APA declares traditional masculinity pathological

[Autarkheia]

That men need to be encouraged to redefine and find a new masculine ideal.

Hell yeah let's do it.

[Scomagia]

That men need to be encouraged to redefine and find a new masculine ideal.

Hell yeah let's do it.

You go ahead. I'm not going to pretend to change my identity because someone said my identity is bad.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Hogwash.

[Autarkheia]

You go ahead. I'm not going to pretend to change my identity

I'm not changing my identity at all. Men are still men. I am rejecting the idea that men have to be hyper-competitive, aggressive, violent and domineering all the time.

because someone said my identity is bad.

The paper does not say that at all. That idea is just conservative outrage culture.

[Scomagia]

I'm not changing my identity at all. Men are still men. I am rejecting the idea that men have to be hyper-competitive, aggressive, violent and domineering all the time.

Hence why I didn't say you were. I said I won't. I do see how my post could read as implying that's what you're doing, though. That's not what I meant.

[Autarkheia]

Hence why I didn't say you were. I said I won't. I do see how my post could read as implying that's what you're doing, though. That's not what I meant.

Nobody is asking you (or men) to change your whole identity.

[Scomagia]

Hence why I didn't say you were. I said I won't. I do see how my post could read as implying that's what you're doing, though. That's not what I meant.

Nobody is asking you (or men) to change your whole identity.

Nope, masculine men are just being told that their identities are fabricated and bad.

[Autarkheia]

Nope, masculine men are just being told that their identities are fabricated and bad.

If you have a fucked-up idea of what masculinity is, then yeah. Read the whole paper.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Psychologists should focus on helping the client rather than on pushing misandrist ideological agendas that automatically assume men to have "privilege" and downplay/deny the capacity for men to be victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Other parts of this are more double-edged. The concept of intersectionality might have use in cases of identity-related issues, and ideas around microaggressions may have some use when it comes to helping an individual understand a pattern of them finding themselves in a victim role or driving people away from them. But similarly there are other cases where introducing them might cause more confusion or make already oversensitive people more hyperaware. Psychologists should be aware of these things and introduce them when they might help their clients, but you'd presume they were doing that already.

[Scomagia]

Nope, masculine men are just being told that their identities are fabricated and bad.

If you have a fucked-up idea of what masculinity is, then yeah. Read the whole paper.

I did. You know what I saw? Statements that my identity is a social construct and not a natural expression of my biology and that aspects of my identity are "bad", like stoicism and aggression. I also saw lovely trash stating that male aggression is a product of society and culture while ignoring the real biological roots for that behavior, namely hormones.

Stoicism isn't bad. Not everyone feels better expressing their emotions to the same degree that most women do.

Aggression isn't bad. Undisciplined aggression is bad.

The paper is full of insulting denigration of my identity. It's dehumanizing.

[The Federated Soviets of North America]

They forgot to add liberalism to the list.

Watch: Trumptonium1 BRUTALLY EVISCERATES libercucktards with FACTS, LOGIC, and a CHAINSAW

[The Rich Port]

Psychologists should focus on helping the client rather than on pushing misandrist ideological agendas that automatically assume men to have "privilege" and downplay/deny the capacity for men to be victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Other parts of this are more double-edged. The concept of intersectionality might have use in cases of identity-related issues, and ideas around microaggressions may have some use when it comes to helping an individual understand a pattern of them finding themselves in a victim role or driving people away from them. But similarly there are other cases where introducing them might cause more confusion or make already oversensitive people more hyperaware. Psychologists should be aware of these things and introduce them when they might help their clients, but you'd presume they were doing that already.

Men often face pressure from other men to conform to traditional masculinity. Because men who aren't are usually seen as not real men.

In a psychological setting it is often important to think outside the box in order to solve behavioral problems. Indeed, the psychological setting is often the only place where some men will hear encouragement to be THEMSELVES rather than what their social sphere wI'll usually tell them to do.

Have children because that's what balls are for.
Don't be a pussy, use violence to solve your problems.
If you go to a psychologist you're a weak little bitch.

Etc.

[Autarkheia]

Psychologists should focus on helping the client rather than on pushing misandrist ideological agendas that automatically assume men to have "privilege" and downplay/deny the capacity for men to be victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Other parts of this are more double-edged. The concept of intersectionality might have use in cases of identity-related issues, and ideas around microaggressions may have some use when it comes to helping an individual understand a pattern of them finding themselves in a victim role or driving people away from them. But similarly there are other cases where introducing them might cause more confusion or make already oversensitive people more hyperaware. Psychologists should be aware of these things and introduce them when they might help their clients, but you'd presume they were doing that already.

I agree.

I did. You know what I saw? Statements that my identity is a social construct and not a natural expression of my biology and that aspects of my identity are "bad", like stoicism and aggression. I also saw lovely trash stating that male aggression is a product of society and culture while ignoring the real biological roots for that behavior, namely hormones.

