to be bad people because they live in poverty and may not provide what society considers “best” for their children, but it is really because of situations in their life they have no control over. I wonder how often it is because of some sort of oppression against women, maybe in the husband who divorced her, or in society where she may have lost her job or not gained appropriate employment because of her gender.
2) Prochaska and Norcross (2003) say, “Men tend to express their anger, whereas women tend to express their pain and needs” (p. 432). Women and men have trouble communicating because it is like they are speaking different languages. I have experienced that, and I expect it to be especially difficult in a marriage and it would be helpful for spouses to learn the other’s language. I wonder how this affects therapy, when there is a gender difference between therapist and client. Does a female therapist teach her male client to speak “woman” instead of helping him to speak “man” in a more healthy way?
Response to Rebecca Rouse #2: I also think that “gender socialization” is interesting. I agree, it may be very cultural? How can you tell what is culturally conditioned gender responses to stress and what are actual differences in the brain and physiology?
1. It is interesting that in a chapter that seeks to be sensitive to gender issues and differences, that the term “real men” is used when describing men who are not afraid to be intimate and share their feelings, wants and needs (Prochaska & Norcross, p. 393). I agree that the qualities listed above are healthy and functional and that they are important for both men and women, however I would hesitate to use the term “real men” as this implies that men who struggle with these things are somehow not real, authentic men. I think that in trying to break down the stereotype that men must be strong, self-reliant, and anything but emotional we have perhaps gone too far in saying that men who do these things “right” are real men and those that don’t are somehow not. I think that as with anything, it is important to point out the issues as perhaps a wrong, but avoid the thinking that says “you are a right or you are I a wrong”.
2. After reading this chapter I think that it is interesting that there are specific therapies that are termed “gender-sensitive” or “feminist”. I feel like the qualities that these therapies embody should be a part of all therapy and that regardless of the type of therapy, therapists should be empowering and egalitarian (p. 389) and further, the therapeutic relationship should have warmth, empathy, equality, (p. 390) and a sensitivity to and respect for individual differences. Is this reasonable? Should these principles be a part of therapy in general, or are they more specific to gender-sensitive, feminist therapy?
In response to Bobby #2: I would agree that it is helpful to know gender tendencies when expressing emotions, but that it is equally important to recognize that there are no clear cut rules for each. When I think about women who express their emotions mostly through anger, I think of women who perhaps have had that mostly modeled for them, and vice versa for men who are more sensitive and express hurt. I also think I have seen examples of both throughout my life and so I think that while we can make general statements, we should use much caution and most importantly, to wait for the client to reveal those aspects of themselves, before making any assumptions.
1) I found Prochaska & Norcross’s (2010) explanation of male sensitive therapy interesting. As a therapist-in-training, I have not considered the difficulties in working with the male population. The four stereotypes listed: No sissy stuff, The big wheel, The sturdy oak, and Give ‘em hell make a lot of sense as I consider the men I have known. Identity for men is often rooted in these beliefs about what it is to be masculine in our society. Unfortunately, I think women (myself included) often assist in reinforcing these stereotypes because it makes us feel attraction, admiration and even safety. I want to believe that we can empower our clients to recognize these false beliefs and embrace a more sensitive self but I wonder how difficult it will be to undermine thousands of years of cultural influence. 2) I appreciate the criticism regarding gender sensitive therapy, especially from the integrative perspective. Though I believe it is extremely important to consider gender in therapy, there are so many other identifying aspects of our person that must be considered. Personally, I would not wanted to be treated solely from a gendered perspective but rather I would like my age, life status, married status, ethnicity, religion, and family of origin considered as well. The integrationists make a good argument when they state that considering gender above every other personal attribute is not a clinically sound perspective (Prochaska & Norcross, p.395).
In response to Hannah’s #2: I am glad Hannah brought up some of the other prevailing societal issues that do still exist in our culture. I think it is equally important to consider the influence of the environment of the individuals we see in the therapy room. I am starting to believe that perhaps there are some inherent traits in men and women. As I watch the many young children in my life as they grow up, I am hit with the profound realization that many stereotypes accurately depict what is masculine or feminine behavior from a very young age. In contrast to that, I have met some kids who completely break the mold. This goes back to the age old question of nature vs. nurture. How much can an environment mold a little person into being masculine and feminine? Do the genetics have a stronger influence over the environment? Maybe we’ll never know…
1) On page 397, Prochaska and Norcross ask, "Where are the delusional dominating personality disorder, the greedy personality disorder, and the macho personality disorder?" While I think that is is good to point out that qualities that are perceived as more female are pathologized more than qualities perceived to be male, I think that our colloquialisms for male behavior indicate that there are some pathological "male" syndromes, for example, little man syndrome. I wonder if further pathologizing male behavior to respond to the pathologizing of female behavior doesn't just perpetuate our problem of over-generalizing behavior according to our gender....isn't the real problem our overly rigid either-or thinking when it comes to gender?
2)On page 398 Prochaska and Norcross posit, "After years of living a life that is false and unfulfilling, a woman's reservoir of anger and resentment builds and is often expressed through self-destructive behaviors." Again, while there is some truth to this for some women, this theory assumes that the female qualities assigned to every woman are more unnatural than qualities inherent in male gender roles. What are we to think about women who fully embrace their female gender roles? Do we call them self-deceivers trying to fulfill the status-quo? Or do we acknowledge that some qualities consistent with the perceived female gender role are adaptive for them? And if they are adaptive, what are the environmental requirements that make them adaptive?
I appreciate that you are illuminating the issue of how men have been affected by feminism. The authors point out that, "men are negatively affected by gender role expectations and that they, too, suffer form role strain." I don't think the authors point or intent is to replace male dominance with female dominance, but rather to identify that our traditional way of understanding human personality and healing has been largely moderated by the effects gender has on our behavior, awareness, and judgement. The reason why most the chapter is devoted to looking at the female experience is because historically, this has been the area that has been more problematic in terms of discrimination and under-representation. Perhaps we'd agree that a more constructive discussion would be centered on how men and women can benefit from addressing gender in psychotherapy and research. And I'd argue that this is in fact, the intended purpose of the field of feminist psychology...in other words, the name is misleading.
1) I was a little frustrated with the section on feminist theory of psychopathology. It seems that sometimes in the attempt to gain gender equality, it is forgotten that there can be different roles without inequality. Although I agree that gender socialization occurs, to what extent is this completely negative? I believe there are some qualities that are distinctly masculine and some that are distinctly feminine, but that we (as a culture) need to re-define femininity and masculinity. For instance, strength is not a masculine trait, nor is it a feminine trait but a trait that is inherent to both genders (although it may be expressed differently by the way a culture defines femininity and masculinity). The same goes with nurturing; to be nurturing is not a purely feminine quality and should not be discouraged as a weaker characteristic, but instead it should be re-framed as a strength and should be honored as an important characteristic, not only of women but of men as well. (Prochaska & Norcross, 422-423).
