APA declares traditional masculinity pathological

[Tahar Joblis]

This hit the fan a few days ago, but strangely, I don't see any threads on it.

The APA recently released a new set of clinical guidelines for psychologists, in particular focused on men and boys. (For reference, a similar set of guidelines for women and girls was first issued eleven years ago.)

These guidelines talk about negative outcomes for men and (particularly unusually in a document intended to provide guidance for treating men and boys) talk about ways in which men and boys may negatively impact the lives of others around them. The guidelines controversially identify "traditional masculinity" (or, in some later parts of the text, simply "masculinity") as the source of all the problems particular to men, and do so while citing highly questionable research.

Guidelines include numerous assertions about what sort of psychological "science" - or more correctly, gender ideology wrapped in a scientific veneer - clinical psychologists should believe in.

1. Clinical psychologists should be social constructivists.
2. Clinical psychologists should be intersectionalists.
3. Clinical psychologists should buy into the importance of microaggressions.
4. Clinical psychologists should believe in male privilege.
5. Clinical psychologists should be trying to push for change "institutional, cultural, and systemic" level.

Summary of problems from one expert insider who pointed out the problems with this in the draft version: https://www.scribd.com/document/3853476 ... n-and-Boys
From one Psychology Today writer: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1083 ... 67137.html

The short version: This is bad science and essentially an entirely ideological document that will, if embraced by practitioners, continue to drive men away from seeking help for psychological problems and fail to cause them help. It's driven by a political agenda, a clear attempt to conscript clinical psychologists into being soldiers of cultural change - a role that is at odds with providing effective therapy to men and boys.

For a pointed example on the quality of the science, microaggression research is extremely weak from a scientific perspective.

This is not to say that 100% of the document is bad, but what we have here is something that has more to do with feminist ideology than with either psychological research or good clinical practice.

[Trumptonium1]

They forgot to add liberalism to the list.

[Cekoviu]

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.

[Vassenor]

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.

[Cekoviu]

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.

Why do I try?

[Vassenor]

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

Why do I try?

We live in hope.

[United Miitopia]

I find it strange how issues predominantly faced by men are due to an "ideology of masculinity"...its almost funny.

[Scomagia]

So if a boy naturally wants to express himself in a feminine way, that's cool, but if he wants to express himself in a traditionally masculine way it's a problem? A lot of men are naturally inclined toward competitveness, assertiveness, controlled aggression, and stoicism. Hell, some women are "traditionally masculine", as well. There's nothing wrong with being that sort of person.

[Autarkheia]

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.

[West Leas Oros 2]

So if a boy naturally wants to express himself in a feminine way, that's cool, but if he wants to express himself in a traditionally masculine way it's a problem? A lot of men are naturally inclined toward competitiveness, assertiveness, controlled aggression, and stoicism. Hell, some women are "traditionally masculine", as well. There's nothing wrong with being that sort of person.

There's nothing wrong with being any sort of person, unless the sort of person you are stops others from exercising their rights.

[Thermodolia]

So if a boy naturally wants to express himself in a feminine way, that's cool, but if he wants to express himself in a traditionally masculine way it's a problem? A lot of men are naturally inclined toward competitveness, assertiveness, controlled aggression, and stoicism. Hell, some women are "traditionally masculine", as well. There's nothing wrong with being that sort of person.

Actually the paper doesn’t say that at all.

It actually says that they need to understand military culture better, that fathers being involved with their sons is a good, and recognizing the high male suicide rate

[Autarkheia]

All of those traits can be good in moderation and harmful in excess. So can any personality trait.

[Utceforp]

They forgot to add liberalism to the list.

Trumptonium DISEMBOWELS LIBERALS with FACTS and LOGIC

[Autarkheia]

Most psychologists are liberal. So are most academics in general. This doesn't mean their work is necessarily biased and ideological.

[Camelone]

I saw this first on a Timcast video and I think he did a rather balanced review. Pretty much agree with everything he says in the video, there is some worrisome parts of the paper but overall it is not as world ending as is being broadcasted, more annoying overall.