That wasn't my takeaway. Maybe it should've included biological approaches to gender, where relevant.

Stoicism isn't bad. Not everyone feels better expressing their emotions to the same degree that most women do.

Aggression isn't bad. Undisciplined aggression is bad.

I agree. Stoicism is good. Repressing emotions is bad.

The paper is full of insulting denigration of my identity. It's dehumanizing.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps consider that you were primed to see this paper in a certain way and had preconceived notions about it before reading it, and that coloured your perceptions.

[The Federated Soviets of North America]

Psychologists should focus on helping the client rather than on pushing misandrist ideological agendas that automatically assume men to have "privilege" and downplay/deny the capacity for men to be victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Other parts of this are more double-edged. The concept of intersectionality might have use in cases of identity-related issues, and ideas around microaggressions may have some use when it comes to helping an individual understand a pattern of them finding themselves in a victim role or driving people away from them. But similarly there are other cases where introducing them might cause more confusion or make already oversensitive people more hyperaware. Psychologists should be aware of these things and introduce them when they might help their clients, but you'd presume they were doing that already.

Men often face pressure from other men to conform to traditional masculinity. Because men who aren't are usually seen as not real men.

In a psychological setting it is often important to think outside the box in order to solve behavioral problems. Indeed, the psychological setting is often the only place where some men will hear encouragement to be THEMSELVES rather than what their social sphere wI'll usually tell them to do.

Have children because that's what balls are for.
Don't be a pussy, use violence to solve your problems.
If you go to a psychologist you're a weak little bitch.

Etc.

^^^

[Autarkheia]

If you go to a psychologist you're a weak little bitch.

This is exactly the kind of masculinity that men don't need, and if anyone makes it part of their identity I feel sorry for them.

[Novus Wrepland]

Wasn’t toxic masculinity termed by the MRAs anyway? Seems like more stupid outrage.

[Scomagia]

Psychologists should focus on helping the client rather than on pushing misandrist ideological agendas that automatically assume men to have "privilege" and downplay/deny the capacity for men to be victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Other parts of this are more double-edged. The concept of intersectionality might have use in cases of identity-related issues, and ideas around microaggressions may have some use when it comes to helping an individual understand a pattern of them finding themselves in a victim role or driving people away from them. But similarly there are other cases where introducing them might cause more confusion or make already oversensitive people more hyperaware. Psychologists should be aware of these things and introduce them when they might help their clients, but you'd presume they were doing that already.

Men often face pressure from other men to conform to traditional masculinity. Because men who aren't are usually seen as not real men.

In a psychological setting it is often important to think outside the box in order to solve behavioral problems. Indeed, the psychological setting is often the only place where some men will hear encouragement to be THEMSELVES rather than what their social sphere wI'll usually tell them to do.

Have children because that's what balls are for.
Don't be a pussy, use violence to solve your problems.
If you go to a psychologist you're a weak little bitch.

Etc.

But the paper isn't about the plight of less masculine or feminine men, it's about denigrating many aspects of masculinity in general. I agree that some men aren't masculine and shouldn't be made to act like they are. Unfortunately, that isn't the actual point of the article. The point of the article is to say that traditional masculinity isn't really an identity, that it isn't a natural form of expression for many men, and that it is inherently bad.

[Autarkheia]

Wasn’t toxic masculinity termed by the MRAs anyway? Seems like more stupid outrage.

I thought it was a feminist term, but idk. Like I said, many points in the paper are things that MRAs should agree with.

The reaction to this just proves that outrage culture is far from limited to the left.

[Scomagia]

Psychologists should focus on helping the client rather than on pushing misandrist ideological agendas that automatically assume men to have "privilege" and downplay/deny the capacity for men to be victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Other parts of this are more double-edged. The concept of intersectionality might have use in cases of identity-related issues, and ideas around microaggressions may have some use when it comes to helping an individual understand a pattern of them finding themselves in a victim role or driving people away from them. But similarly there are other cases where introducing them might cause more confusion or make already oversensitive people more hyperaware. Psychologists should be aware of these things and introduce them when they might help their clients, but you'd presume they were doing that already.

I agree.

I did. You know what I saw? Statements that my identity is a social construct and not a natural expression of my biology and that aspects of my identity are "bad", like stoicism and aggression. I also saw lovely trash stating that male aggression is a product of society and culture while ignoring the real biological roots for that behavior, namely hormones.

That wasn't my takeaway. Maybe it should've included biological approaches to gender, where relevant.

Stoicism isn't bad. Not everyone feels better expressing their emotions to the same degree that most women do.

Aggression isn't bad. Undisciplined aggression is bad.

I agree. Stoicism is good. Repressing emotions is bad.

