NationStates

The Emerald Legion wrote:
And throughout spends more time on racism/LGBT issues than it does on men's issues while demonizing masculinity at every opportunity.

It's very revealing that you think of racism and LGBT issues vs. men's issues as if they don't intersect at all.

Huge numbers of unarmed black men being killed by law enforcement is a men's issue. The epidemic of mass incarceration, a byproduct of racism, is a men's issue. Gay and trans boys and men being bullied and ostracized is a men's issue. That it is still legal in the majority of US states for kids to be subjected to the child abuse that is conversion therapy is a men's issue. These are all issues that affect men and boys.

Page wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
And throughout spends more time on racism/LGBT issues than it does on men's issues while demonizing masculinity at every opportunity.

It's very revealing that you think of racism and LGBT issues vs. men's issues as if they don't intersect at all.

Huge numbers of unarmed black men being killed by law enforcement is a men's issue. The epidemic of mass incarceration, a byproduct of racism, is a men's issue. Gay and trans boys and men being bullied and ostracized is a men's issue. That it is still legal in the majority of US states for kids to be subjected to the child abuse that is conversion therapy is a men's issue. These are all issues that affect men and boys.

"Hey, these *more important to the progressive cause* issues are now men's issues. So that we can say we care about men's issues."

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Page wrote:
It's very revealing that you think of racism and LGBT issues vs. men's issues as if they don't intersect at all.

Huge numbers of unarmed black men being killed by law enforcement is a men's issue. The epidemic of mass incarceration, a byproduct of racism, is a men's issue. Gay and trans boys and men being bullied and ostracized is a men's issue. That it is still legal in the majority of US states for kids to be subjected to the child abuse that is conversion therapy is a men's issue. These are all issues that affect men and boys.

"Hey, these *more important to the progressive cause* issues are now men's issues. So that we can say we care about men's issues."

They are men's issues, and every men's issue is a progressive cause.

Page wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
And throughout spends more time on racism/LGBT issues than it does on men's issues while demonizing masculinity at every opportunity.

It's very revealing that you think of racism and LGBT issues vs. men's issues as if they don't intersect at all.

Huge numbers of unarmed black men being killed by law enforcement is a men's issue. The epidemic of mass incarceration, a byproduct of racism, is a men's issue. Gay and trans boys and men being bullied and ostracized is a men's issue. That it is still legal in the majority of US states for kids to be subjected to the child abuse that is conversion therapy is a men's issue. These are all issues that affect men and boys.

You're forgetting that progressivism is supposed to be all about demonising and oppressing white males because reasons.

Roliganistan wrote:I look on, with mounting consternation and from a moderate separation.
America has become unrecognizable.
Where does this come from?
And just where do you think you are heading?

Hopefully not towards another civil war. That would be extremely bad.

Vassenor wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:What the document says is not anything new in the psychological community, and in fact is fairly pro-men (if not pro-gender roles). It doesn't say "traditional masculinity" is pathological, as you claim; the summary in your OP is either intentionally incorrect or you didn't read the paper. There is some shaky science, particularly when it cites the Duluth Model, but I would hardly call the entire paper pseudoscience merely because you dislike the terminology used.
I highly recommend that everybody in this thread actually read the document before posting. It's only 30 pages.

Problem is NSG is notorious for not reading the sources and assuming that the interpretation given in the OP is 100% correct and unbiased.

Go a step backwards. Does NSG want to know the truth? Probably not.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Page wrote:
It's very revealing that you think of racism and LGBT issues vs. men's issues as if they don't intersect at all.

Huge numbers of unarmed black men being killed by law enforcement is a men's issue. The epidemic of mass incarceration, a byproduct of racism, is a men's issue. Gay and trans boys and men being bullied and ostracized is a men's issue. That it is still legal in the majority of US states for kids to be subjected to the child abuse that is conversion therapy is a men's issue. These are all issues that affect men and boys.

"Hey, these *more important to the progressive cause* issues are now men's issues. So that we can say we care about men's issues."

