NationStates

Achidyemay wrote:Wait, why is masculinity generally a good thing? As I see it it attempts to make me less like myself and more like some sort of 1950s stereotype invented by advertising.

Like I get there is some sort of attack on masculinity happening here, but what masculinity is and what it means to be a man is definitely determined by the culture of the society and if what advertisers have determined being a "good man" is is detrimental to the mental health of men, then defending manliness is stupid and probably evil.

But the question is whether or not "traditional masculinity" actually is detrimental to men's mental health. Certainly some people feel better after having a good cry and expressing their feelings. Other people, "traditionally masculine men" along with masculine women, do not necessarily find comfort or relief in that sort of thing. Some men find the former helpful and others do not. What's important is not pushing the former to be more stoic, or pushing the stoic to be more emotional. This paper is doing just that, though, by suggesting that it's inherently detrimental to not gush your emotions when you feel bad. Really, the same goes for other points in the paper. Aggression is not bad if it's disciplined and is a natural expression of the individual. Being hyper competitive is not bad unless that's not actually who you are. Pathologizing these behaviors and intentionally omiting their biological basis is a direct attempt to force people to behave contrary to their identity.

Personally, if something is bothering me I find that it helps very little to express my emotions. What makes me feel better is addressing what's causing the emotional response. My wife is the opposite. She finds venting her emotions to be helpful, whether the underlying problem is actually solved or not. It's offensive to say that I'm less mentally well than she is on that basis.

I love how in ~10 pages I'm the only one who's pointed out that they also released a similar guideline to women.

Selective listening much.

Achidyemay wrote:Wait, why is masculinity generally a good thing? As I see it it attempts to make me less like myself and more like some sort of 1950s stereotype invented by advertising.

Like I get there is some sort of attack on masculinity happening here, but what masculinity is and what it means to be a man is definitely determined by the culture of the society and if what advertisers have determined being a "good man" is is detrimental to the mental health of men, then defending manliness is stupid and probably evil.

At least in the 1950s the masculine image was still respected.

Scomagia wrote:

Achidyemay wrote:Wait, why is masculinity generally a good thing? As I see it it attempts to make me less like myself and more like some sort of 1950s stereotype invented by advertising.

Like I get there is some sort of attack on masculinity happening here, but what masculinity is and what it means to be a man is definitely determined by the culture of the society and if what advertisers have determined being a "good man" is is detrimental to the mental health of men, then defending manliness is stupid and probably evil.

But the question is whether or not "traditional masculinity" actually is detrimental to men's mental health. Certainly some people feel better after having a good cry and expressing their feelings. Other people, "traditionally masculine men" along with masculine women, do not necessarily find comfort or relief in that sort of thing. Some men find the former helpful and others do not. What's important is not pushing the former to be more stoic, or pushing the stoic to be more emotional. This paper is doing just that, though, by suggesting that it's inherently detrimental to not gush your emotions when you feel bad. Really, the same goes for other points in the paper. Aggression is not bad if it's disciplined and is a natural expression of the individual. Being hyper competitive is not bad unless that's not actually who you are. Pathologizing these behaviors and intentionally omiting their biological basis is a direct attempt to force people to behave contrary to their identity.

Personally, if something is bothering me I find that it helps very little to express my emotions. What makes me feel better is addressing what's causing the emotional response. My wife is the opposite. She finds venting her emotions to be helpful, whether the underlying problem is actually solved or not. It's offensive to say that I'm less mentally well than she is on that basis.

I like your division, that some people are stoic and others are more benefited by expressing emotions, but I fail to see why we even attach the tags "feminine" or "masculine" then. If men are capable of being emotional, then it is masculine for men to be emotional sometimes.

The paper highlights multiple times that psychologists should use their discretion in these matters, which makes sense. If your point is that people are vast and deep and contain multitudes, then we're definitely in agreement. I think you think that the paper forces the psychologists to consider men more narrowly, wheras I would say that our own culture has a very narrow definition of what it means to be a man that is full of positive and negative aspects and this paper is designed to make psychologists aware of the narrow definition our society places on manhood.