2) I think the issue of “choosing” is still a very hard thing regarding the various roles that women play in society. I think the desire for a career and the desire to be a mother are both important aspirations and don’t have to be opposed to one another. I agree that society “does not acclimate quickly or easily…and will resist her efforts” (Prochaska & Norcross, 428). I think this is true with any aspect of change in society and that society is starting to make changes to adjust to the needs of women as they pursue both motherhood and career. However, many more changes need to take place to make the workplace more family friendly. I don’t like the way the authors seem to suggest that choosing motherhood would be to “choose to remain powerless and dependent” (Prochaska & Norcross, 429) or “to settle for what others are willing to give her” (Prochaska & Norcross, 429). I think that sometimes there is the tendency to forget that the right to choice means the right to choose motherhood and not career and that this choice should be treated as legitimate just as the choice to have only career or have career and motherhood. In the Christian community, I think the choice to not be a mother is still less likely to be acceptable and this should also be considered a legitimate choice. (Prochaska & Norcross, 429-429).
Kim Richardson, November 25, 2009
Response to Hannah’s 1st Comment: I think you said it perfectly. To deny femininity or to try to suppress it by being androgynous is the systemic problem. I agree that rather than trying to make males and females look alike in characteristics, roles, etc. that both femininity and masculinity need to be honored each in their own and also allow for more gender flexibility so that each person (regardless of gender) can truly express who they are in terms of characteristics and roles, etc.
1. "Traditional therapies - based on while, middle-class, male assumptions - are increasingly inappropriate for addressing the problems of minority and oppressed groups, such as African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino/Hispanic Americans, and women" (Prochaska and Norcross, 2003, p. 419). It seems simple enough that our ways of learning and doing therapy are largely influenced by the white theorists that we are learning from (Rogers, Freud, Erikson), but I don't know how many white therapists take that seriously. Prochaska and Norcross explain from 1990 Census information that "one in four Americans already defines himself or herself as a member of an ethnic minority. If that is the case, then our education is only teaching us to work with 75% of potential clients and the case is made even more for continued training in culturally-sensitive therapy methods.
2. "Women who have experienced sexual trauma are victimized twice - once during the act, and again by society, the medical profession, and the law" (p. 424). I was struck by the statistics Prochaska and Norcross used in this section of text. It is startling to read that "only 20% or rapes are reported; of those reported, only 10% of the perpetrators are found guilty" (p. 424). According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), "1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime" (http://www.rainn.org/statistics). As a therapist in training, because of these statistics, I feel the need to make sure that I am adequately prepared to work with clients who have survived sexual assault.
In response to Amber's 1st comment: I also found the 4 stereotypes of true masculinity to be interesting. I think that many people further reinforce those stereotypes in the men in their lives which creates a vicious cycle of expecting men to be a certain way and then being frustrated when they act stereotypically.
In response to Brittany's 1st comment: I had the same reaction when reading that section. It was if P&N were saying that a man isn't a "real man" if he doesn't fit into that description or if he struggles with showing emotion.
1) On page 389, Norcross & Prochaska discuss the therapeutic relationship regarding feminist therapy. I found it interesting that in feminist therapy, the therapist is expected to self disclose to the client just as much as the client is expected to self-disclose to the therapist. According to the theory, this will equalize the balance of power. This is supposed to help the therapy process because in society, women are generally in a position of being powerless or subject to the authority of another person, usually a male. By allowing, what is described in the chapter as egalitarianism, a trusting relationship between therapist and client can be better developed. I understand why doing this would help, but on the other hand, if the client, therapist relationship is boiled down to essentially nothing more than two friends having a conversation, how then is the advice from the therapist going to be received? I think full disclosure to the client is treading on thin ice. I say this because it is easy for the roles to be switched; the client may end up counseling the therapist.
2) On page 391, Norcross & Prochaska discuss male-sensitive psychotherapy. What I found interesting about male-sensitive psychotherapy is that unlike feminist therapy, there is no advocating for the male therapist to self-disclose to his male client in order to balance power and make him feel more at ease. Men are also under authority and not necessarily in positions of power. On the contrary, men feel powerless and subjected by society just as women do. So why would it not be beneficial to do this in male-centered therapy?
In response to David’s 2nd comment, I found that section interesting as well. When it comes right down to it, the client wants peace. Whether in their heart, mind home or all three, the client is coming to us so we can help them find it. But we also have to remember there are a lot of variables that come in to play when they pursue this peace. Sometimes, they may choose a direction that is contrary to the one we would like them to take but for them, it is the one that will bring them the peace they are looking for. Like you said David, this something we as therapists have to be ready to accept. Now that I think about, I actually experienced a situation just like this, only it wasn't in therapy but a relationship.
1) Gender roles seem to do a lot of damage in our mental health. Gender roles are so engrained in us because we were raised thinking women are supposed to be a certain way and when you are not being displaying "feminine" attributes you are not being who God created you to be. I think of all the pressures mothers place on themselves to be the perfect mom who cleans, cooks, works, does everything. Women need to come to a place where they realize the expectations put on them as a women may not be the healthiest for them as women. (pg 426). 2) Prochaska and Norcross pointed out that there is a "strong connection between beliefs about gender and problematic behaviors" (pg 437). This really struck me. In lifespan earlier this quarter we sat in a circle and talked about gender issues. It was really interesting to hear the pressures my fellow classmates feel in regards to their gender. In my experience, a lot of men put their worth in being able to provide and being strong and stable. These cultural expectations of what it is to be a man backfire because those "ideals" get twisted into not showing emotion or it becoming a power struggle. Again, it is so hard to differentiate in the midst of gender roles because they are so engrained in us, how do you determine what is a healthy expectation and what is placing you in a harmful box? In response to Jay: I agree that there is a tendency in attempt to become equal, women end up oppressing men or becoming men. But I don't think that is what is happening here in this chapter. There is a history behind this chapter. I was surprised to find out that therapy was created for women by men in the first place. So there is a longer history of that therapy, thus a longer section. Furthermore, there is a longer history of oppression and said power differential. my book is the 5th edition
I'm the author of Assaulted by Joy: The Redemption of a Cynic, What Women Wish You Knew about Dating, and co-author of What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew about Sex.
32 comments:
1. On pg. 422, Prochaska and Norcross state that women are taught to internalize while men externalize-men drink. This results in typical behaviors specific to genders like drinking in men and phobias and panic disorders in women. My question is women often cry more often than men; is that considered an external coping skill? And I thought that men had higher rates of anxiety attacks; aren’t anxiety attacks caused by internalizing ones feelings of anxiety and stress?
2. Prochaska and Norcross portray the dominant culture as a overt culture which is actively seeking to lure minorities into denying their cultural-group. “Often clients must face the truth about themselves – that they hold the norms of dominant culture in high esteem and denigrate aspects of their own culture, denying their heritage and family group,” (p. 441). This seems a bit extreme to me. In undergrad many of the cultural students that I had contact with had found a way to integrate the dominant culture and their own in a way that did not completely deny their heritage. I would argue that everyone’s culture is slightly different than the dominant culture (we are all unique), and have each found a way to integrate society constraints and requirements into our own families culture. As a person whose family culture was extremely divergent from the dominant culture, I feel that the interaction between the dominant culture and my own is much less hostile and rather more symbiotic in nature.
(Prochaska &Norcross, 2003).
Rebecca Kulzer
1) Something that struck me in this chapter was the emphasis on the fundamental attribution error (p. 381) by Prochaska and Norcross. Basically they explain how if a therapist is working with a female client who is in the work force, there should be careful attention paid to the dichotomy between resistance and psychopathology. In other words, there is a tendency to misread the woman's behavior as pathological instead of responsive to their situation. I wondered how it could be that a therapist would make such a mistake. I know things can slip through the cracks, but it also seems to me that a solid, responsible therapist who is following their client would be able to tell that their female client's difficulty would be reactionary and not pathological. I appreciate the insight by the authors, but I am surprised that this is actually an error that is made...maybe I need another example of it to better illustrate things.