They're issues that affect men, and in most cases, are unique to men. (e.g. black men are more likely to be perceived as dangerous than black women, because racism against black women usually manifests in different ways.) How are those not men's issues?

Utceforp wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
"Hey, these *more important to the progressive cause* issues are now men's issues. So that we can say we care about men's issues."

They're issues that affect men, and in most cases, are unique to men. (e.g. black men are more likely to be perceived as dangerous than black women, because racism against black women usually manifests in different ways.) How are those not men's issues?

Because men in general are percieved as dangerous. That men who are 'foreign' for lack of a better word are percieved as more dangerous than more familiar men is both unsurprising and doesn't require some hackjob of redirecting attention back to the race aspect.

And trans issues, which take up a huge portion of the paper, are by definition not men's issues. Because men who transition to being a woman aren't men. They're women.

In the end it literally spends the entire paper saying that traditional masculinity is wrong. it has good parts sure. But that's like saying you should still eat a steak because it's mostly delicious food and only slightly laced with a tiny amount of horrible poison.

Only in this case it is more like a cup of poison with a slice of steak floating in it.

-Ocelot- wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Problem is NSG is notorious for not reading the sources and assuming that the interpretation given in the OP is 100% correct and unbiased.

Go a step backwards. Does NSG want to know the truth? Probably not.

I for one do, and I'm reading the paper now. Some of the lines seem fine, but others seem to be complaints about "microaggressions" , and "male privilege", and other progressive nonsense. When I'm done, I'll reread, but I must say that some of the sections of this paper seem to be written to serve a political agenda, rather than a scientific one.

---

Edit:

These are actual quotes from the paper; There are others that subtlety attack masculinity. While masculinity is never directly declared "pathological", it is obvious that these guidelines are anti-"traditional masculinity". Lines such as the second one quoted above seems to prove that there is a political agenda here.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Utceforp wrote:They're issues that affect men, and in most cases, are unique to men. (e.g. black men are more likely to be perceived as dangerous than black women, because racism against black women usually manifests in different ways.) How are those not men's issues?

Because men in general are percieved as dangerous. That men who are 'foreign' for lack of a better word are percieved as more dangerous than more familiar men is both unsurprising and doesn't require some hackjob of redirecting attention back to the race aspect.

And trans issues, which take up a huge portion of the paper, are by definition not men's issues. Because men who transition to being a woman aren't men. They're women.

Problems transwomen experience overlap heavily with men's issues and are rooted in traditional masculinity, because a lot of people consciously or subconsciously perceive them as men, and because prior to transitioning they pass as men. e.g. the whole "Transgender people are going to rape your daughters if they're allowed to use the female bathroom" thing is rooted in perceptions of men as dangerous and inherently sexually aggressive. Also, transmen exist.

The Emerald Legion wrote:In the end it literally spends the entire paper saying that traditional masculinity is wrong. it has good parts sure. But that's like saying you should still eat a steak because it's mostly delicious food and only slightly laced with a tiny amount of horrible poison.

Only in this case it is more like a cup of poison with a slice of steak floating in it.

I'm confused here. You seem like you're agreeing with the paper that traditional masculinity has toxic elements, but also criticizing it for saying that traditional masculinity has toxic elements?

The Emerald Legion wrote:In the end it literally spends the entire paper saying that traditional masculinity is wrong. it has good parts sure. But that's like saying you should still eat a steak because it's mostly delicious food and only slightly laced with a tiny amount of horrible poison.

Only in this case it is more like a cup of poison with a slice of steak floating in it.

You say this but I'm having a difficult time seeing it. Can you provide me some quotes to show their value judgements?

Page wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
You do know that you can be hyper-competitive without being violent, right? Violence is a problem. Aggressiveness - depends on how it's expressed, if you're going for an aggressive dance or workout, I'm cool with that. Hyper-competitiveness is something that some feminists whine about, as they cannot compete with other women for salaries, males, and even other females. Domineering? That term is deliberately chosen, to imply that any domination requires arrogance; Michael Jordan dominated the NBA, was he arrogant? Football is a hyper-competitive sport. Take the faux concussion protocol out of football, introduce an actual concussion protocol, and it'll be no more dangerous than downhill skiing.

