APA declares traditional masculinity pathological

[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"

What?

To make things short, this gang has decided to attack the majority for no reason. If we can get the WWE to sue this "APA" for trademark infringement, it would at least make a funny story. Besides, JBL and Farooq deserve the acronym more than a bunch of bureaucrats in a board-room that don't even see males as valuable.
(IC: The Tornado Queendom is lead by a female, yet they still support the rights of males better than 99% of these feminist extremists [the remaining 1% has yet to be confirmed].)

[Holy Tedalonia]

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.

Those citations that have a lackluster of fact. Get better ones.

[Conserative Morality]

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.

But then where would we get our daily fix of "FUCKING FEMINAZIS RUINING THE WORLD"?

[Vassenor]

What?

To make things short, this gang has decided to attack the majority for no reason. If we can get the WWE to sue this "APA" for trademark infringement, it would at least make a funny story. Besides, JBL and Farooq deserve the acronym more than a bunch of bureaucrats in a board-room that don't even see males as valuable.
(IC: The Tornado Queendom is lead by a female, yet they still support the rights of males better than 99% of these feminist extremists [the remaining 1% has yet to be confirmed].)

First of all, NSG is an out of character part of the forum.

Second, even with that in mind nothing you are saying is making any fucking sense.

[Free California Republic]

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.

But then where would we get our daily fix of "FUCKING FEMINAZIS RUINING THE WORLD"?

Can you not?

[Tornado Queendom]

To make things short, this gang has decided to attack the majority for no reason. If we can get the WWE to sue this "APA" for trademark infringement, it would at least make a funny story. Besides, JBL and Farooq deserve the acronym more than a bunch of bureaucrats in a board-room that don't even see males as valuable.
(IC: The Tornado Queendom is lead by a female, yet they still support the rights of males better than 99% of these feminist extremists [the remaining 1% has yet to be confirmed].)

First of all, NSG is an out of character part of the forum.

Second, even with that in mind nothing you are saying is making any fucking sense.

tl;dr: Declaring masculinity pathological is a bad idea, and this group doesn't deserve the acronym.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

They forgot to add liberalism to the list.

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

[Pax Nerdvana]

They forgot to add liberalism to the list.

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

Yeah, this version doesn't actually sound like science.

[Vassenor]

First of all, NSG is an out of character part of the forum.

Second, even with that in mind nothing you are saying is making any fucking sense.

tl;dr: Declaring masculinity pathological is a bad idea, and this group doesn't deserve the acronym.

So basically they need to be shut down for triggering you?

[Shofercia]

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.

"Hey, I'm coming from a broken family, in a ghetto neighborhood, with no job prospects, and cops intimidating me every day, while the local bitches humiliate me because it brings joys to the local drug lord, who is also a slum lord."

"Clearly, your problem is toxic masculinity, have you tried to be nicer to girls who are humiliating you? Maybe they're doing so because your ancestors oppressed their ancestors, and they have internal rage that they need to let out. You need to treat them better, and all your problems will be solved!"

[Scomagia]

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.

I had a similar experience when I was a kid. It's tough to effectively deal with sexual abuse when your "counselor" is more interested in reminding you incessantly that you should feel worse than you actually do, accusing you of not expressing how you feel, and then using the last ten minutes of the session to remind you that you need to have more diverse friends. Luckily, I didn't have to see that woman for very long. Got a competent male therapist who was actually interested in, you know, how I actually felt and not making me feel like a victim.

[Scomagia]

tl;dr: Declaring masculinity pathological is a bad idea, and this group doesn't deserve the acronym.

So basically they need to be shut down for triggering you?

Denying people's identity and pathologizing them isn't therapeutic. You of all people should understand.

[Page]

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.

[Vassenor]

So basically they need to be shut down for triggering you?

Denying people's identity and pathologizing them isn't therapeutic. You of all people should understand.

So where is the denial of identity in the actual text?

[Scomagia]

Denying people's identity and pathologizing them isn't therapeutic. You of all people should understand.

So where is the denial of identity in the actual text?

The repeated statements about the socio-cultural roots of masculinity combined with the ommission of the biological roots of masculinity. The denial of masculine identity and the denigration of the same runs throughout the paper.

[Vassenor]

So where is the denial of identity in the actual text?

The repeated statements about the socio-cultural roots of masculinity combined with the ommission of the biological roots of masculinity. The denial of masculine identity and the denigration of the same runs throughout the paper.

Actual quotes please.

[Tornado Queendom]

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.

There are extremists who make it an ideology, and the problem is that the actions of said extremists are absolutely HIDEOUS. Trust me, would you REALLY want some extremist who believes in thousands of genders and calls everything in sight racist to win?! I feel that this is going to go down badly.

[Scomagia]

The repeated statements about the socio-cultural roots of masculinity combined with the ommission of the biological roots of masculinity. The denial of masculine identity and the denigration of the same runs throughout the paper.

Actual quotes please.

Read the paper yourself. As I said, the denial of masculinity as an authentic expression of identity is present throughout. If you only say that it's socio-cultural and conveniently omit the biological basis for masculine behavior you are, effectively, denying the validity of that identity.

Would you consider your identity to be purely socio-cultural? Are you trans because you were told to be or because you are?

[Shofercia]

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

Hell yeah let's do it.

Let's not.

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.

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.

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.

Some of us hyper-competitive by nature. And some of us are gay by nature. Why should the former be a bad thing? Why should the latter be a bad thing?

But then where would we get our daily fix of "FUCKING FEMINAZIS RUINING THE WORLD"?

Can you not?

He can't.

tl;dr: Declaring masculinity pathological is a bad idea, and this group doesn't deserve the acronym.

So basically they need to be shut down for triggering you?

Seems to me, someone who actual read his post and is not here to solely make partisan comments, that TQ's unhappy with them attempting to impose their whims on psychiatrists, rather than merely stating an opinion.

[New haven america]

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

They also gave out similar guidelines for traditional femininity just a few days ago (As mentioned by OP).

[Vassenor]

Actual quotes please.

Read the paper yourself. As I said, the denial of masculinity as an authentic expression of identity is present throughout. If you only say that it's socio-cultural and conveniently omit the biological basis for masculine behavior you are, effectively, denying the validity of that identity.

Would you consider your identity to be purely socio-cultural? Are you trans because you were told to be or because you are?

So you can't provide examples of something you say is all the way through a text you have read?

[Page]

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.

[The Emerald Legion]

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.

...

It literally says that traditional masculinity is not only inherently exclusive of those who aren't rich white men. (There are other qualifiers but most of those actually make a small amount of sense.)

It also goes on to say that RACISM was a result of 'White Eurocentric ideals of self reliance and limited emotionality(aka stoicism)

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

[Scomagia]

Read the paper yourself. As I said, the denial of masculinity as an authentic expression of identity is present throughout. If you only say that it's socio-cultural and conveniently omit the biological basis for masculine behavior you are, effectively, denying the validity of that identity.

Would you consider your identity to be purely socio-cultural? Are you trans because you were told to be or because you are?

So you can't provide examples of something you say is all the way through a text you have read?

Read it or don't.

Answer my question. Are you trans because you were told to be or because that is naturally who you are?

[Roliganistan]

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?