Subtle oppression anecdote

T. Treadwell ttreadwe at grouptalkweb.org
Fri Jul 18 15:28:04 CDT 2008 

The listserv is for 'all' action oriented group therapies....cp's or tep's
and whatother acronyms asgpp has are all part of the listserv.

tom

> Hi Anna,
> It was wonderful to hear your voice and please join in and let your
> interesting self be heard!
> Hmmm..does the  list serve anywhere states that only CP and above have the
> right to join and participate? speaking of our self oppression....
> Warmest welcome,
> anath
> anath garber
>
> CC: anathga at hotmail.com; list at grouptalkweb.org
> From: anna at annaschaum.com
> To: adam at blatner.com
> Subject: Re: Subtle oppression anecdote
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:17:55 -0700
>
> Adam, Ann, Ananth, etc.,
> This is my first fore' into group talk, though I have been reading threads
> since I signed up after April's conference.
> One "subtle oppression" it seems to me is the perceived lack of
> receptivity I feel when I post to any list serve and get no responses,
> when I assume at least X number are reading my post. On line particularly
> it is easy to read non-receptivity into that feedback loop. Then again, I
> can rationalize by telling myself that like me, people are busy and
> overwhelmed with the masses of loops they may/may not be receptive to, and
> a lack of response is not necessarily a reasonable cause for me to shut
> down. But in a case where there is not even one response I have to do a
> lot of self motivating to keep my internal thread alive.
> I recently tested this in my community. We have a list serve here in
> Oregon for the American Mental Health Alliance-OR, "a non-profit member
> owned corporation of mental health professionals committed to the
> necessity for privacy, confidentiality and integrity in mental health
> services". The list serve gets used for a myriad of purposes, most often
> referral queries and  "getting the word out" about professional offerings,
> and is open to and used "ecumenically" by folks of all therapeutic
> perspectives and credentialing levels (the minimum is a MA working towards
> a state licensure).
> Last spring there was an issue being addressed in the Oregon legislature
> by Licensed Professional Counselors who, due to a language loophole and
> insurance company pressures, do not share parity with LCSWs, PhDs, Nurse
> Practitoners  for payment of services, even though our training and
> credentialing process is more stringent than some of the NP's and LCSWs'.
> Curiously, even though this was big news in the papers and other
> publications for weeks, there was not a peep on the AMHA listserve about
> it. Presumably because in that conserve we're meant to be working towards
> integrity in mental health services, but when it comes to who gets paid
> and who doesn't people tend to go into their look-out -for #-one stance
> (entitlement/privilege), and get quiet. On the OPA (Oregon Psychological
> Association) list serve at the same time there was out right lynch mobbing
> going on by some psychologists who eventually hired lobbyists to kill the
> bill. Their stance was that LPC's are not qualified to serve the public,
> etc. etc., even though the facts are clearly in the LPC's favor. It is
> hard to believe it is not about $.
> Anyhow, one night I sat down at the computer and just put it out there to
> my AMHA colleagues, some of whom I knew in person, most of whom only knew
> me on the internet: "Hey , it's been awfully quiet around here about this
> legislation issue. How do people feel? How do you psychologists who are on
> both listserves feel about me, an LPC?" At the time I was considering
> spending a big chunk of money to fully join AMHA, and wanted to know
> exactly whom I would be joining? Were these folks going to be receptive
> and demonstrate inclusiveness and "integrity," or would they want to shut
> me down?
> The response I got was receptive by the people who replied, and
> approximately five did ( I believe there are over 75 on the list). One
> reply was that my question was "brave and refreshing," another explained
> in detail the long history of this fight in Oregon, another was an
> explanation of why she does not refer to LPCs (insurance issues), another
> by a board member/co-founder that there are competent therapists who are
> licensed and who are not, whether PhD, MA, etc, and that she supports the
> passing of the parity bill. In this instance there was enough receptivity
> in the feedback that I decided to join the guild, becoming part of what
> the AMHA conserve stands for. It felt like a professional risk for sure to
> ask the qusetion, and I am glad that there was enough support. I still
> wonder however about the other 70 unvoiced responses. How many who did not
> respond did so out of subtle oppression, and how many were just not
> interested or too busy or have ADD like me to reply. This seems to be a
> topic for much further inquiry, the "Sociometry of the Internet." Is
> anyone already onto that?
> So, back to the present...... how do you all feel about a CP candidate
> chiming in on this list serve? I don't really know whether I'm entitled or
> at the edge to be participating or not, according to the group talk
> conserve? I don't even know how many of you will get this far in the copy.
> It would be interesting if, even if you don't provide a written response,
> that you press "REPLY/SEND" so I have a count of how many actually read
> through this whole anecdote.
> Very best,
> Anna Schaum, MA, LPCPortland, ORJust turned in my CP application!
>
>
> On Jul 11, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Adam Blatner wrote:fun thought. Its
> reciprocal: What could someone say that would turn me off?        I have
> been turned off by people overtly attacking me, calling me names,
> presuming to attribute their fantasies as my motivations, uncivil
> language...               But there are degrees of turn-off        It's
