massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Stop the Insanity!
I hope this gets everyone's attention, and I don't give a rip if anyone replies or not. I am posting this separately from the previous discussions on here that have deteriorated into the most vile insulting and mudslinging bunch of crap I have ever seen in my life.
It is distressing to me that massage therapists, researchers in the field, and anyone else associated with our profession in any way stoop to this kind of behavior. Not only is it not a productive discussion, it is starting to sound like a bunch of politicians on tv with their insulting of each other's credentials, standards, and abilities.
I am not interested in shame and blame, so who started it and who said what is irrelevant. I urge you all to remember that we are ALL in this profession because we have a desire to help people through the awesome power of touch, and that is what it is about.
We don't have to agree. We can all agree to disagree. The personal attacks, the character attacks, the arguing over which country does it better, is ridiculous, petty, and childish. This is not the first time this has happened. It is the main reason I avoid this site most of the time.
I am no better, or no worse than anyone else, and everybody is entitled to an opinion. That's what forums are meant for, so that people with differing opinions have a place to discuss those, but so much of what has gone on here is not a civil discussion. When I see people that I know to be hard-working, caring people, and people that I know to be brilliant minds and hard-working as well get into these mudslinging insulting arguments on here, I personally find that to be a bad reflection of what we are supposed to be about.
I don't have to be bad in order for you to be good. You don't have to be a failure just so someone else can be a success. One country who does things differently is not better or worse, they are just different. People get caught up in national pride, and that's okay, but it does not have to deteriorate into what some of these discussions have deteriorated into. Someone makes a comment, someone takes it the wrong way, or out of context, and it just goes downhill from there.
When you're writing like this, you can't hear people's tone of voice, you can't see their body language, and what might be civil if we were all in a room together comes off as a bunch of superior b*******, and one's just as guilty as the other. When anyone has anything intelligent to say, someone else seizes upon that and uses it as an excuse for the next round of arguing.
I wish everyone of you peace and prosperity, regardless of where you are from, what you do, or how you do it. We are all equal by virtue of the fact that we are all human and it's too bad that people are fighting like a pack of junkyard dogs instead of having a civil disagreement. I can't participate in it and I won't.
Views: 1076
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ABMP on
-
We're all in this together, guys. Disagreement can be healthy, as long as we don't take it personally or make it personal. I'm a fan of passionate debate but not of being baited. I implore us all to impart a little wisdom and engage in smart debate. Have a great weekend!
-
Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on
-
what went on here the past few days is just another eruption of the same underlying dynamic that has been present on this board and elsewhere for a while. The topics may appear as 'more hours' vs. 'less hours', holism vs. reductionism, science-based vs. the ineffable, old science vs. new science, etc, but the dynamic I am talking about is one one of elitism and superiority coming from a small group (which includes Christopher) that believes that their viewpoint is the sole path to professional salvation.
Emmanuel, can you explain the difference between greedy reductionism and reductionism as a tool in the context of the scientific method, and then point to any evidence that either Chris, Bodhi, or I are greedy reductionists?
Because that's what you're accusing us of when you say such things.
Also, how do you know what we "believe", any more than Mike "knows" my goal is to tear his association apart? I say that neither of those assertions is an accurate representation of what Chris, Bodhi, or I know or believe, and I challenge you to show on what basis you claim to know differently.
And since my chops as an MT have been called into question, I'll refer you to the book "Finding Face and Faith in America" http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Faith-America-Ahror-Rahmedov/dp/15959..., by Ahror Rahmedov. I'm the MT who worked with him when his face was blown off in Uzbekistan (and in addition to his having written a book in which he mentions me by name, I have also obtained his authorization to mention him by name under HIPAA rules). I also began working at the Refugee Clinic at Harborview Medical Center exactly 20 years ago. And at that, I am a piker, compared to some people's experience in the profession--there are thousands of hours of hospital-based massage in the profession.
So when Mike and Alexei blow medical massage off as not relevant, or as we should "go to PT school" if working in a hospital is what we want, can you even entertain the possibility that the truly shabby way some people here talk about your hospital-based and evidence-based colleagues (supposed colleagues, anyway) can be contributing to the schism?