The paper is full of insulting denigration of my identity. It's dehumanizing.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps consider that you were primed to see this paper in a certain way and had preconceived notions about it before reading it, and that coloured your perceptions.

The biological explanations are missing for a reason, namely because they are at odds with the social constructionist narrative.

People are usually primed to see denials of their authentic identity a certain way, yes.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Psychologists should focus on helping the client rather than on pushing misandrist ideological agendas that automatically assume men to have "privilege" and downplay/deny the capacity for men to be victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Other parts of this are more double-edged. The concept of intersectionality might have use in cases of identity-related issues, and ideas around microaggressions may have some use when it comes to helping an individual understand a pattern of them finding themselves in a victim role or driving people away from them. But similarly there are other cases where introducing them might cause more confusion or make already oversensitive people more hyperaware. Psychologists should be aware of these things and introduce them when they might help their clients, but you'd presume they were doing that already.

Men often face pressure from other men to conform to traditional masculinity. Because men who aren't are usually seen as not real men.

In a psychological setting it is often important to think outside the box in order to solve behavioral problems. Indeed, the psychological setting is often the only place where some men will hear encouragement to be THEMSELVES rather than what their social sphere wI'll usually tell them to do.

Have children because that's what balls are for.
Don't be a pussy, use violence to solve your problems.
If you go to a psychologist you're a weak little bitch.

Etc.

Men face equal or greater pressure from women as they do from men to conform to traditional masculinity. But that's beside the point.

Telling psychologists the ideological framework that they "should" adopt does not lead to "thinking outside the box" - quite the opposite. It's a straitjacket that the scenario must be "made" to fit. Different circumstances given my gender, but I was once referred to an NHS psychologist when I was younger who was quite obviously a radical feminist and could not keep preconceived ideas out of the sessions. They were singularly unhelpful and the sessions were sermonish - any input or insight I tried to bring to the process was tutted at before she dragged the topic back to the ideological framework she wanted to fit things in. This is entirely the wrong power dynamic. Good treatment is based on reflexivity, flexibility and finding an approach that suits the client's needs. With that experience in mind I'm concerned about this guidance and the pushing of the idea that a feminist, constructivist, and explicitly progressivist approach is universally applicable.

[Autarkheia]

I agree with Dumb Ideologies' takes. Having guidelines for clinical practice is one thing, but being overly pushy and ideological is obviously unhelpful as a practitioner.

The biological explanations are missing for a reason, namely because they are at odds with the social constructionist narrative.

People are usually primed to see denials of their authentic identity a certain way, yes.

If you are determined to see everything in this paper as SJW postmodernist misandrist bilge, there is nothing I can say to change your mind. Have a nice day.

[Tornado Queendom]

Yeah, I feel like the actions of this so-called "APA" are so bad that it needs a reverse WWF trademark lawsuit situation. Not only are they infamous for promoting left-wing extremism, but they also actively attack the majority for no reason other than to be a mouthpiece for these extremists who want anyone who's in the majority to suffer just to give a few small groups control. This threatens our very democracy, and even Big Brother wouldn't do this. The WWE should sue this organization, as this action bring shame to the acronym. Besides, JBL should own the right to it. Hopefully, the court will side with the WWE this time. I can imagine the slogan right now, especially since WWE has more money than these feminist extremists. "American Psychological Organization: Remove 'A' from the premises"

[Holy Tedalonia]

The biological explanations are missing for a reason, namely because they are at odds with the social constructionist narrative.

People are usually primed to see denials of their authentic identity a certain way, yes.

If you are determined to see everything in this paper as SJW postmodernist misandrist bilge, there is nothing I can say to change your mind. Have a nice day.

When they don’t provide facts, you ought to question its legitimacy. Just saying “these guys are right,” isn’t exactly helping either.

[Vassenor]

Yeah, I feel like the actions of this so-called "APA" are so bad that it needs a reverse WWF trademark lawsuit situation. Not only are they infamous for promoting left-wing extremism, but they also actively attack the majority for no reason other than to be a mouthpiece for these extremists who want anyone who's in the majority to suffer just to give a few small groups control. This threatens our very democracy, and even Big Brother wouldn't do this. The WWE should sue this organization, as this action bring shame to the acronym. Besides, JBL should own the right to it. Hopefully, the court will side with the WWE this time. I can imagine the slogan right now, especially since WWE has more money than these feminist extremists. "American Psychological Organization: Remove 'A' from the premises"

What?

[Autarkheia]

When they don’t provide facts, you ought to question its legitimacy. Just saying “these guys are right,” isn’t exactly helping either.

All the citations are there. Go nuts.

I feel like the actions of this so-called "APA" are so bad that it needs a reverse WWF trademark lawsuit situation. Not only are they infamous for promoting left-wing extremism

Yes, the APA is infamous for promoting left-wing extremist ideologies like Bolshevism, anarchism and the Black Panthers. You got 'em.