> more intriguing if I do answer something that's provocative and see how
> the other person responds                    Sometimes they irrationally
> escalate                         Sometimes they may pause and inquire as
> to what my objections are about              So there's a bit of how many
> times over the net (ping-pong metaphor) the ball goes...
>     As to a position or saying something that's not well received... what
> might that be?             Stuff that's outside of our arena for
> discussion, such as                  Advertising tooth paste
>           or content on the border of the boundaries..
>      More problematic is the lack of any awareness that one is at the
> edge, no apologies, no questioning of the entitlement..
>      But even then, in general my own tendency is simply to inquire
> further and see how they answer...         I'll be interested to see how
> others answer Anath's question of what content would draw our rejection...
>        Warmly, adam----- Original Message -----From: thana agTo: REGINA
> SEWELL ; list at grouptalkweb.orgSent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:00 PMSubject:
> RE: Subtle oppression
> Adam,Ann,Regina,
> Hmmm. Very interesting.
> I just wonder how many on this  list serve feel oppressed by their
> perception that  what they have  to say will be totally off according to
> the perceived expectations of what is acceptable. for these  discussions.
> Would one of these presumably oppressed speak up,and help us "walk the
> talk"? How will we respond?!
>
> anath
>
> From: sewell.2 at osu.edu
> To: list at grouptalkweb.org
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:33:54 -0400
> Subject: Subtle oppression
> CC: ablatner at verizon.net
>
> Adam, Ann
>
> Hmmmm.... Interesting.
>
> I tend to look at oppression and privilege as together...as connected
> dynamics....  you can't have oppression without some other body getting
> privilege...  even if they don't want that privilege...  Like, I get
> privilege by dent of being white and middle class even though I spend a
> lot of energy fighting to redistribute resources in a more egalitarian
> manner.... So this brings up an interesting group effect....  seeing the
> collective oppressing the individual.... oppressing individuality....
> especially 1 and 3...    sort of like the Borg on Star Trek New
> Generation....  (they were a culture where conformity was mandatory.. all
> cogs in the social machine... happy cogs once they lost their
> individuality....  the words I remember  most... "Resistance [to becoming
> one of the cogs] is futile... very much like Moreno's ideas of
> Robotrons....  But who benefits?  The stability of the group... the "borg
> ness"?
>           1. I can't understand what the other person is saying because
> s/he is speaking too fast, too softly, with too much of an
> accent or dialect, using too big or unfamiliar terms or
> vocabulary, and so forth. In trying to bring up the problem of
> understand-ability, I've at times been met with blame.
>            2. Someone takes offense to what I say, which then makes it
> difficult in that escalated emotional context to seek
> clarification and make amends. Explanations are often perceived
> as trying to avoid responsibility when in fact they are seeking
> to find a way to work out the miscommunication.
>            3. Feeling one has a minority opinion when the group is
> perceived to have a certain bias. (Example: In one group many
> years ago a protagonist was complaining about a vague memory of
> possible sexual abuse---this was when this complaint was seen
> as always to be believed. I asked, "Well, there seems to be
> some question whether this event actually happened." Caught a
> lot of flack.)
>
> I like Ann's application of the cannon of creativity and impact of
> sociometry on challenging that  "borgness"  ... it seems to me that this
> is the heart of social movements....  those lone deviants who first step
> forward and say, consciously or not, I won't take these social rules and
> defying them... perhaps paying the price of being shut down or
> rejected..., perhaps getting social applause...,
>
> So the trick becomes creating groups or moving towards situations in
> groups on one hand and on another, finding ways to communicate in a way
> that others can "hear."
>
> peace,
>
> regina sewell, Ph.D.
>
> The i’m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world? Find out
> now.No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1546 - Release Date: 7/11/2008
> 6:47 AM
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
>  Anna Schaum, MA, LPCCreative Collaborative Counseling909 North Beech
> Street   Suite 201Portland, OR  97227503-282-3800     www.annaschaum.com
>
> Confidentiality Notice:This e-mail transmission may contain confidential
> or legally privilegedinformation that is intended only for the individual
> or entity named inthe e-mail address.  If you are not the intended
> recipient, you arehereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
> distribution, or relianceupon the contents of this e-mail is strictly
> prohibited.
> If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply tothe
> sender, so that we can arrange for proper delivery, and then pleasedelete
> the message from your computer.  -Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> It’s a talkathon – but it’s not just talk.
> http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalkGrouptalk
> mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>


Thomas Treadwell         CompSoc - GraphPlot               Computerized
Dept. of Psychology             \ /                         Sociometry
West Chester Univ.            __/ \__                  Phone-610-436-2723
West Chester, Pa.    ttreadwe at grouptalkweb.org         FAX-610-436-2846
                        Grouptalk Listserv
                      http://grouptalkweb.org

More information about the List mailing list