2) I found the section on interpersonal conflicts to be very stimulating, especially the part about communication (p. 387). It seems like a paragraph or blurb that anyone should read before entering a heterosexual marriage. "Men tend to express anger...women tend to express pain and needs" (p. 387). This is something that is vital for both men and women to understand, especially in the context of a marriage. For professional use, however, I will certainly need to be cognizant of this when working with clients. Men will delve into certain emotions and not others. Women would be more prone to bring certain emotions into therapy. The key will be discovering what these emotions are for the individual and conceptualizing it from there. It is good to know the gender tendencies, but there are also no clear cut rules of thumb. I wonder what it would be like to experience the atypical scenarios such as women who tend to exhibit anger and/or men who exhibit pain and needs. Any thoughts?
Response to Rebecca's #2
I think you are definitely correct in your assessment that people are unique especially in their methods of integrating cultures. I can relate greatly with this being raised in a Iranian-American culture. There are certain aspects of my identity that are clearly produced by my Iranian heritage, and others that are clearly American. For me, my cultural identity is vastly different than other Iranian-Americans that I know who are my age. I think this personal example for me illustrates the point that you are nicely making.
1) In their discussion of male sensitive therapy, Prochaska and Norcross (p. 391) talk about the four stereotypes of “true masculinity.” What is interesting to me is not that these four stereotypes exist, but rather that they point out the bind that men are placed in that they cannot possibly succeed in. The truth is that masculinity is a fragile thing, a fleeting thing. It is the first thing that leaves a man for any sort of deviant behavior. And men are raised from an early age to live into these things, only to have it be reversed upon them later in life. Is it any wonder that the problems that men face, and cause, exist, if this is the root issue?
2) I am very interested in non-traditional ways of doing therapy with men. My limited interactions thus far have shown that more experiential ways of relating are much more helpful that discussing the issue. For men (accepting that generalities are flawed), it seems that discussing the issue is an intellectual one that simply does not allow for emotive processing. Doing something is a much better way to help a man engage his emotions, until he learns an emotional language and becomes more comfortable with it. If therapy is to help people engage their emotions, then a finding way into the emotional world of the male client that might not start at talk therapy might be useful.
3) At Bobby’s #2, I think that we will have to always be aware that tendencies don’t translate into actualities. The trick, with all the various dimensions of a client’s world, is to understand what is normative for the group, and then see how the client relates to the group. Women may bring more of one emotion to the therapeutic table in general, but to expect that a specific woman would not talk about something is to fail in that most basic skill: empathy. We as therapists need to make sure we meet the clients where they are.
1.) At the risk of offending (not my intent), doesn’t the emphasis of the chapter portray that the definition given of feminist, “a person who believes in and/or advocates the priniciple that women should have … rights equal to those of men,” is not accurate? (Prochaska & Norcross, p. 376). I certainly agree that that should be the goal and by that definition I hope everyone in our class is a feminist. However, the chapter is titled Gender-Sensitive Therapies not Feminist Therapies. Yet the authors spend only 2 1/2 of the chapter’s 24 pages on male-sensitive therapy. That is not equality; it is a minor instance of dominance reversal. An argument that the rest of the book (read: psychotherapy) is male-sensitive is nonsensical since, as the authors point out, the majority of therapy and research has been done by males on female clients (a similar point is made by the authors later in the chapter).
Thus, the rest of the book (again, read: psychotherapy) may be more a male view of what mental health should be for women and subsequently that view has then been pushed onto men as what their mental health should like as well. But the very fact that there are differences in “cognitive structures and behavioral patterns,” (Prochaska & Norcross, p.377) suggests that there are likely differences in what constitutes mental health for both genders. My point is that if we are going to have equality (instead of a reversal of the dominate gender) than a recognition that classic psychotherapy was been just as insensitive to men as to women is necessary as is close consideration of gender-sensitive therapies for both sexes. The word “gender” rather than “feminist” sounds like equality but if only women’s needs are considered and represented, it is not.
2.) The author’s brief discussion of male-sensitive therapy does not sound very male-oriented at all to me. First, the gender role strain paradigm does seem to me to belay the current situation men find themselves in – strained between masculinity and feminitity. In short, we are expected to be sensitive and emotional but still largely the breadwinner and always the defenders (to illustrate that, I would ask all the married people – last time you heard a noise in the house, which of you went to check it out? I’m betting 99% of the time it was the husband.) However, the treatments listed (recognize emotional needs, identify sources of (assumedly errant) beliefs, and change those beliefs) do not sound at all like helping men become better men – it sounds like exactly what I said in my first comment - men deciding what was healthy for women and then pushing that onto men. While I agree that emotionality and vulnerability are important for men to discover, a focus on just those things does nothing to encourage men in the roles they have and to recognize the validity and importance of some parts of the masculine image, such as feeling responsible to protect and provide for their families (Prochaska & Norcross, pp. 392-3).
Jonathan Wellman, November 22, 2009
Response to Bobby #2:
I think you are right that communication differences are a major issue in marriage. However I think the authors did not go far enough. Communication is not just verbal expression. For example, in the paragraph preceding the authors state “Male-dominated society equates sex with intimacy” (Prochaska & Norcross, p.387). The context insinuates that deep friendship is true intimacy, not sex. But for a married couple I think this is not true at all. Both are extremely important. Men need to be emotionally expressive and have that deep friendship with their wives, but women also need to be sensitive to the need for sexual intimacy in the relationship. However, in our society the common joke is something like, “How often do you have sex, Bob?” “Sex? What’s that? I’m married.” It is socially acceptable for a woman to not want to have sex with her husband, but it is not acceptable for a man to not talk to his wife. She is empowered, he is insensitive. Healthy communication and intimacy both ways are the keys to a marriage that also has equality.
1) Prochaska and Norcross (2007, p. 408) state that some feminist therapists promote androgynous women as the ideal and that these androgynous women are more independent, felixible, and have higher self-esteem. Although I find feminist therapy valuable, this is really a further distortion of the problem that they fight against rather than an ideal. I see the systemic problem of female oppression as a problem of devaluation of feminine characteristics and to do away with femininity altogether through androgyny would be to throw women out the door. Rather, femininity (along with masculinity) needs to be uplifted as desirable for both women and men in varying degrees. This would allow for women to have worth and for men to have more gender flexibility--since, qualities considered feminine (nurturing, kind, etc...) would be of worth to men as well. Both men and women could engage in all the different aspects of life (work, homemaking, etc.) without feeling their identity threatened in doing so.
2) Although I agree with Prochaska and Norcross's criticism of feminist therapy as considering all psychopathology societally induced (2007, p. 414), I think in modern psychotherapy we too often focus on the psychopathology of individuals and neglect the systemic dysfunction of society and its affect on individuals. Racism, sexism, discrimination, and prejudice are not the overarching problems that they once were but they do still exist. Prochaska and Norcross claimed that these messages were “facets of internalized oppression” (2007, p. 397). This would mean that it would be hard to distinguish what is inherent versus environmentally influenced. Do you think that there are traits that are inherent in men and women?