Hyper-competitiveness is destroying all of us, men and women. People working themselves to the point of self-destruction hasn't just been normalized, it's been glorified. And it's not only in sports, though it's problematic in sports as well. Some athletes love their jobs and thrive off trying to be the best, but even more have ruined themselves in pursuit of an impossible standard. People take steroids and lose their fucking minds and kill themselves, some athletes are suffering from debilitating stress because they don't have two free seconds in their whole day.

As a hyper-competitive male, I don't view it as destructive. It's like a really fast car. It enhances one's performance. Jobs shouldn't be hyper-competitive, unless you're working as a team. The problem here is adversarial job design in certain sectors, rather than a joint team work environment. In a team environment hyper-competitiveness is awesome, as you know that someone will spot your errors, so you relax, and don't make errors as a result of being relaxed, while working hard and working smart. It's only a problem in adversarial jobs, where, tbqh, it shouldn't even apply. As far as steroid use - that's wrong, but what's even worse is the morons in charge of US gymnastics are idiots, for the most part. How do you let Larry Nassar sexually assault people for so long?

However, in well run organizations, steroid use isn't a major issue. More deaths are caused by moronic concussion protocols, than steroid abuse. Playing past your injury isn't hyper-competitiveness, (unless you're in the finals or semifinals,) because that will hurt you in the long run, making you less competitive. Forcing players to play injured, during the season, is fucked up. So I think that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Cekoviu wrote:What the document says is not anything new in the psychological community, and in fact is fairly pro-men (if not pro-gender roles). It doesn't say "traditional masculinity" is pathological, as you claim; the summary in your OP is either intentionally incorrect or you didn't read the paper. There is some shaky science, particularly when it cites the Duluth Model, but I would hardly call the entire paper pseudoscience merely because you dislike the terminology used.
I highly recommend that everybody in this thread actually read the document before posting. It's only 30 pages.

It's not a research paper, it's a set of clinical guidelines. Those guidelines are in turn to a large degree founded not on sound science, but on ideology.

The "science" of microaggressions, for example, is very bad science. It is certainly not time for the APA to include recommendations that clinicians should "strive to reduce and counter the damaging effects of microaggressions."

Let's introduce you to what it means to pathologize something:

APA wrote:For instance, socialization for conforming to traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development,
constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict, and negatively influence mental health and physical health.

APA wrote:[T]traditional masculinity ideology can be viewed as the dominant (referred to as “hegemonic”) form of masculinity that strongly influences what members of a culture take to be normative.

APA wrote:Researchers in the psychology of men and masculinity have identified that insecurities stemming from early childhood experiences (such as attachment insecurities) are linked to adherence to traditional masculinity ideology.

APA wrote:For example, individuals who adhere to traditional masculine gender roles hold more negative attitudes toward transgender and gender-nonconforming persons,

APA wrote:An integral aspect of traditional masculinity is the social power awarded to conformity to masculine norms, while aberrant gendered behavior is punished through gender policing.

APA wrote:Traditional masculinity ideologies have also been linked to parenting concerns, including work-family conflicts.

When you are describing something as the source of a complex of health problems, you're pathologizing it.

Wew laddie, some completely pointless sexist bullshit.

Tahar Joblis wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:What the document says is not anything new in the psychological community, and in fact is fairly pro-men (if not pro-gender roles). It doesn't say "traditional masculinity" is pathological, as you claim; the summary in your OP is either intentionally incorrect or you didn't read the paper. There is some shaky science, particularly when it cites the Duluth Model, but I would hardly call the entire paper pseudoscience merely because you dislike the terminology used.
I highly recommend that everybody in this thread actually read the document before posting. It's only 30 pages.