Sirocca wrote:

Achidyemay wrote:Wait, why is masculinity generally a good thing? As I see it it attempts to make me less like myself and more like some sort of 1950s stereotype invented by advertising.

Like I get there is some sort of attack on masculinity happening here, but what masculinity is and what it means to be a man is definitely determined by the culture of the society and if what advertisers have determined being a "good man" is is detrimental to the mental health of men, then defending manliness is stupid and probably evil.

At least in the 1950s the masculine image was still respected.

Those poor suckers...

Achidyemay wrote:

Scomagia wrote:But the question is whether or not "traditional masculinity" actually is detrimental to men's mental health. Certainly some people feel better after having a good cry and expressing their feelings. Other people, "traditionally masculine men" along with masculine women, do not necessarily find comfort or relief in that sort of thing. Some men find the former helpful and others do not. What's important is not pushing the former to be more stoic, or pushing the stoic to be more emotional. This paper is doing just that, though, by suggesting that it's inherently detrimental to not gush your emotions when you feel bad. Really, the same goes for other points in the paper. Aggression is not bad if it's disciplined and is a natural expression of the individual. Being hyper competitive is not bad unless that's not actually who you are. Pathologizing these behaviors and intentionally omiting their biological basis is a direct attempt to force people to behave contrary to their identity.

Personally, if something is bothering me I find that it helps very little to express my emotions. What makes me feel better is addressing what's causing the emotional response. My wife is the opposite. She finds venting her emotions to be helpful, whether the underlying problem is actually solved or not. It's offensive to say that I'm less mentally well than she is on that basis.

I like your division, that some people are stoic and others are more benefited by expressing emotions, but I fail to see why we even attach the tags "feminine" or "masculine" then. If men are capable of being emotional, then it is masculine for men to be emotional sometimes.

The paper highlights multiple times that psychologists should use their discretion in these matters, which makes sense. If your point is that people are vast and deep and contain multitudes, then we're definitely in agreement. I think you think that the paper forces the psychologists to consider men more narrowly, wheras I would say that our own culture has a very narrow definition of what it means to be a man that is full of positive and negative aspects and this paper is designed to make psychologists aware of the narrow definition our society places on manhood.

The purpose behind the "masculine/feminine tags" is that, although individuals of both sexes can manifest a variety of behaviors, some behaviors are more likely to be found among more members of one sex. Take aggression, for example; while some women are more aggressive than some men, mere observation will tell you that most men are more aggressive than most women. There are physiological reasons for this, namely testosterone and other androgens. So, because aggression is more positively correlated with men, it is useful to describe it as "masculine". That doesn't mean socio-cultural influences don't exist. That's not a claim I'd find credible.

Again, this leads me to a glaring problem with the article, which is that the socio-cultural influences are presented while the biological influences are not. In fact, you can search the text of the paper and find that there are zero references to testosterone, even in the parts of the paper which specifically address aggression and competition, despite the well known effect that testosterone has on both of those behaviors. What use is a guideline for care providers that presents such an obviously one-sided, social constructionist approach?

It's true that the paper doesn't force psychologists to treat in a specific way. However, it is a guideline. That is to say that it is a strong suggestion of how to practice. It certainly will influence the practice of some psychologists to the detriment of some men.

New haven america wrote:I love how in ~10 pages I'm the only one who's pointed out that they also released a similar guideline to women.

Selective listening much.

It isn't the same when they spend their time arguing that femininity harms women but don't note the ways it makes them a danger to others.

Hey, did the feminine APA stuff contain this paragraph?

" When working with boys and men, psychologists can address issues of privilege and power related to sexism in a developmentally appropriate way to help them obtain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills to be effective allies "

Did it imply throughout the goal of psychologists should be to turn women into better allies for men?

Do you even know what therapy is supposed to be, or what "Ethics" are, in regards to patients and the goals of a therapist?

Sirocca wrote:At least in the 1950s the masculine image was still respected.

I sure miss the days when men were men, women were women, and boomers were not yet of voting age.

Liriena wrote:

Sirocca wrote:At least in the 1950s the masculine image was still respected.

I sure miss the days when men were men, women were women, and boomers were not yet of voting age.

