Thanks for sharing! I found your piece informative and well-reported, though I'm left wanting to know more about how we got here.
I read the NYT article that you linked, and I find it alarming that there seems to be a lack of a shared reality between practitioners like Dr. Guralnik and most other people (I hope? I cannot imagine living life according to the principles she lays out; I'm neurotic enough!). In the context of your reporting, I found this line to be almost chilling: "New words make new thoughts and feelings possible." Later in the piece, she seems to welcome the intrusion of new, charged terms like "white fragility" and "Karen" into therapy.
Interestingly, the couples that she profiles don't actually support the thesis that a critical social justice framework is useful in therapy. Most of the couples seemed hindered by mapping social issues like BLM or #metoo onto their personal lives; Dr. Guralnik describes them as going around and around in circles without making a lot of progress, worrying about systemic forces beyond their control. The CSJ approach described in the article also seemed to result in the therapist favoring the "more oppressed" or "less privileged" half of each couple; in each example, the one who was "more privileged" had to come around to the partner's point of view. There wasn't an emphasis on mutual understanding.
I did peek at the NYT top rated comments, and they were critical for the most part. Which brings me back to my first question—most people don't like this way of thinking about the world. So how did we get here?
It is not transphobic to say the diagnosis has a history of low quality published research, continuing through to the present, and that politics and profit are the machines driving the "in the initial appointment" diagnoses. As well, the mental health field has done an extremely poor job of advising patients and their families how to deal with suicidal ideation ethically. It is unethical and immoral to promote the choice of suicide, exceptions being those with serious terminal illness. Dr. Ray Blanchard, the originator of the "2 years of crossdressing while keeping a job" Blanchard Protocols for the letter leading to surgeries said, "It's too disruptive to acknowledge that it is a sexual obsession." This means that back in his heyday, he felt no ethical quandary in telling the wives of crossdressing men that it was our duty to do sex role play "to keep the marriage together." As usual, actual women's voices were unheard.
Hey, great article in TFP, thanks. I was particularly struck by two things:
1) Clooney's therapist should not be crying with her, ever. Therapists must maintain a certain detachment from their patients, not because they don't care but because they DO. I treasure time with my therapist because I know nothing I say is going to shock or upset her. She's just going to take it in and help me understand it.
2) Antioch University is completely captured by the social justice set, and routinely gets negative attention from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). So it did not surprise me in the least that they've moved towards social justice therapy.
Excellent work, Lisa! This is something I've been concerned about for a while.
To anyone who'd like to hear more perspectives on this, I'd recommend the April 6th episode of Heterodorx podcast with guest James Esses, which also covers this topic.
Thank you, Lisa. It is so important to call out the activist/[fill in the blank professionals]. Thank you for offering hope by sharing information on organizations and people fighting back.
Thank you, Lisa, once again, for shining a bright light into a very dark corner. With each article you write, I come to an even greater appreciation for the way you stay in there, never shying away, to bring us the news. The reach into therapy of this ideology is awful, as it makes it even harder for families who seek help to find anyone who will actually be helpful, rather than cause further harm. It is good to know alternatives are beginning to form, and may that continue.
Thanks for sharing! I found your piece informative and well-reported, though I'm left wanting to know more about how we got here.
I read the NYT article that you linked, and I find it alarming that there seems to be a lack of a shared reality between practitioners like Dr. Guralnik and most other people (I hope? I cannot imagine living life according to the principles she lays out; I'm neurotic enough!). In the context of your reporting, I found this line to be almost chilling: "New words make new thoughts and feelings possible." Later in the piece, she seems to welcome the intrusion of new, charged terms like "white fragility" and "Karen" into therapy.
Interestingly, the couples that she profiles don't actually support the thesis that a critical social justice framework is useful in therapy. Most of the couples seemed hindered by mapping social issues like BLM or #metoo onto their personal lives; Dr. Guralnik describes them as going around and around in circles without making a lot of progress, worrying about systemic forces beyond their control. The CSJ approach described in the article also seemed to result in the therapist favoring the "more oppressed" or "less privileged" half of each couple; in each example, the one who was "more privileged" had to come around to the partner's point of view. There wasn't an emphasis on mutual understanding.
I did peek at the NYT top rated comments, and they were critical for the most part. Which brings me back to my first question—most people don't like this way of thinking about the world. So how did we get here?
It is not transphobic to say the diagnosis has a history of low quality published research, continuing through to the present, and that politics and profit are the machines driving the "in the initial appointment" diagnoses. As well, the mental health field has done an extremely poor job of advising patients and their families how to deal with suicidal ideation ethically. It is unethical and immoral to promote the choice of suicide, exceptions being those with serious terminal illness. Dr. Ray Blanchard, the originator of the "2 years of crossdressing while keeping a job" Blanchard Protocols for the letter leading to surgeries said, "It's too disruptive to acknowledge that it is a sexual obsession." This means that back in his heyday, he felt no ethical quandary in telling the wives of crossdressing men that it was our duty to do sex role play "to keep the marriage together." As usual, actual women's voices were unheard.
This is a VERY important publication. Thank you so much for writing it, and CONGRATULATIONS on its appearance in the Free Press!
Hey, great article in TFP, thanks. I was particularly struck by two things:
1) Clooney's therapist should not be crying with her, ever. Therapists must maintain a certain detachment from their patients, not because they don't care but because they DO. I treasure time with my therapist because I know nothing I say is going to shock or upset her. She's just going to take it in and help me understand it.
2) Antioch University is completely captured by the social justice set, and routinely gets negative attention from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). So it did not surprise me in the least that they've moved towards social justice therapy.
Excellent work, Lisa! This is something I've been concerned about for a while.
To anyone who'd like to hear more perspectives on this, I'd recommend the April 6th episode of Heterodorx podcast with guest James Esses, which also covers this topic.
Thank you, Lisa. It is so important to call out the activist/[fill in the blank professionals]. Thank you for offering hope by sharing information on organizations and people fighting back.
Thank you, Lisa, once again, for shining a bright light into a very dark corner. With each article you write, I come to an even greater appreciation for the way you stay in there, never shying away, to bring us the news. The reach into therapy of this ideology is awful, as it makes it even harder for families who seek help to find anyone who will actually be helpful, rather than cause further harm. It is good to know alternatives are beginning to form, and may that continue.
Great piece!!!!
Looking forward to your additional excerpts, Lisa. Appreciate the work you are doing.