It's not a research paper, it's a set of clinical guidelines. Those guidelines are in turn to a large degree founded not on sound science, but on ideology.

The "science" of microaggressions, for example, is very bad science. It is certainly not time for the APA to include recommendations that clinicians should "strive to reduce and counter the damaging effects of microaggressions."

Let's introduce you to what it means to pathologize something:

APA wrote:For instance, socialization for conforming to traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development,
constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict, and negatively influence mental health and physical health.

APA wrote:[T]traditional masculinity ideology can be viewed as the dominant (referred to as “hegemonic”) form of masculinity that strongly influences what members of a culture take to be normative.

APA wrote:Researchers in the psychology of men and masculinity have identified that insecurities stemming from early childhood experiences (such as attachment insecurities) are linked to adherence to traditional masculinity ideology.

APA wrote:For example, individuals who adhere to traditional masculine gender roles hold more negative attitudes toward transgender and gender-nonconforming persons,

APA wrote:An integral aspect of traditional masculinity is the social power awarded to conformity to masculine norms, while aberrant gendered behavior is punished through gender policing.

APA wrote:Traditional masculinity ideologies have also been linked to parenting concerns, including work-family conflicts.

When you are describing something as the source of a complex of health problems, you're pathologizing it.

Shame, I thought the APA was above this. Apparently they aren't.

Utceforp wrote:confused here. You seem like you're agreeing with the paper that traditional masculinity has toxic elements, but also criticizing it for saying that traditional masculinity has toxic elements?

Fair point on Transmen.

Also no. I don't believe that Traditional Masculinity has toxic elements. Societal standards has toxic elements. So long as their are societal standards by which people can be seen as more or less 'virtuous' or 'Good' then you will have toxicity with regards to those standards.

We are in effect seeing that at work here with the judgement calls the APA is making. They have set their societal standard on 'High Emotionality' as opposed to Stoicism, and see those who adhere to cultures that value stoicism as lesser people for it. That they would be better if they were more emotive.

Autarkheia wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:What the document says is not anything new in the psychological community, and in fact is fairly pro-men (if not pro-gender roles). It doesn't say "traditional masculinity" is pathological, as you claim; the summary in your OP is either intentionally incorrect or you didn't read the paper. There is some shaky science, particularly when it cites the Duluth Model, but I would hardly call the entire paper pseudoscience merely because you dislike the terminology used.
I highly recommend that everybody in this thread actually read the document before posting. It's only 30 pages.

I hadn't read it until now but I have been following the reaction to it in conservative media, which is predictably negative. I just read it and ironically, it says many things that conservatives should be on board with: men have been neglected in gender studies up until now; psychologists should learn to understand military culture; fathers being involved in the lives of their sons is good; the school system is failing boys in many ways. It also brings up many points that are important to MRAs, like male suicide rates and shorter lifespan, and the stereotype of men as violent. And everything is backed up by what looks like hundreds of citations. On the whole I agree it is pro-men and it points out many real problems with our culture's attitudes toward and treatment of men.

But to generate those outrage clicks, we need to ignore that and seize upon random buzzwords like "privilege" and "intersections" that the document uses as proof that the APA is a radfem misandrist conspiracy, and not read what it really says.

See, I didn't hear about it from right wing media, but those buzzwords are red flags that are worth paying attention to. Intersectionality as an ideology is involved in very little good science. "Masculinities" (plural) is a word that probably has not been used in a single meaningful paper on clinical practice, but is part of the vocabulary of gender studies (i.e., feminist ideology). If the APA's guidelines spent a lot of time talking about the id, ego, superego, and Oedipal complexes, we would reasonably conclude that it was endorsing the likes of Freud.

I've heard about it from psychologists involved with trying to fix psychology's replication crisis, because there's a shit-ton of slipshod research being cited here and a giant load of ideology being broadcast as science. Which, if you read the scribd link I included, which is only three pages, you should be aware of.