TFW all it takes is feminism being slapped on something for feminists to argue in favor of people trying to deny men healthcare because they are in so deep with this hate cult and think its unequivocably good they don't pay attention properly.

" When working with boys and men, psychologists can address issues of privilege and power related to sexism in a developmentally appropriate way to help them obtain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills to be effective allies "

This is not psychology. This is unethical practice. It is literally contravening one of the core conditions of therapy (person centered care.). What they have done is demand psychologists and therapists become propagandists.

Do I seriously fucking need to crack out my counselling books and give a lecture to all the feminists on this forum for why their movement has done something atrocious here? The obsessive, monomaniacal focus and gynocentrism of feminism (Here we see how it has shifted the focus of mens mental healthcare and self-actualization onto "Your goal should be making them better allies for our political cause and more suited to what women want") and the way it warps its adherents priorities has pushed something really fucked up here, but none of you seem to understand that, so yeah, I guess i should crack out the books.

I'll start with Carl rogers shall I?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Liriena wrote:I sure miss the days when men were men, women were women, and boomers were not yet of voting age.

TFW all it takes is feminism being slapped on something for feminists to argue in favor of people trying to deny men healthcare because they are in so deep with this hate cult and think its unequivocably good they don't pay attention properly.

" When working with boys and men, psychologists can address issues of privilege and power related to sexism in a developmentally appropriate way to help them obtain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills to be effective allies "

This is not psychology. This is unethical practice. It is literally contravening one of the core conditions of therapy (person centered care.). What they have done is demand psychologists and therapists become propagandists.

...what?

Liriena wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
TFW all it takes is feminism being slapped on something for feminists to argue in favor of people trying to deny men healthcare because they are in so deep with this hate cult and think its unequivocably good they don't pay attention properly.



This is not psychology. This is unethical practice. It is literally contravening one of the core conditions of therapy (person centered care.). What they have done is demand psychologists and therapists become propagandists.

...what?

The guidelines include parts about how men can be changed to be better allies and so on. Can you justify that?

"It is that the individual has within himself or herself vast resources for self-understanding, for altering his or her self-concept, attitudes and self-directed behavior - and that these resources can be tapped if only a definable climate of facilitative psychological attitudes can be provided" (1980, p.115-117).

V

" When working with boys and men, psychologists can address issues of privilege and power related to sexism in a developmentally appropriate way to help them obtain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills to be effective allies "

"Obtain the attitudes" is a statement of gross ethical misconduct from a psychologist. You know how you need years of therapy to ensure your biases don't pollute your clients?

well, apparently, we should just straight up ban feminists from participating it seems.

You are not supposed to do anything but to assist your client self-actualize according to their own ethical standards and belief system. Anything else is malpractice. I would support a patient suing any of these feminist psychologists they second they pulled this shit.

Liriena wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
TFW all it takes is feminism being slapped on something for feminists to argue in favor of people trying to deny men healthcare because they are in so deep with this hate cult and think its unequivocably good they don't pay attention properly.



This is not psychology. This is unethical practice. It is literally contravening one of the core conditions of therapy (person centered care.). What they have done is demand psychologists and therapists become propagandists.

...what?

The report is talking about how men can be better allies and need to recognize that they're the privileged class in society.

Which goes against pretty much all therapy standards and requirements.

New haven america wrote:

Liriena wrote:...what?

The report is talking about how men can be better allies and need to recognize that they're the privileged class in society.

Worse. It is talking about psychologists using therapy to advance those arguments with the explicit goal of producing men who are better allies, either to feminism or women.

New haven america wrote:Which goes against pretty much all therapy standards and requirements.

Right. So it's better summed up as;

"A report in which members of a hate movement advance the agenda to deny men access to therapy."

Ostroeuropa wrote:

New haven america wrote:The report is talking about how men can be better allies and need to recognize that they're the privileged class in society.

Worse. It is talking about psychologists using therapy to advance those arguments with the explicit goal of producing men who are better allies, either to feminism or women.

Well, would you look at that, conditioning!

I'll plug Pavlov to the generator, we might get some electricity from it.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Worse. It is talking about psychologists using therapy to advance those arguments with the explicit goal of producing men who are better allies, either to feminism or women.