And as for the "ineffable" part, is there a religious litmus test for MTs now? Is there no room in your conception of the profession for MTs for whom the natural world is more than enough?
Emmanuel Bistas said:
Matthew,
what went on here the past few days is just another eruption of the same underlying dynamic that has been present on this board and elsewhere for a while. The topics may appear as 'more hours' vs. 'less hours', holism vs. reductionism, science-based vs. the ineffable, old science vs. new science, etc, but the dynamic I am talking about is one one of elitism and superiority coming from a small group (which includes Christopher) that believes that their viewpoint is the sole path to professional salvation.
We all have different ways of perceiving the world around us, there is not question about that. We also have different ways in how we would like to see massage therapy evolve as a profession. Is one way better than another? I think the answer is “it depends”, and that is based on what the objectives are. The least we can do is to have productive discussions.
Often, discussions are doomed because of the attitudes I mentioned above but also because of generalizations.
The word “MTs”, for example. Who is an MT? An MT can be an eighteen year old who just finished massage school and works forty hours per week without breaks at the local spa, a forty-something owner of a massage clinic who also does a couple massages per week, the president of a Massage Therapy non-profit, or the dean of a local community college who has a massage license and wants to start a massage program at her college. Not only are all these MTs different, but also based on what they do and where they are in life, their financial interests and motivations may be different as well. Who is the MT that best represents the profession?
Or the word “massageprofessionals”: this site has not only MTs, but also employers, CEU teachers, vendors, and even non-massage professionals such as the skeptic guy who dropped in last year in Christopher's discussion. I think it is flawed to think that all people on this site are similar, or even that we have the same motivations. Sometimes our interests may be at odds with each other.
Another great over-simplification in recent posts is about how “in Canada we do this” or “in the U.S. we do that”. As Mike correctly pointed out, there is no “in Canada” or “in the U.S.” because there are so many differences at a state/provincial/local level; those statements are not factual, they are make-belief. Even if something works in one place it may not work in another, especially when you compare a country that still has a Queen and a hierarchical/top-down approach such as Canada to the U.S. where states have rights that can overturn federal policies.
Going back to your question, Mike said a lot of things. In speaking out, he pointed out some of the flaws in the generalizations and took a stand with creating the Massage Therapy Alliance. He strongly believed in something and did something about it. He apologized for the tone and some of the things he said, but again when you have valid concerns which are dismissed by someone saying “you are from the Deep South” , it takes a lot of self-discipline not to say “come down here and I 'll show you 'Deep South'”.
Matthew Stewart said:
Emmanuel,
Would you elaborate on what it is that you are grateful for Mike saying?
Who was bullying and mocking MT's? All involved in the discussion are MTs, except Christopher Moyer, who I believe was threatened with violence - by an MT.
-
-
oops, forgot one thing.
it takes a lot of self-discipline not to say “come down here and I 'll show you 'Deep South'”
that's *exactly* what he did say when he said he'd knock Chris' head off, because that's the way they do things in North Carolina.
He opened the door, in other words.
I think, if we really are to be a profession, then we shouldn't say such things to each other in public where clients can read it. And no, I don't for a moment think it's a serious threat; I just think that kind of bluster looks bad for the profession.
But if we are going to engage that way in public, as the history of this site seems to show, then it's cherry-picking to complain when one person does it, but not someone else.
Emmanuel Bistas said:Going back to your question, Mike said a lot of things. In speaking out, he pointed out some of the flaws in the generalizations and took a stand with creating the Massage Therapy Alliance. He strongly believed in something and did something about it. He apologized for the tone and some of the things he said, but again when you have valid concerns which are dismissed by someone saying “you are from the Deep South” , it takes a lot of self-discipline not to say “come down here and I 'll show you 'Deep South'”.
Matthew Stewart said:
Emmanuel,
Would you elaborate on what it is that you are grateful for Mike saying?
Who was bullying and mocking MT's? All involved in the discussion are MTs, except Christopher Moyer, who I believe was threatened with violence - by an MT.
-
-
Here, here Laura! Thank you for saying what needed saying!
-
Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Bistas on
-
"...Because that's what you're accusing us of when you say such things...
And since my chops as an MT have been called into question...."