There are things in the guidelines that are not troublesome. There are plenty of things that are agreeable only if you hold values somewhere left of center (i.e., basic trans issue splits), and right wing media will of course be alarmed about that. Then there's a lot of highly ideological garbage that has nothing to do with sound clinical practice and is instead more likely to further isolate men from contact with mental health professionals.

Particularly alarming is the amount of time the document spends on casting men as disproportionate perpetrators of harm. While claiming men to be more violent than women is a non-controversial claim, invoking that claim dozens of times in a document intended to help clinicians treat male patients is out of place.

The guidelines for women and girls also contain some ideological bullshit, but describing the ways in which one's patients may be victims of others or of life circumstances is not unusual.

Tahar Joblis wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:What the document says is not anything new in the psychological community, and in fact is fairly pro-men (if not pro-gender roles). It doesn't say "traditional masculinity" is pathological, as you claim; the summary in your OP is either intentionally incorrect or you didn't read the paper. There is some shaky science, particularly when it cites the Duluth Model, but I would hardly call the entire paper pseudoscience merely because you dislike the terminology used.
I highly recommend that everybody in this thread actually read the document before posting. It's only 30 pages.

It's not a research paper, it's a set of clinical guidelines. Those guidelines are in turn to a large degree founded not on sound science, but on ideology.

The "science" of microaggressions, for example, is very bad science. It is certainly not time for the APA to include recommendations that clinicians should "strive to reduce and counter the damaging effects of microaggressions."

Let's introduce you to what it means to pathologize something:

APA wrote:For instance, socialization for conforming to traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development,
constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict, and negatively influence mental health and physical health.

APA wrote:[T]traditional masculinity ideology can be viewed as the dominant (referred to as “hegemonic”) form of masculinity that strongly influences what members of a culture take to be normative.

APA wrote:Researchers in the psychology of men and masculinity have identified that insecurities stemming from early childhood experiences (such as attachment insecurities) are linked to adherence to traditional masculinity ideology.

APA wrote:For example, individuals who adhere to traditional masculine gender roles hold more negative attitudes toward transgender and gender-nonconforming persons,

APA wrote:An integral aspect of traditional masculinity is the social power awarded to conformity to masculine norms, while aberrant gendered behavior is punished through gender policing.

APA wrote:Traditional masculinity ideologies have also been linked to parenting concerns, including work-family conflicts.

When you are describing something as the source of a complex of health problems, you're pathologizing it.

Looks like the APA decided to hurt their credibility to score cheap political points. What a joke.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Agreed, and these now guidelines are absolutely ridiculous. Psychology should be a science, not a form of far-left political activism.

This paper is not far-left. The real far-left position would be more like "all mental illness is caused by capitalism itself and the APA is a bourgeois organization that exists to provide band-aid solutions without examining the deeper structural problems within capitalism blah blah socialize all property and it will disappear". We could say it's liberal, but liberalism is not far-left.

Tahar Joblis wrote:See, I didn't hear about it from right wing media, but those buzzwords are red flags that are worth paying attention to. Intersectionality as an ideology is involved in very little good science. "Masculinities" (plural) is a word that probably has not been used in a single meaningful paper on clinical practice, but is part of the vocabulary of gender studies (i.e., feminist ideology). If the APA's guidelines spent a lot of time talking about the id, ego, superego, and Oedipal complexes, we would reasonably conclude that it was endorsing the likes of Freud.

[...]

There are things in the guidelines that are not troublesome. There are plenty of things that are agreeable only if you hold values somewhere left of center (i.e., basic trans issue splits), and right wing media will of course be alarmed about that. Then there's a lot of highly ideological garbage that has nothing to do with sound clinical practice and is instead more likely to further isolate men from contact with mental health professionals..

This is a reasonable take.

However, just because a paper contains some gender studies buzzwords does not necessarily mean its conclusions are all wrong, or anti-male, or that there is a vast left-wing conspiracy to destroy men. I am a bit surprised the APA chose to use words like "microaggression" when in my experience, psychology doesn't tend to use the vocabulary of social justice nearly as much as sociology or gender studies do.