In response to Bobby... The author Virginia Valian (1999) has found this fundamental attribution error to be very prevalent and actually outlines research in support of this in her book. She demonstrates that when a woman succeeds in the workplace it is more often attributed to the difficulty of the task (it being easy) and when a man succeeds it is more often attributed to his ability. I think this happens to all of us even though we may be proponents of advancement for women—because we are so influenced by our cognitive schemas and are often unaware of the way in which culture and society have influenced us.
Reference:
Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement of women. (pp. 167-186). Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
1.Prochaska and Norcross (2003) discuss how greatly culture places gender expectations on individuals (pp.421-437). They state that "power inequalities and gender-role expectations shape the cognitive structure from the moment a child comes into the world" (p. 421). How are we as Christian therapists supposed to discern what traits or attributes are God-given from those that are societal influences? Further, how do we respond if an individual comes in and is unsure of what gender they want to be or feel they are supposed to be? Are all differences in personality between a male and a female indeed just from one's culture?
2.I'm intrigued by the concept of "culture-bound syndromes" given a few of the examples in the psychopathology section for culture-sensitive therapy(Prochaska & Norcross, 2003, pp.438-439). If someone comes in, for example, truly believing they are demon-possessed or telling us that his/her soul has left the body, how are we going to respond to that? Do you think that our Biblical convictions are going to effect our cultural-sensitive therapy?
In Response to Chris's second comment: I think that is a very accurate point. Men don't seem to need an intellectual conversation if the end goal is to draw upon their emotional feelings. I'd love to hear some examples of the type of non-traditional techniques that you would like to use in these situations!
3. In Response to Jay’s first response:
I agree that there tends to be a backlash in psychotherapy when dealing with women. There has been an extreme shift in bias towards genders (to the detriment of males), as evidenced by the numerous pages on female psychotherapy and the two paragraphs on male psychotherapy (Prochaska & Norcross, 2003). It does seem like a severe overcompensation that will turn into a dominant gender reversal. I have heard some say that this would be acceptable since it gives men “a taste of their own medicine.” However, as a femaie myself, while I do advocate for benefitting the female gender I hesitate when considering how it could oppress males. I have no desire that my embracing and fighting for equal rights as a woman should inhibit and prevent the rights of males. I agree that overcompensating for past errors by reversing the dominant gender, is simply adding to the problem. It is not endeavoring to make “the [women’s] rights equal to those of men,” but rather a dangerous swinging to an extreme that simply replaces the dominant gender.
Rebecca Kulzer
I'm using my 2nd free post.
1. I agree with P&N on the idea that the therapeutic relationship is characterized by empowerment and egalitarianism (389). However, this seems easier said than done. While therapists hope to have unconditional positive regard for their clients, they have to gauge what empowerment and egalitarianism looks like for the relationship and how the client view these concepts. How do therapists go about empowering people who believe they are hopeless? How do therapists confront cultural issues that shape clients' views of egalitarianism?
2. It seems incredibly difficult to break males who observe stereotypes in male-sensitive psychotherapy (391). Many are consciously unaware of how they fit into a category because cultural and societal standards are so ingrained in people. Males may be conditioned to assume roles that required them to carry more responsibility than females. I think male-sensitive psychotherapy is helpful in uncovering such hidden characteristics.
3. Respoinse to Hannah's second comment: I also agree with Hannah and the idea that we so oftern focuus on the pathologies of clients, and not on the broader scope of their lives within a tapestry of culture, society, family, or other spheres of life. I think it is important for therapists to develop an understanding of the many factors that have brought a person to where they are in life. Regarding gender issues, a male or a female fits into stereotypes because they are shaped by a long history of patriarchy. This problem does not go away with one person who is in therapy. It is widespread and must be treated with sensitivity.
1. I found the section on women's self-esteem particularly interesting. I agree that many women base a much of their identity, and even value, upon relational aspects of life (431). So, this would at some point effect their self-esteem. If your self-concept or condition of worth is in part how other's view or respond to you, then your self-esteem will be effected greatly by relational issues. Any extreme is probably unhealthy, but as Prochaska and Norcross point out, interdependence and finding some sense of identity in relation with other people is of the Ideal Individual (433).
2. I somewhat disagree with Prochaska and Norcross' assertion about women's tendency to "underestimate their abilities" with declarations like, "I just don't have the ability" and "I can't" (431). I do think that women can be easily interpreted as undermining their ideas and opinions. However, I think this spawns from valuing equal-status or "symmetrical" (You Just Don't Understand, Tannen 1990) relationships so much, that they often preface opinions with many disclaimers and qualifiers. For example, instead of saying something like, "Rogerian practice is the best way to be a therapist," many women might say, "From what I've learned, I feel like, Rogerian therapy is really effective. You might want to try it, but I could be wrong. There are a lot of theories out there." (Okay, I exaggerated that a little bit.) Essentially, I believe women are sensitive to coming off as dictative or dominant, because maintaining an symmetrical relationship is of more value than being right or revered.
In response to Chris' comment on "true masculinity," I completely agree. It's such a tragedy that we allow societal standards that bully people into ill-fitted boxes and then later berate them for being ignorant and unemotional. I can't wait for the day when gender roles disintegrate into the natural fluidity of our creation. I'm not sure if this is totally possible on earth, but I am praying.
Mary Alexandra Jacobs, November 23, 2009
1. According to the text, there are two characteristics of the client-therapist relationship in feminist therapy. They are empowerment and egalitarianism. I think that empowerment is very important in therapy because it encourages growth within the client. Egalitarianism, however, I do not agree with. I don't believe the client and therapist should have an equal relationship because it is important for the client to look to the therapist as an influential figure. "Reducing the knowledge discrepancy between the participants, generating mutual goals, increasing the clinician's self-disclosure, and demystifying the process of therapy" (p. 389) may act to decrease the therapists influential role.
2. I found the concept of "gender socialization" to be interesting. It says that women tend to internalize distress while men tend to externalize it. This shows in women through their "mood, phobic, obsessive-compulsive, and panic disorders" (p. 378). Men, on the other hand, tend to display "alcohol and drug abuse and antisocial personality disorder" (p. 378). I think that this is largely due to cultural influence. It is important for us to be aware of these tendencies and hopefully find a way to counterbalance them.
In response to Hannah:
Good thoughts. I do think that there are traits inherent to males and females but it is hard to completely distinguish them because of the strong influence of environment as well. However, certain traits are just naturally more prominent in the different sexes.
1. “Gender role expectations often generate a false sense of self” (p. 397). This stood out to me because it can be addressed from a Rogerian perspective. We might see clients who do not think that they are allowed to feel or think what they really want to feel or think. For example, a man might not think he can be emotional. A woman might think she is not allowed to be angry. How might Rogers have worked with these types of clients? What specific interventions might he use? The book talks about “consciousness raising, choosing, and social liberation” (p. 400) in feminist therapy. Would he help the client in that specific process?
2. The book talks about how men can have difficulty seeking help (p. 411) partly because they would have to show their weak sides and tap into their emotions. I think that it is partly a threat to who they are expected to be as a man. How might Rogers address these conditions of worth and help a male client self actualize in being able to express his emotions?