Ravensara, I assure you, you did not enter my mind even for a split second when I wrote my previous post. I also assure you that I will forget about this interaction the moment I leave this website. I do not know you at all, I had read a couple of your posts on someone's facebook page and you seemed like a pretty sensible person. I am glad you have a great career. It would be great to hear more about your experiences, please share on this website.
For the record, I was not debating appropriate or inappropriate use of reductionism. What I did say is that some people believe that there is one way to achieve professional salvation. How do I know that they believe that? Because they have said so. How do I know they are being elitists? Because I have been around this forum for a long time and I am not alone in expressing that observation.
"...can you even entertain the possibility that the truly shabby way some people here talk about your hospital-based and evidence-based colleagues (supposed colleagues, anyway) can be contributing to the schism?
I thought I was clear that being non-specific and overgeneralizing is half the problem. If Alexei or Mike are not being precise, we need to ask for details. I asked Bodhi for specifics in the past few days as this was unraveling and was ignored.
"...And as for the "ineffable" part, is there a religious litmus test for MTs now? "
I certainly hope not. I also hope that people who believe in something more than nature will not be left out of the profession.
"..He opened the door, in other words."
The doors for inappropriate behavior and personal attacks have been opened long ago, and not by Mike... I am sure you can find the posts.. I agree that we must close those doors and move forward.
-
Permalink Reply by The Rev on
-
Nice spiel Ravensara... Ravensara wrote, "what went on here the past few days is just another eruption of the same underlying dynamic that has been present on this board and elsewhere for a while. The topics may appear as 'more hours' vs. 'less hours', holism vs. reductionism, science-based vs. the ineffable, old science vs. new science, etc, but the dynamic I am talking about is one one of elitism and superiority coming from a small group (which includes Christopher) that believes that their viewpoint is the sole path to professional salvation."
Let's not forget it was a gang of 13 that passed a governance change for an organization that has gone on to becoming the largest nonprofit in the realm of massage therapy. Later on that group moved onto becoming a 501c6 political machine that has trounced on all forms of touch (as opposed to massage) declaring everything is massage therapy.
Let those that own the hospitals the MD offices the insurance companies decide who can do "medical massage". Practicing medicine should have different requirements from those doing massage.
With that said, the biggest mistake the amta folk made was putting us into the hands of the state via licensing. The ante to practice on any level will forever, only increase. Because of having a license to do massage, we are on the radar and are vulnerable to attacks by those feeling threatened by us that are successful in handling conditions formerly delegated to different realms. Not treating, mind you.. but handling.
Arguing about standards is over for me... The standards I hold for myself have not been matched by many states. In CA, the "voluntary" certification is becoming mandatory in many arenas as one business or community at a time mandates it to be the requirement for local governance.
I think it is great that you, Ravensara, did what you did 20 years ago, of your own volition and drive. Medicos accepted you long before licensing and heavy duty certifications were mandated by law. In many arenas, clinics and hospitals can still hire folk to work under their licenses.
What a tragedy it is a massage establishment cannot hire a massage person without an individual license. .
Anywayyyyy... Before I go on a real rant, I am stopping.
The Rev
Holistic Bodywork Therapist and Health Educator (1000 hours)
SNR & HE
Passer of the NCE
ULC Minister,
and, a person unwilling to impose my standards on another
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew D. Stewart on
-
one one of elitism and superiority coming from a small group (which includes Christopher) that believes that their viewpoint is the sole path to professional salvation.
That's interesting Emmanuel, I hadn't picked up the underlying dynamic of elitism. What is their "sole path to professional salvation?"
when you compare a country that still has a Queen and a hierarchical/top-down approach such as Canada to the U.S. where states have rights that can overturn federal policies.
I think its better to look at the similarities between the two countries. Both are federations therefore both have federal, state, and local laws that affect the organisation of society and the conduct of business.
Having a Queen as a head of state in parliamentary democracy (constitutional monarchy) does not translates into hierarchical/top-down approach, if that is what you mean. The Queen does not write or recommend statutes. The Queen acts through her representative, the Governor General but this is chiefly ceremonial role as constitutional functions are left to Cabinet (Prime Minister and his ministers). Westminster-style parliamentary democracies have evolved somewhat since 1776.
-
-
Spiel? What does that mean?
And I didn't write what you quote me as saying; Emmanuel did.
