Hell yeah let's do it.That men need to be encouraged to redefine and find a new masculine ideal.
Advertisement
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:34 am
Hell yeah let's do it.That men need to be encouraged to redefine and find a new masculine ideal.
by Scomagia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:36 am
Autarkheia wrote:Hell yeah let's do it.That men need to be encouraged to redefine and find a new masculine ideal.
by Trollzyn the Infinite » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:41 am
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:41 am
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.You go ahead. I'm not going to pretend to change my identity
The paper does not say that at all. That idea is just conservative outrage culture.because someone said my identity is bad.
by Scomagia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:44 am
Autarkheia wrote: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.
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:46 am
Nobody is asking you (or men) to change your whole identity.Scomagia wrote: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.
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:50 am
If you have a fucked-up idea of what masculinity is, then yeah. Read the whole paper.Scomagia wrote:Nope, masculine men are just being told that their identities are fabricated and bad.
by Dumb Ideologies » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:55 am
by Scomagia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:58 am
by The Federated Soviets of North America » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:03 pm
Trumptonium1 wrote:They forgot to add liberalism to the list.
by The Rich Port » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:04 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote: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.
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:04 pm
I agree.Dumb Ideologies wrote: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.
That wasn't my takeaway. Maybe it should've included biological approaches to gender, where relevant.Scomagia wrote: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.
I agree. Stoicism is good. Repressing emotions is bad.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'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 paper is full of insulting denigration of my identity. It's dehumanizing.
by The Federated Soviets of North America » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:05 pm
The Rich Port wrote:Dumb Ideologies wrote: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.
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:06 pm
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.The Rich Port wrote:If you go to a psychologist you're a weak little bitch.
by Novus Wrepland » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:08 pm
by Scomagia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:09 pm
The Rich Port wrote:Dumb Ideologies wrote: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.
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:10 pm
I thought it was a feminist term, but idk. Like I said, many points in the paper are things that MRAs should agree with.Novus Wrepland wrote:Wasn’t toxic masculinity termed by the MRAs anyway? Seems like more stupid outrage.
by Scomagia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:12 pm
Autarkheia wrote:I agree.Dumb Ideologies wrote: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.That wasn't my takeaway. Maybe it should've included biological approaches to gender, where relevant.Scomagia wrote: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.I agree. Stoicism is good. Repressing emotions is bad.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'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 paper is full of insulting denigration of my identity. It's dehumanizing.
by Dumb Ideologies » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:15 pm
The Rich Port wrote:Dumb Ideologies wrote: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.
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:15 pm
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.Scomagia wrote: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.
by Tornado Queendom » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:18 pm
by Holy Tedalonia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:18 pm
Autarkheia wrote: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.Scomagia wrote: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.
by Vassenor » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:19 pm
Tornado Queendom wrote: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"
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:21 pm
All the citations are there. Go nuts.Holy Tedalonia wrote:When they don’t provide facts, you ought to question its legitimacy. Just saying “these guys are right,” isn’t exactly helping either.
Yes, the APA is infamous for promoting left-wing extremist ideologies like Bolshevism, anarchism and the Black Panthers. You got 'em.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
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Emotional Support Crocodile, Haganham, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Omphalos, Philjia, Tungstan, Valentine Z, Washington-Columbia
Advertisement