[Des-Bal]

It looks ideologically driven and flawed and there's a real possibility it will drive men away from therapy.

[Scomagia]

So if a boy naturally wants to express himself in a feminine way, that's cool, but if he wants to express himself in a traditionally masculine way it's a problem? A lot of men are naturally inclined toward competitveness, assertiveness, controlled aggression, and stoicism. Hell, some women are "traditionally masculine", as well. There's nothing wrong with being that sort of person.

Actually the paper doesn’t say that at all.

It actually says that they need to understand military culture better, that fathers being involved with their sons is a good, and recognizing the high male suicide rate

It also makes repeated dubious claims about the socio-cultural roots of "masculinity" and "aggression" without mentioning the physiological roots. The whole thing reads as what it is; social constructionist trash. Everything is ascribed to cultural conditioning and stoicism is treated throughout as a problem, rather than a natural behavior for many men.

[Scomagia]

It looks ideologically driven and flawed and there's a real possibility it will drive men away from therapy.

Well, yeah. Why am I going to drop hundreds of dollars to be told that my masculinity isn't a natural expression of myself? Why am I going to pay to be told it's bad that I'm less emotional than my wife?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

They forgot to add liberalism to the list.

Trumptonium EPICLY BURNS LIBTARD SJWS with EPIC COMEDY BURN

"Ok this post is epic"- Ben "Burn the libtards" Shperio

[The Emerald Legion]

So if a boy naturally wants to express himself in a feminine way, that's cool, but if he wants to express himself in a traditionally masculine way it's a problem? A lot of men are naturally inclined toward competitveness, assertiveness, controlled aggression, and stoicism. Hell, some women are "traditionally masculine", as well. There's nothing wrong with being that sort of person.

Actually the paper doesn’t say that at all.

It actually says that they need to understand military culture better, that fathers being involved with their sons is a good, and recognizing the high male suicide rate

Um. Are we reading the same paper? The one linked in the OP outright says that Masculine norms are the product of an oppressive patriarchy. That men need to be encouraged to redefine and find a new masculine ideal.

[Scomagia]

Actually the paper doesn’t say that at all.

It actually says that they need to understand military culture better, that fathers being involved with their sons is a good, and recognizing the high male suicide rate

Um. Are we reading the same paper? The one linked in the OP outright says that Masculine norms are the product of an oppressive patriarchy. That men need to be encouraged to redefine and find a new masculine ideal.

A new ideal which, naturally, is feminine because "masculinity bad!".

[The Rich Port]

Ya know, fellas.

The first step in recovery is admitting that there's a problem and that you're in denial.

乁( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ㄏ

[Scomagia]

Ya know, fellas.

The first step in recovery is admitting that there's a problem and that you're in denial.

乁( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ㄏ

Stop denying our identities. It's dehumanizing.

[The Rich Port]

Ya know, fellas.

The first step in recovery is admitting that there's a problem and that you're in denial.

乁( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ㄏ

Stop denying our identities. It's dehumanizing.

So if a boy naturally wants to express himself in a feminine way, that's cool, but if he wants to express himself in a traditionally masculine way it's a problem? A lot of men are naturally inclined toward competitveness, assertiveness, controlled aggression, and stoicism. Hell, some women are "traditionally masculine", as well. There's nothing wrong with being that sort of person.

I think you confused identity with "shallow stereotype".

Next thing you're gonna tell me is self-medicating with alcohol and painkillers makes you emotionally independent.

[Scomagia]

Stop denying our identities. It's dehumanizing.

So if a boy naturally wants to express himself in a feminine way, that's cool, but if he wants to express himself in a traditionally masculine way it's a problem? A lot of men are naturally inclined toward competitveness, assertiveness, controlled aggression, and stoicism. Hell, some women are "traditionally masculine", as well. There's nothing wrong with being that sort of person.

I think you confused identity with "shallow stereotype".

Next thing you're gonna tell me is self-medicating with alcohol and painkillers makes you emotionally independent.

TIL hormones aren't real and masculinity is just a "stereotype".

Again, you're denying our identity out of bias and hate.