Response to Chris’s second comment:
I think that you raise a valid question in that we might need to think about how we go about therapy with me. Can men express their emotions better by not using words? I think that the answer might possibly be yes. If so, what are some techniques that can be used to help me tap into their emotions without words?
1) I enjoyed learning of the supposedly culturally bound mental illnesses listed on page 439 of Norcross and Prochaska. It is striking how many of the listed “disorders” have spiritual influences embedded within them. It is interesting to think that we are learning integration models in a society which has tried so hard to rip psychology and spirituality apart, whereas if we were taking the same courses in Guatemala or New Guinea integration might simply be assumed. I wonder how this fact will shape the course of therapy for a newly immigrated client. How will we even begin to understand these differing cultural assumptions? It all makes you appreciate the use of true empathy all that much more.
2) When Karlsson speaks of ethnic matching in psychotherapy I feel somewhat wary. I wonder if there is a point at which we are making it too easy on the client and the therapist. Should we clinically prepare the therapy room and therapist him or herself to exactly match the client and their own expectations of therapy? Is it justifiable to match ethnic counselors with their respective populations, or are we just allowing ethnically isolated groups to remain so? I am not arguing that there will never be a place for a native speaking therapist or a culturally savvy psychologist, but I just don’t feel comfortable with the idea of segregating the therapy room based on the fact that a therapist would have to work harder to get to know his or her client.
3) In our last reading for this week from Pope, he addresses the guilt that students and recent graduates feel upon experiencing some sort of physical attraction to one or more of their clients. I think that this problem may be even greater for us as Christian therapists in that we (as a Christian population) already tend to equate sexual thoughts or feelings with wrong-doing and guilt. This could cause many problems as we may be even less likely to report sexual attractions to our supervisors. If we are not comfortable sharing our feelings with others, then it will be nearly impossible to control and utilize such feelings for the good of the client. I think that it’s important to remember here that God judges our actions and not our basic sinful nature. Attraction by itself is not a sin but rather a temptation. It is how we react to temptation that we are judged by.
There were couple of things that surprised me.
1) The author claims that "at an early age, girls begin to devalue themselves..." (p. 378) The author did not have any reference listed for this claim so I am not sure whether it is accurate or not. I do know that it is typical for girls to be encouraged to sacrifice personal gains to benefit others, as the author has written subsequent to the quote above. However, I was somewhat astounded at the author's claim of girls devaluing themselves.
2) Rape statistics in p. 380, was somewhat new. I am aware of the low report rate of rape and sexual harassment cases, but it was eye opening to read how low the actual conviction rate of a assailant is.
As the author has stated, it is very unfortunate how the victims are victimized twice through the initial assault and the negative response from the society.
Response to Rebekah Kilman Liu:
I agree with the fact that female traits do need to be valued more. However, I am somewhat confused at what the author is trying to get at. The author claims that female traits need to be valued, but a lot of the examples that are given pertain to traits that are generally associated with males. And it seems that some of the stance that the author is making are not culturally sensitive. Females needing to be autonomous, independent, and career oriented is a very contemporary western perception. I'm not sure if this is the best model of approach for female therapy in different cultures.
1. The ideas that the DSM values traits that are culturally more male brings up interesting thoughts when it comes to pathology. If autonomy is traditionally more male and dependency is more female, that seems to contribute to the idea that females are more prone to pathology because they are acting in the way that they are socialized. Expanding on that idea, if women are more victimized sexually because of their cultural role, and sexual trauma happens to a quarter of women, then pathology is almost a scripted part of existence for women based on the roles that have been traditionally prescribed for them, and the victimization that unfortunately befalls many of them (Prochaska & Norcross 377-381).
2. On page 391, Prochaska and Norcross discuss therapy that is sensitive to the social constructs that males face. While this is discussed, I think it should be discussed more in society. I can remember taking a class about gender identity and realizing for the first time that in many families and social constructs men have little to no choice on the ways that they behave, and it can cause a deep woundedness in them. As therapists, particularly for me as a future female therapist who is sensitive to the challenges that my own gender faces, how can I also prepare to be sensitive to the challenges faced by those who are male?
Response to Jay #2
Your comments make me think a little more deeply about my question; what is the best way to encourage the fullness of expression in a man? In many ways it seems that both genders are expected to be super people: women are expected to, if they decide to have a career, be both capable and on-top competitive career person and men are expected to both be the breadwinners and then emotionally sensitive and vulnerable people who turn off other aspects of their person when they come home. I think at the end of all the commenting I am not sure that there is a solution or even a strategy for working towards better balance and health...
1. On page 386 the authors say that "women must come to appreciate the need for personal responsibility - to be happy and healthy themselves. Responsibility involves making time for oneself, nurturing the self in order to nurture others. Many women have to realize that in order to truly love and support others, they must first learn to love and support themselves".
This sounds self evidently true. Indeed I immediately think of women I know who are experiencing difficult circumstances and seem to invariably say something like "I'm not worried about my ex, my life is dedicated to my child". This strikes me as almost a defensive position. I'm hurt and in an effort to cope I'm going to pour all my emotional resources into caring for my child.
I have always felt compelled to tell these women that it's wonderful to hear that your going to pour yourself into your child's life. But, you need to take care of yourself too. You will be a better mother if your happy. I think that entails doing things other than...activities directly related to being a mother.
The problem, I think, is that...I think it really comes off as just my opinion. Is there any empirical evidence that backs this up? I would love to delve into some of that research if it is out there. I realize one of the criticisms of feminist therapy is the lack of research but this wouldn't necessarily fall under that umbrella.
2. I appreciate that there is more of an emphasis on providing treatment oriented toward treating males and on page 393 they give a little description of what that looks like. However, I'm wondering if there is a comprehensive theory for working with children that is unique to both genders and what that looks like. If there is such a theory, are we going to learn that sometime during the course of our program?
I know we have a child and adolescent class but...I've taken that, gotten transfer credit for it, and we didn't cover any kind of comprehensive theory for working with kids. We touched on a lot of different strategies for dealing with various issues that come up when working with kids but none of them included gender specific considerations.
Just curious...I think working with kids, and feeling like I'm making a difference, is tough.
In response to Rebecca's 1st question:
According to Hersen, Turner, & Beidel (2007); panic disorders without agoraphobia are present in women twice as often as men and with agoraphobia, three times as often. Furthermore social phobia is more prevalent in women and specific phobias are predominately found in women.
I think we must have different books or I don't know exactly where your reference is... 422 is chapter 13 in my book. On page 378 though they talk about external and internal disorders or problems rather than coping skills. In relation to that, I would say that crying is an internal method of coping because although tears are produced externally the distress that caused those tears was internalized.
1)I thought the arguments for and against androgyny were interesting (p. 388). I think a large part of this debate is whether one believes that gender differences are God-given or results of the Fall. When the differences are culturally imposed and oppressive, I would say we need to strive towards breaking down the differences. However, the aspects that perhaps God intended to be different should be celebrated and valued. The trouble is distinguishing between the two.
2)Another section that struck me was pointing out that sometimes, a woman may decide that alienation is not worth the power she may gain (p. 384). Here, like other places in the chapter, I could not help but to see similarities between gender issues and ethnic issues. The presented problem could just as easily have been a bi-cultural person straddling the line between a more collectivist and more individualistic culture. It may be hard to swallow, but sometimes, the client may choose connectedness over autonomy. We as therapists may have to be ready to accept that.