Well, would you look at that, conditioning!

I'll plug Pavlov to the generator, we might get some electricity from it.

Straight up they may well have crossed a line. It won't hold up and all they will be able to do is cite feminist shite to support their argument. There is absolutely nothing in psychology or therapy to support this. The fundamentals of therapy are extremely clear on this and a mens organization has great grounds to sue them out of existence. It is a statement revealing that this report was not written by its supports as psychologists, but as feminist ideologues. Their intent shines through here, and it means psychologists in favor of the document are revealing themselves to be unfit to practice.

As is typical for it, internalizing feminist ideology rots a persons capacity for being trusted with any influence or position over others.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Liriena wrote:...what?

The guidelines include parts about how men can be changed to be better allies and so on. Can you justify that?

I really don't get why you're throwing this at me in response to a post of mine that had nothing to do with whatever argument you're trying to make.

But to answer your question: nah. On the one hand, I do support the idea of taking psychology, as a discipline, away from its historic roots and continuing tendency in some places to serve as a tool of societal control that reinforces the status quo. But on the other hand, the stated goal here does rub me the wrong way.

" When working with boys and men, psychologists can address issues of privilege and power related to sexism in a developmentally appropriate way to help them obtain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills to be effective allies "

Toxic masculinity is something that I take very seriously, and I think that more therapists should take it seriously and try to tackle it with their patients... but not with making male patients into "effective allies" of the feminist movement as the primary goal.

That said, I think I ought to acknowledge that my thoughts on this are definitely biased by my own sociocultural context, which is not the same as the American context.

Liriena wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
The guidelines include parts about how men can be changed to be better allies and so on. Can you justify that?

I really don't get why you're throwing this at me in response to a post of mine that had nothing to do with whatever argument you're trying to make.

But to answer your question: nah. On the one hand, I do support the idea of taking psychology, as a discipline, away from its historic roots and continuing tendency in some places to serve as a tool of societal control that reinforces the status quo. But on the other hand, the stated goal here does rub me the wrong way.

" When working with boys and men, psychologists can address issues of privilege and power related to sexism in a developmentally appropriate way to help them obtain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills to be effective allies "

Toxic masculinity is something that I take very seriously, and I think that more therapists should take it seriously and try to tackle it with their patients... but not with making male patients into "effective allies" of the feminist movement as the primary goal.

That said, I think I ought to acknowledge that my thoughts on this are definitely biased by my own sociocultural context, which is not the same as the American context.

Mostly because I saw you taking a side in this argument nobody should be taking. It should rub you the wrong way, it's unethical and malpractice. It validates everything the reaction is saying about the feminist agenda here at play and why it is toxic, how they have politicized psychology and are turning healthcare into indoctrination.

The intent is even spelled out in the document.

By the way, I got banned from /r/psychology, along with plenty of other people, for pointing this out. (the thread is a mess of censorship and bans.) By a feminist mod as it happens, who decided to reply with;

Sorry, conspiracy theories aren't allowed here. Try /r/conspiracy if that kind of thing interests you.
All the best.

Even letting a feminist be a moderator of a subreddit is asking for trouble.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Liriena wrote:I really don't get why you're throwing this at me in response to a post of mine that had nothing to do with whatever argument you're trying to make.

But to answer your question: nah. On the one hand, I do support the idea of taking psychology, as a discipline, away from its historic roots and continuing tendency in some places to serve as a tool of societal control that reinforces the status quo. But on the other hand, the stated goal here does rub me the wrong way.

" When working with boys and men, psychologists can address issues of privilege and power related to sexism in a developmentally appropriate way to help them obtain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills to be effective allies "

Toxic masculinity is something that I take very seriously, and I think that more therapists should take it seriously and try to tackle it with their patients... but not with making male patients into "effective allies" of the feminist movement as the primary goal.

That said, I think I ought to acknowledge that my thoughts on this are definitely biased by my own sociocultural context, which is not the same as the American context.

Mostly because I saw you taking a side in this argument nobody should be taking. It should rub you the wrong way, it's unethical and malpractice. It validates everything the reaction is saying about the feminist agenda here at play and why it is toxic, how they have politicized psychology and are turning healthcare into indoctrination.