The Rev said:Nice spiel Ravensara... Ravensara wrote, "what went on here the past few days is just another eruption of the same underlying dynamic that has been present on this board and elsewhere for a while. The topics may appear as 'more hours' vs. 'less hours', holism vs. reductionism, science-based vs. the ineffable, old science vs. new science, etc, but the dynamic I am talking about is one one of elitism and superiority coming from a small group (which includes Christopher) that believes that their viewpoint is the sole path to professional salvation."
Let's not forget it was a gang of 13 that passed a governance change for an organization that has gone on to becoming the largest nonprofit in the realm of massage therapy. Later on that group moved onto becoming a 501c6 political machine that has trounced on all forms of touch (as opposed to massage) declaring everything is massage therapy.
Let those that own the hospitals the MD offices the insurance companies decide who can do "medical massage". Practicing medicine should have different requirements from those doing massage.
With that said, the biggest mistake the amta folk made was putting us into the hands of the state via licensing. The ante to practice on any level will forever, only increase. Because of having a license to do massage, we are on the radar and are vulnerable to attacks by those feeling threatened by us that are successful in handling conditions formerly delegated to different realms. Not treating, mind you.. but handling.
Arguing about standards is over for me... The standards I hold for myself have not been matched by many states. In CA, the "voluntary" certification is becoming mandatory in many arenas as one business or community at a time mandates it to be the requirement for local governance.
I think it is great that you, Ravensara, did what you did 20 years ago, of your own volition and drive. Medicos accepted you long before licensing and heavy duty certifications were mandated by law. In many arenas, clinics and hospitals can still hire folk to work under their licenses.
What a tragedy it is a massage establishment cannot hire a massage person without an individual license. .
Anywayyyyy... Before I go on a real rant, I am stopping.
The Rev
Holistic Bodywork Therapist and Health Educator (1000 hours)
SNR & HE
Passer of the NCE
ULC Minister,
and, a person unwilling to impose my standards on another
-
-
Matthew Stewart said:That's interesting Emmanuel, I hadn't picked up the underlying dynamic of elitism. What is their "sole path to professional salvation?"
I suggest that you look at posts all the way back to August 2009.
Having a Queen as a head of state in parliamentary democracy (constitutional monarchy) does not translates into hierarchical/top-down approach, if that is what you mean.
That's not what I meant, although in reading it again I see how one can draw that conclusion. The point I was trying to make and got sidetracked is that there are some fundamental differences in how the countries operate, and what the constituents will accept. Just because something works in Canada (having a Queen, for example), it doesn't mean that it would work in the U.S.
Regarding the top-to-bottom I mentioned, Canada passed its health act in 1984 that requires provinces to provide universal coverage and no co-pay for medically necessary services. In the U.S, now that a similar law has passed (I understand there are mixed opinions on how it was passed) states are trying to declare the new healthcare law unconstitutional and it will probably be up to the Supreme Court to decide the matter.
Government mandated/paid health insurance and other social benefits are an important part of the discussion on whether what works north of the border will work south of the border, especially when we compare career longevity (a massage therapist in the U.S. has a more uphill battle when starting out than someone north of the border) and therapist compensation in the two countries.
It would be really great to get enough information about the variables in each environment. Anyone who knows and would like to share, please do so.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on
-
Matthew, That is not true. Show me where this is. Show me where I said I would knock his head off. Show me or stop saying it. I did not do this and if this is your reasoning for challenging anyone, please produce the evidence.
Matthew Stewart said:Emmanuel,
Would you elaborate on what it is that you are grateful for Mike saying?
Who was bullying and mocking MT's? All involved in the discussion are MTs, except Christopher Moyer, who I believe was threatened with violence - by an MT.
-
-
There's nothing weird. We don't agree. If you continue to attack, bet your last dollar you will be attacked back. Because I don't respond the way you wish does not give you that right. I am from SC and if someone slaps me, I knock their head off. So if, you're tired of it, quit prompting it.
This is the statement I made. I did not say I would knock off Chrispher head or that's how we roll.
Get your facts straight please.
-
Permalink Reply by Choice Kinchen on
-
Really??? Really??? We're starting this up again??? My 6 year old grandson behaves better.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
