Baby, It’s in Your Nature

Hatred ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 199-238
Author(s):  
Berit Brogaard

In its new guidelines to help psychologists address male violence, sexism, and misogyny, the American Psychological Association suggests that misogyny stems from the masculinity ideology our culture adheres to. While the masculinity dogma is part of what inspires men to hate women, two other ideologies are needed to explain the misogyny incarnate in contemporary culture: doctrines here called “the feminine ideal” and “the myth of female filth.” It’s imprinted into the minds of little girls that they need to live up to society’s standards of femininity. Women who deviate from traditional gender norms become the targets of misogynistic hatred. The flipside of the feminine ideal is that women’s implicit association with bodily “stuff,” manipulation, and irrationality makes all women prone to misogynistic contempt. Along the way, this chapter shows how sexism differs from hateful and contemptuous misogyny, and why women who belong to multiple marginalized or stigmatized groups are particularly prone to misogynistic attacks.

Author(s):  
Neal Schmitt ◽  
Jessica Fandre

This article addresses two major issues: How psychologists conceptualize the validity of the procedures they develop and use to select employees; and what reasonable estimates of the validity of those procedures are. Changes in the way one conceptualizes validity are obvious in the American Psychological Association Guidelines, the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Principles, as well as recent textbook treatments of validity. At the same time that these changes in the ideas about measure validity have occurred, the use of meta-analysis has radically changed the discipline's thinking regarding the magnitude of the validity and utility of selection procedures, as well as their generalizability. Procedures developed to assess the extent of validity generalization have prompted a focus on true validity.


2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document