The intent is even spelled out in the document.

As the post-modern asshole that I am, I'd of course argue that psychology has always been political... but yeah. It's one thing for an emancipatory political movement to try to inject some awareness of long-overlooked intricacies of psychosocial issues into the discipline with the purpose of making therapy more effective at improving the mental health of patients and helping them relieve themselves of deeply ingrained preconceptions that are harmful to others and to themselves. It's another to try to inject that awareness with the explicit intent to turn therapy into an ideological battlefield where the patient is a passive target to be transformed rather than an active agent seeking personal improvement.

Speaking as someone who is still a patient undergoing psychoanalysis, with plenty of loved ones who've been in the same position, I can't help but feel that the discipline is still not quite there yet when it comes to dealing with the toxic miasma of sexism in our particular society. But that doesn't mean I want my therapy sessions to turn into theoretical seminars.

Liriena wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Mostly because I saw you taking a side in this argument nobody should be taking. It should rub you the wrong way, it's unethical and malpractice. It validates everything the reaction is saying about the feminist agenda here at play and why it is toxic, how they have politicized psychology and are turning healthcare into indoctrination.

The intent is even spelled out in the document.

As the post-modern asshole that I am, I'd of course argue that psychology has always been political... but yeah. It's one thing for an emancipatory political movement to try to inject some awareness of long-overlooked intricacies of psychosocial issues into the discipline with the purpose of making therapy more effective at improving the mental health of patients and helping them relieve themselves of deeply ingrained preconceptions that are harmful to others and to themselves. It's another to try to inject that awareness with the explicit intent to turn therapy into an ideological battlefield where the patient is a passive target to be transformed rather than an active agent seeking personal improvement.

Speaking as someone who is still a patient undergoing psychoanalysis, with plenty of loved ones who've been in the same position, I can't help but feel that the discipline is still not quite there yet when it comes to dealing with the toxic miasma of sexism in our particular society. But that doesn't mean I want my therapy sessions to turn into theoretical seminars.

Depends. Rogerian counselling is pretty much designed to avoid that shit and does so pretty well, albeit, its premises are based on western values to a large extent.

"You should self-actualize." rather than "You should conform."

Ostroeuropa wrote:By the way, I got banned from /r/psychology, along with plenty of other people, for pointing this out. (the thread is a mess of censorship and bans.) By a feminist mod as it happens, who decided to reply with;

Sorry, conspiracy theories aren't allowed here. Try /r/conspiracy if that kind of thing interests you.
All the best.

Even letting a feminist be a moderator of a subreddit is asking for trouble.

To be fair, knowing you, your writing style probably invited such an interpretation. You do have a tendency to rant a bit too much in a too accusatory tone, paint in strokes a bit too broad, and make increasingly extreme (and therefor alienating) comparisons and analogies.

Liriena wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:By the way, I got banned from /r/psychology, along with plenty of other people, for pointing this out. (the thread is a mess of censorship and bans.) By a feminist mod as it happens, who decided to reply with;



Even letting a feminist be a moderator of a subreddit is asking for trouble.

To be fair, knowing you, your writing style probably invited such an interpretation. You do have a tendency to rant a bit too much in a too accusatory tone, paint in strokes a bit too broad, and make increasingly extreme (and therefor alienating) comparisons and analogies.

Except that r/psychology has a history of being one of the most ban happy subs on the entire site.

To be clear, Rogerian counselling avoids that shit Liriena is talking about and gives rise to the trope of therapists as being "useless", even though it's actually very useful.

The skills of a rogerian counsellor revolve around only using clarifying statements, open questions, paraphrasing and repeating, and so on. Absolutely zero informational content should be transmitted from the counsellor to the client, their role is to hold a mirror to the client and prompt them to focus in on key statements revolving around their feelings, perceptions and so on, and get them to realize it.

"I love him but i feel unhappy around him all the time."

"You feel unhappy around him all the time."

"...yeah..."
*semi-audible click*

or

"Well, no. Sometimes we're happy. And it's when-"
*gain awareness of the distinction between the elements that work and don't*