David Choi, November 23, 2009
In response to Rebeckah Liu's first comment:
I agree that workplaces should be more accommodating for families. I wonder if part of the problem isn't the greed and capitalistic fervor of our country. Most companies are too concerned with the immediate bottom line that it's easy to see people as money making machines. It takes a lot of leadership and insight to implement radical changes to promote family.
1. Prochaska and Norcross claim that both sexes encounter gender role expectations but that women often encounter more severe punishments for not complying with role expectations (p. 426). This struck me as odd however, because within our society it seems that women actually are allowed greater flexibility in which roles they choose to take on than do men. For example, if a woman would like to be a doctor, that is a totally acceptable career choice, however, if a man wants to be a nurse, he often incurs ridicule from his male peers as a result. Or, consider the societal response to stay at home fathers and house husbands. There are countless other examples of this in our society where a man taking on a “feminine” role is criticized. Consequently, it seems that there is more rigid role expectations for men and that they should be incurring the greater punishments for non-compliance, thus I was confused by Prochaska and Norcross’ original assertion.
2.When reading Prochaska and Norcross, I could not help but wonder if the gender socialization in society, which is done prevalently through various media sources and often tells a women that she can “have it all”, also contributes to the self-esteem issues that man y women struggle with. I feel that most women of my generation feel it is okay for them to achieve and be career women. However, I think the bigger attack on women’s self-esteem is the difficulty of dealing with the idea that a woman can have it all and be both the family woman and the working women in equal amounts. Consequently, this idea that you can have it all, seems to impact women ‘s self-esteem negatively from the standpoint that one must make some sacrifices on either end in order to maintain one’s presence in both the domestic and working world, which means she will not be able to achieve the way her male counterparts do without feeling guilty about neglecting her family, and she will not be able to do all that she would like for her family without feeling guilty about neglecting aspects of her career. Consequently, guilt over these sacrifices may often result in lower self-esteem because the woman feels she is failing those around her and her expectations for herself do not match her actual performance in her domestic and work life.
3.Response to Hannah's 1st comment:
I totally agree. I think our society in encouraging androgyny is in a subtle way actually devaluing femininity and masculinity. Although, I do not think the concept of androgyny as a whole is negative. Reality is men and women in general are wired differently, however, I think where society has gone astray is in placing greater value and acceptance on masculine traits over feminine traits, which are often viewed as week or irrational. These value judgments are the problem, not the traits themselves. Thus, I contend that if society moves away from these judgments, greater androgyny may result simply by giving individuals the freedom to express whatever traits they possess.
1. From personal experience, I believe that "consciousness raising" is a very crucial part of the therapeutic process. As I've been involved with Asian American ministries since high school, and most of young people are not aware of how the "dominant culture has shaped their views about themselves and their culture" (Prochaska & Norcross, 441). And many are not aware of how their own culture influences/clashes with the dominant culture. For example, although Confucianism is not practiced by Christians, the teachings of Confucious is still deeply rooted in the Asian culture. It affects family life, school life, relationships, etc. The dissonance can cause stress, anxiety, depression, or adjustment issues. To understand and gain competence to see ethnic clients is so important. What do you think is the best way to gain competence- reading, videos, talking with friends, etc?
2. I do not find it surprising that the studies by Abramowitz & Murray in 1983, and Atikinson in 1985 found that "evidence supports preferences for ethnically similar therapists by members of racial minority groups" (Prochaska & Norcross, 448). In my opinion it is because of the same reason why you see ethnic groups hanging together, or why there are specific ethnic churches or ministries. It has to do with a level of understanding you know someone has without having to explain. As an Asian American, there are experiences I went through that only another Asian American understands. Without having to explain it, that person will know what I have experienced and it allows us to skip the explanation. It just makes it easier. As an Asian American therapist, I will know and understand the hardships she went through as an Asian American, (generally speaking), without having them explain. I do not say this to discourage non-Asian therapists to take on Asian clients, because there are clients who will prefer non-Asian therapists! (I am one of them).
This chapter just makes me realize that there is much I do not know about other ethnic cultures as well.
Sarah Moon, November 24, 2009.
In response to Rebekah's 2nd comment:
I agree that we should learn to value women and what women are capable of. I think the issue is that everyone has a different view on what this looks like. That's why we have the feminist movement, feminist theology, etc. The definition of what are valuable qualities varies from person to person. And if we want to get into theology, there are different interpretations of what the role of men and women are.
1) On page 401, Norcross and Prochaska discuss "consciousness raising" in feminist therapy. I feel like the therapist could be highly influencing the client and almost projecting their own ideas onto the client. Did I interpret this correctly?
2) Based on Norcross and Prochaska's discussion of "male-sensitive psychotherapy" on pages 410-12; I am curious what this approach would have to saw about a nam with overly feminine characteristics, as defined by society. For example, I had a male friend who was labeled as overly feminine by cultural standard, and therefore assumed that he was homosexual. Over the years, be bought into this gender stereotype and decided that he must be homosexual. How would male-sensitive psychotherapy deal with this issue?
In response to Lauren's question number 2:
This is an interesting question. I think Rogers would try to be non-directive, but ultimately truly non-directive therapy is not possible. So, I think some, but little projection of Roger's ideas would be put on the client
-Candace Coppinger 11/24/09, 10:03 am
1. “The goal of feminist therapy is to enable the client to change the social, interpersonal, and political environment…” (p. 388). This quote from Prochaska and Norcross is really the root of all social change. We can’t stand on the sidelines of life and expect change to happen on it’s own. Change happens from purposeful and persistent work.
2. Proshaska and Norcross describe the concept of role strain as the multiple demands on a person from their various roles (p. 379). For one woman, these various roles could include being a wife, a mother of one or more children, a daughter, a supervisor at work, a grad student, a community volunteer and staff member at her local church (just to name a few). Currently, I am in all of these roles with the exception of being a mother and a wife; however, I barely have time to do much more outside these roles. I can’t imagine the additional role strain of being a wife and a mother. This view gives meaning to the cliché a women’s work is never done.
Response to Rebecca Rouse’s 2nd response
I think you have a great point. I think we also have to be attentive for the male or female client that does not follow the “typical” gender socialization trend.
1. Competent multicultural therapy involves respecting client values. While feminist theory makes some significant contributions to the field of psychology, it is based upon values that may not be shared by clients of all cultures. Like Rogers, feminist therapists approach the client as expert. However, the practice of consciousness raising involves educating clients about sexist social methods (Prochaska and Norcross, 2003). In some cultures, community dependence and distinct gender roles are valued and perceived to be a positive influence on individuals and society - not to be the cause of problems. Clients who ascribe to certain cultures may not wish to change their socialized gender role or desire to fight community oppression. Within this framework, there is great risk of imposing values onto the client as success is measured by the client’s understanding of problems through the feminist worldview as well as actively advocating for change in the greater community. What if a client desires to be financially dependent on her husband and a full time Mom? Hopefully, this choice would be respected by the therapist.
2. Pope’s (2006) work distinguishes sexual feelings from sexual involvement and addresses therapist contemplation of sexual involvement, client characteristics to which therapists are attracted, therapist assessment/reactions and client awareness/mutuality of attraction. It is interesting that while 71 percent of therapists believed clients were not aware when they (the therapist) felt sexually attracted to them, when mutual attraction was assessed, 83 percent of therapists believed that their attraction to a client had been mutual. This number sounds quite high. I find it interesting that the majority of therapists think clients they are sexually attracted to are also mutually attracted to them. I wonder if other factors come into play here?