Page wrote:There are many men's issues that need to be addressed, there are many aspects of life which are more difficult for men. That men seeking help for depression is still stigmatized, that men are disproportionately affected by mass incarceration, that boys are struggling more in schools, that fathers are deprived of their parental rights, and many others. These are real problems, yes. But we are never going to solve these problems until we stop this bullshit of blaming feminism, liberalism, and social justice.

It wasn't feminism that made me feel insecure and isolated as a kid because I wasn't athletic enough. It wasn't feminism that told me that I have to suppress my emotions to "be a man." It wasn't feminism that instilled us with the bullshit idea that we have to work ourselves to death, keep competing and keep producing no matter how much our well-being suffers. It wasn't feminism that made male victims of sexual assault and rape to feel weak and ashamed.

And despite what reactionaries want us to believe, masculinity and toxic masculinity are not the same thing. Realizing that there are problematic aspects of masculinity is not anti-male; it's the opposite, we address this problem so we can help boys and men. So boys can grow up to accept themselves for who they are rather than feel worthless because they can't live up to the standards of what they are told masculinity is.

My fellow men, I beg you - abandon this fallacious mentality that feminism is a conspiracy to destroy us.


PS: Intersectionality is not an ideology. It is not a feminist, left-wing, SJW ideology, okay? Intersectionality is, as the name would imply, is a way of looking at society which recognizes that different sorts of problems such as racism, sexism, disability, and poverty intersect with one another. In other words, intersectionality is the understanding that numerous social factors shape an individual's life experience. It's not an ideology.

The broflakes are never going to agree with this because they're made up their minds that we live in some kind of matriarchal dystopia, so it's pointless. But for what it's worth I'm at least broadly sympathetic to the points you made. Feminism and social justice did not create all of men's problems and mudslinging about SJWs will not solve them.

Cekoviu wrote:What the document says is not anything new in the psychological community, and in fact is fairly pro-men (if not pro-gender roles). It doesn't say "traditional masculinity" is pathological, as you claim; the summary in your OP is either intentionally incorrect or you didn't read the paper. There is some shaky science, particularly when it cites the Duluth Model, but I would hardly call the entire paper pseudoscience merely because you dislike the terminology used.
I highly recommend that everybody in this thread actually read the document before posting. It's only 30 pages.

Ah, so we've got another case of a right-wing OP misrepresenting their own source to generate outrage bait for anti-feminists.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Page wrote:
It's very revealing that you think of racism and LGBT issues vs. men's issues as if they don't intersect at all.

Huge numbers of unarmed black men being killed by law enforcement is a men's issue. The epidemic of mass incarceration, a byproduct of racism, is a men's issue. Gay and trans boys and men being bullied and ostracized is a men's issue. That it is still legal in the majority of US states for kids to be subjected to the child abuse that is conversion therapy is a men's issue. These are all issues that affect men and boys.

"Hey, these *more important to the progressive cause* issues are now men's issues. So that we can say we care about men's issues."

I mean, feminism's been acting like that for 20+ years.

Both sides are guilty of this behavior deary.

It's like Freud became reincarnated as a radical feminist.

Costa Fierro wrote:It's like Freud became reincarnated as a radical feminist.

Aaah, Sigmund Freud, the infamous creator of the theories of "innate bisexuality" and "penis envy".

Luckily Freudian psychology has been obsolete for decades and there is nothing Freudian in this paper.

Liriena wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:What the document says is not anything new in the psychological community, and in fact is fairly pro-men (if not pro-gender roles). It doesn't say "traditional masculinity" is pathological, as you claim; the summary in your OP is either intentionally incorrect or you didn't read the paper. There is some shaky science, particularly when it cites the Duluth Model, but I would hardly call the entire paper pseudoscience merely because you dislike the terminology used.
I highly recommend that everybody in this thread actually read the document before posting. It's only 30 pages.

Ah, so we've got another case of a right-wing OP misrepresenting their own source to generate outrage bait for anti-feminists.

Nah, not really.