Response to Bobby #2:
I think culture influences the way men and women express emotion. In some cultures, anger is a ‘typical’ way women express frustration or pain. I think anger can be a sign/indicator of pain for men and women. Anger can be an appropriate response to injustice, pain and abuse and manner of expression can vary. Unfortunately, some churches teach it is wrong to feel angry. It’s encouraging to think we will be able to help clients understand and address this important emotion compassionately and competently.
References
Pope, Kenneth S. (2006). Sexual Attraction to Clients: The Human Therapist and the
(Sometimes) Inhuman Training System. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, S(2), 96-111.
Prochaska, J. & Norcross, J. (2003). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Melissa Gardner Curri, Nov 24, 2009.
1) Prochaska and Norcross (2003) say, “women’s problems in living are not necessarily psychopathological. Rather, they are frequently reasonable and creative attempts to survive oppressive conditions” (p. 425). They go on to say that when therapists and others commit the fundamental attribution error, they do not take into account the oppressive conditions the women are living under and attribute their problems to their pathology symptoms. I find this tragic, since many people may judge single mothers to be bad people because they live in poverty and may not provide what society considers “best” for their children, but it is really because of situations in their life they have no control over. I wonder how often it is because of some sort of oppression against women, maybe in the husband who divorced her, or in society where she may have lost her job or not gained appropriate employment because of her gender.
2) Prochaska and Norcross (2003) say, “Men tend to express their anger, whereas women tend to express their pain and needs” (p. 432). Women and men have trouble communicating because it is like they are speaking different languages. I have experienced that, and I expect it to be especially difficult in a marriage and it would be helpful for spouses to learn the other’s language. I wonder how this affects therapy, when there is a gender difference between therapist and client. Does a female therapist teach her male client to speak “woman” instead of helping him to speak “man” in a more healthy way?
Response to Rebecca Rouse #2:
I also think that “gender socialization” is interesting. I agree, it may be very cultural? How can you tell what is culturally conditioned gender responses to stress and what are actual differences in the brain and physiology?
Jenn Greiner 11/24
1. It is interesting that in a chapter that seeks to be sensitive to gender issues and differences, that the term “real men” is used when describing men who are not afraid to be intimate and share their feelings, wants and needs (Prochaska & Norcross, p. 393). I agree that the qualities listed above are healthy and functional and that they are important for both men and women, however I would hesitate to use the term “real men” as this implies that men who struggle with these things are somehow not real, authentic men. I think that in trying to break down the stereotype that men must be strong, self-reliant, and anything but emotional we have perhaps gone too far in saying that men who do these things “right” are real men and those that don’t are somehow not. I think that as with anything, it is important to point out the issues as perhaps a wrong, but avoid the thinking that says “you are a right or you are I a wrong”.
2. After reading this chapter I think that it is interesting that there are specific therapies that are termed “gender-sensitive” or “feminist”. I feel like the qualities that these therapies embody should be a part of all therapy and that regardless of the type of therapy, therapists should be empowering and egalitarian (p. 389) and further, the therapeutic relationship should have warmth, empathy, equality, (p. 390) and a sensitivity to and respect for individual differences. Is this reasonable? Should these principles be a part of therapy in general, or are they more specific to gender-sensitive, feminist therapy?
In response to Bobby #2:
I would agree that it is helpful to know gender tendencies when expressing emotions, but that it is equally important to recognize that there are no clear cut rules for each. When I think about women who express their emotions mostly through anger, I think of women who perhaps have had that mostly modeled for them, and vice versa for men who are more sensitive and express hurt. I also think I have seen examples of both throughout my life and so I think that while we can make general statements, we should use much caution and most importantly, to wait for the client to reveal those aspects of themselves, before making any assumptions.
Brittany Rice November 24, 2009
1) I found Prochaska & Norcross’s (2010) explanation of male sensitive therapy interesting. As a therapist-in-training, I have not considered the difficulties in working with the male population. The four stereotypes listed: No sissy stuff, The big wheel, The sturdy oak, and Give ‘em hell make a lot of sense as I consider the men I have known. Identity for men is often rooted in these beliefs about what it is to be masculine in our society. Unfortunately, I think women (myself included) often assist in reinforcing these stereotypes because it makes us feel attraction, admiration and even safety. I want to believe that we can empower our clients to recognize these false beliefs and embrace a more sensitive self but I wonder how difficult it will be to undermine thousands of years of cultural influence.
2) I appreciate the criticism regarding gender sensitive therapy, especially from the integrative perspective. Though I believe it is extremely important to consider gender in therapy, there are so many other identifying aspects of our person that must be considered. Personally, I would not wanted to be treated solely from a gendered perspective but rather I would like my age, life status, married status, ethnicity, religion, and family of origin considered as well. The integrationists make a good argument when they state that considering gender above every other personal attribute is not a clinically sound perspective (Prochaska & Norcross, p.395).
In response to Hannah’s #2:
I am glad Hannah brought up some of the other prevailing societal issues that do still exist in our culture. I think it is equally important to consider the influence of the environment of the individuals we see in the therapy room. I am starting to believe that perhaps there are some inherent traits in men and women. As I watch the many young children in my life as they grow up, I am hit with the profound realization that many stereotypes accurately depict what is masculine or feminine behavior from a very young age. In contrast to that, I have met some kids who completely break the mold. This goes back to the age old question of nature vs. nurture. How much can an environment mold a little person into being masculine and feminine? Do the genetics have a stronger influence over the environment? Maybe we’ll never know…
Amber Blews, November 24, 2009
1) On page 397, Prochaska and Norcross ask, "Where are the delusional dominating personality disorder, the greedy personality disorder, and the macho personality disorder?" While I think that is is good to point out that qualities that are perceived as more female are pathologized more than qualities perceived to be male, I think that our colloquialisms for male behavior indicate that there are some pathological "male" syndromes, for example, little man syndrome. I wonder if further pathologizing male behavior to respond to the pathologizing of female behavior doesn't just perpetuate our problem of over-generalizing behavior according to our gender....isn't the real problem our overly rigid either-or thinking when it comes to gender?
2)On page 398 Prochaska and Norcross posit, "After years of living a life that is false and unfulfilling, a woman's reservoir of anger and resentment builds and is often expressed through self-destructive behaviors." Again, while there is some truth to this for some women, this theory assumes that the female qualities assigned to every woman are more unnatural than qualities inherent in male gender roles. What are we to think about women who fully embrace their female gender roles? Do we call them self-deceivers trying to fulfill the status-quo? Or do we acknowledge that some qualities consistent with the perceived female gender role are adaptive for them? And if they are adaptive, what are the environmental requirements that make them adaptive?
In response to Jay's comment #1:
I appreciate that you are illuminating the issue of how men have been affected by feminism. The authors point out that, "men are negatively affected by gender role expectations and that they, too, suffer form role strain." I don't think the authors point or intent is to replace male dominance with female dominance, but rather to identify that our traditional way of understanding human personality and healing has been largely moderated by the effects gender has on our behavior, awareness, and judgement. The reason why most the chapter is devoted to looking at the female experience is because historically, this has been the area that has been more problematic in terms of discrimination and under-representation. Perhaps we'd agree that a more constructive discussion would be centered on how men and women can benefit from addressing gender in psychotherapy and research. And I'd argue that this is in fact, the intended purpose of the field of feminist psychology...in other words, the name is misleading.
1) I was a little frustrated with the section on feminist theory of psychopathology. It seems that sometimes in the attempt to gain gender equality, it is forgotten that there can be different roles without inequality. Although I agree that gender socialization occurs, to what extent is this completely negative? I believe there are some qualities that are distinctly masculine and some that are distinctly feminine, but that we (as a culture) need to re-define femininity and masculinity. For instance, strength is not a masculine trait, nor is it a feminine trait but a trait that is inherent to both genders (although it may be expressed differently by the way a culture defines femininity and masculinity). The same goes with nurturing; to be nurturing is not a purely feminine quality and should not be discouraged as a weaker characteristic, but instead it should be re-framed as a strength and should be honored as an important characteristic, not only of women but of men as well.
(Prochaska & Norcross, 422-423).
2) I think the issue of “choosing” is still a very hard thing regarding the various roles that women play in society. I think the desire for a career and the desire to be a mother are both important aspirations and don’t have to be opposed to one another. I agree that society “does not acclimate quickly or easily…and will resist her efforts” (Prochaska & Norcross, 428). I think this is true with any aspect of change in society and that society is starting to make changes to adjust to the needs of women as they pursue both motherhood and career. However, many more changes need to take place to make the workplace more family friendly. I don’t like the way the authors seem to suggest that choosing motherhood would be to “choose to remain powerless and dependent” (Prochaska & Norcross, 429) or “to settle for what others are willing to give her” (Prochaska & Norcross, 429). I think that sometimes there is the tendency to forget that the right to choice means the right to choose motherhood and not career and that this choice should be treated as legitimate just as the choice to have only career or have career and motherhood. In the Christian community, I think the choice to not be a mother is still less likely to be acceptable and this should also be considered a legitimate choice. (Prochaska & Norcross, 429-429).
Kim Richardson, November 25, 2009
Response to Hannah’s 1st Comment:
I think you said it perfectly. To deny femininity or to try to suppress it by being androgynous is the systemic problem. I agree that rather than trying to make males and females look alike in characteristics, roles, etc. that both femininity and masculinity need to be honored each in their own and also allow for more gender flexibility so that each person (regardless of gender) can truly express who they are in terms of characteristics and roles, etc.
Kim Richardson, November 25, 2009
1. "Traditional therapies - based on while, middle-class, male assumptions - are increasingly inappropriate for addressing the problems of minority and oppressed groups, such as African Americans, Asian Americans, Latino/Hispanic Americans, and women" (Prochaska and Norcross, 2003, p. 419). It seems simple enough that our ways of learning and doing therapy are largely influenced by the white theorists that we are learning from (Rogers, Freud, Erikson), but I don't know how many white therapists take that seriously. Prochaska and Norcross explain from 1990 Census information that "one in four Americans already defines himself or herself as a member of an ethnic minority. If that is the case, then our education is only teaching us to work with 75% of potential clients and the case is made even more for continued training in culturally-sensitive therapy methods.
2. "Women who have experienced sexual trauma are victimized twice - once during the act, and again by society, the medical profession, and the law" (p. 424). I was struck by the statistics Prochaska and Norcross used in this section of text. It is startling to read that "only 20% or rapes are reported; of those reported, only 10% of the perpetrators are found guilty" (p. 424). According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), "1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime" (http://www.rainn.org/statistics). As a therapist in training, because of these statistics, I feel the need to make sure that I am adequately prepared to work with clients who have survived sexual assault.
In response to Amber's 1st comment:
I also found the 4 stereotypes of true masculinity to be interesting. I think that many people further reinforce those stereotypes in the men in their lives which creates a vicious cycle of expecting men to be a certain way and then being frustrated when they act stereotypically.
In response to Brittany's 1st comment: I had the same reaction when reading that section. It was if P&N were saying that a man isn't a "real man" if he doesn't fit into that description or if he struggles with showing emotion.
posted by Heather Patterson Meyer
1) On page 389, Norcross & Prochaska discuss the therapeutic relationship regarding feminist therapy. I found it interesting that in feminist therapy, the therapist is expected to self disclose to the client just as much as the client is expected to self-disclose to the therapist. According to the theory, this will equalize the balance of power. This is supposed to help the therapy process because in society, women are generally in a position of being powerless or subject to the authority of another person, usually a male. By allowing, what is described in the chapter as egalitarianism, a trusting relationship between therapist and client can be better developed. I understand why doing this would help, but on the other hand, if the client, therapist relationship is boiled down to essentially nothing more than two friends having a conversation, how then is the advice from the therapist going to be received? I think full disclosure to the client is treading on thin ice. I say this because it is easy for the roles to be switched; the client may end up counseling the therapist.
2) On page 391, Norcross & Prochaska discuss male-sensitive psychotherapy. What I found interesting about male-sensitive psychotherapy is that unlike feminist therapy, there is no advocating for the male therapist to self-disclose to his male client in order to balance power and make him feel more at ease. Men are also under authority and not necessarily in positions of power. On the contrary, men feel powerless and subjected by society just as women do. So why would it not be beneficial to do this in male-centered therapy?
In response to David’s 2nd comment,
I found that section interesting as well. When it comes right down to it, the client wants peace. Whether in their heart, mind home or all three, the client is coming to us so we can help them find it. But we also have to remember there are a lot of variables that come in to play when they pursue this peace. Sometimes, they may choose a direction that is contrary to the one we would like them to take but for them, it is the one that will bring them the peace they are looking for. Like you said David, this something we as therapists have to be ready to accept. Now that I think about, I actually experienced a situation just like this, only it wasn't in therapy but a relationship.
My second attempt to leave a comment:
1) Gender roles seem to do a lot of damage in our mental health. Gender roles are so engrained in us because we were raised thinking women are supposed to be a certain way and when you are not being displaying "feminine" attributes you are not being who God created you to be. I think of all the pressures mothers place on themselves to be the perfect mom who cleans, cooks, works, does everything. Women need to come to a place where they realize the expectations put on them as a women may not be the healthiest for them as women. (pg 426).
2) Prochaska and Norcross pointed out that there is a "strong connection between beliefs about gender and problematic behaviors" (pg 437). This really struck me. In lifespan earlier this quarter we sat in a circle and talked about gender issues. It was really interesting to hear the pressures my fellow classmates feel in regards to their gender. In my experience, a lot of men put their worth in being able to provide and being strong and stable. These cultural expectations of what it is to be a man backfire because those "ideals" get twisted into not showing emotion or it becoming a power struggle. Again, it is so hard to differentiate in the midst of gender roles because they are so engrained in us, how do you determine what is a healthy expectation and what is placing you in a harmful box?
In response to Jay:
I agree that there is a tendency in attempt to become equal, women end up oppressing men or becoming men. But I don't think that is what is happening here in this chapter. There is a history behind this chapter. I was surprised to find out that therapy was created for women by men in the first place. So there is a longer history of that therapy, thus a longer section. Furthermore, there is a longer history of oppression and said power differential.
my book is the 5th edition
Post a Comment