APA declares traditional masculinity pathological

[Western Vale Confederacy]

It's probably going to be filled with 18-paragraph long rants about how all feminists are evil and somehow how no feminist through history has done good.

And comparisons to nazism and the KKK.

My main gripe with Ostro is that his paragraphs are just too fucking long.

One can express his point without resorting to writing a fucking novel every damn time.

[The Regalian Underland]

Why. Just Why. Freaking liberals why do you do this.

[Autarkheia]

Jokes aside, am I the only one who thinks that declaring "he-men are crazy" is a backdoor attempt at gun control?

That seems like a real reach to me and rather conspiratorial. The APA already advocates for strategies to prevent gun violence and regulations on guns are a small part of them. Most of it focuses on culture, mental illness, and gun safety.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

"Research" conducted by gender studies academia doesn't have a good peer review system. With that being said, it appears that same kind of ideology is being used in this new era of psychology, because their terms are used throughout sections of this paper.

There are a lot of shitty journals who will accept any paper without even reading it. That's not new. Hypatia is notorious for its low standards. We can't draw conclusions about the broader state of gender studies because two people pranked some probably low-impact journals with shitposts. We also can't assume psychology has been overtaken by SJWs because one paper used words like "privilege".

Well, "microaggression" was a term used as well, as well as some other terminology. I'm not saying that the whole science of Psychology has been taken over, but I am going to say that social Justice "activists" did have significant influence in the writing of these guidelines. Not many others would complain of "microaggressions".

[Autarkheia]

Well, "microaggression" was a term used as well, as well as some other terminology. I'm not saying that the whole science of Psychology has been taken over, but I am going to say that social Justice "activists" did have significant influence in the writing of these guidelines. Not many others would complain of "microaggressions".

I think it's more likely influence from other fields of academia where that kind of language is more common. The use of that jargon by activists did not come out of nowhere of course. We can maybe theorize it was influenced by gender studies, but I don't personally think that field is all garbage (some of it certainly is though).

[Conserative Morality]

Well, "microaggression" was a term used as well, as well as some other terminology. I'm not saying that the whole science of Psychology has been taken over, but I am going to say that social Justice "activists" did have significant influence in the writing of these guidelines. Not many others would complain of "microaggressions".

Microaggressions generally aren't disputed by people unless you use the specific term. Almost like it's a tribalistic reaction to jargon rather than a genuine objection to the concept.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Well, "microaggression" was a term used as well, as well as some other terminology. I'm not saying that the whole science of Psychology has been taken over, but I am going to say that social Justice "activists" did have significant influence in the writing of these guidelines. Not many others would complain of "microaggressions".

I think it's more likely influence from other fields of academia where that kind of language is more common. The use of that jargon by activists did not come out of nowhere of course. We can maybe theorize it was influenced by gender studies, but I don't personally think that field is all garbage (some of it certainly is though).

Well much of academia is corrupted with social justice so that wouldn't surprise me either if it was introduced by other subjects.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Well, "microaggression" was a term used as well, as well as some other terminology. I'm not saying that the whole science of Psychology has been taken over, but I am going to say that social Justice "activists" did have significant influence in the writing of these guidelines. Not many others would complain of "microaggressions".

Microaggressions generally aren't disputed by people unless you use the specific term. Almost like it's a tribalistic reaction to jargon rather than a genuine objection to the concept.

Probably because proponents of the term took it to ridiculous heights. I don't want to derail this thread, but I'm going to say, there shouldn't be a problem with asking someone where they were born, but to some activists that is a "microaggression". I also don't buy that small subtle cues destroy lives either.

[Autarkheia]

Well much of academia is corrupted with social justice so that wouldn't surprise me either if it was introduced by other subjects.

This is a widespread conservative view but I don't think it's really true. Within certain fields (usually called "[oppressed group] Studies" obviously you will find that stuff, but otherwise most academics have more pressing concerns like writing, teaching, getting their work published and finding funding which is constantly under threat of being cut off. They're too busy to get woke.

[Ostroeuropa]

Okay let's deal with this shit show.

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.

If any of you know what this actually means, then you should take note of it. This basically means their parents didn't love them properly and gave them issues in early childhood development from not being a consistent caregiver and dealing with them "On their terms". (I.E, when the parent feels like giving the child attention, not when the child needs it.)

But no, what misandry, where. I'm sure all these mothers are doing their sons justice, and i'm sure such an attitude befalling boys but not girls has nothing to do with a hate ideology that spent decades telling women to act in a similar way to all males in general and disregard their needs in favor of their own wants and that males who don't facilitate this are evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjOowWxOXCg

"they learn it from menz."

(Reminder also that female teachers fuck over boys all the way through school.).

Also, reminder, these "toxic" traits are less common in boys with both parents.
Hmm.

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

Hell yeah let's do it.

When you poll younger men on what they do to make themselves masculine it bares no resemblance to the feminist ramblings about it. There's no need, it's already done. And yet this is the group killing themselves at high rates. Because these feminists are just gaslighting you, it's not real. What is real is the boys crisis in education and its link with suicide, an institutional disadvantage showing female privilege and perpetuated overwhelmingly by women. But mainstream feminism is hostile to recognizing misandry as serious, and certainly hostile to recognizing institutional sexism against men, even more so when it's perpetuated by women, and educated, mostly feminist women at that.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... ng-manhood

They're lying to you. To all of you.
They're asserting their dogma because they are cowards who cannot confront their own ideologies failure to explain reality, nor their own personal chauvinism that that ideology has been fostering in them and has done its utmost to conceal, downplay, and deny.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 87501.html

It's education, and the boys crisis. Not the lies feminists believe about men because they're obsessed with projecting their own flaw onto them.

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.

This too. Before launching into their thing on "Toxic masculinity" (Itself dubious in many of the cases outlined, more justified in others) they repeat a bunch of sexist memes and misinformation about multiple subjects. This undermines the narrative that they're trying to stop strereotypes when they're reinforcing them before then saying the men are ill and that's why they believe these stereotypes, rather than say, these stereotypes being forced on them by feminist institutions as an expression of their own prejudices.

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.

Did you bother finding that out or did you just repeat feminist assertions on the matter? There's numerous studies debunking this feminist nonsense. It is merely a projection of female chauvinism and refusal to take responsibility. You've got the bromance study for instance showing men are far more open about their feelings with other men than women, and so on.

It is not men driving this problem. It is the sex with 500% higher levels of in group bias, in group bias that makes them have lower empathy for men and view themselves overly positively. It is the sex that, on average, believes irrational things like "If I am good, my gender must be good". It's not men. It's women.
You're merely repeating the irrational shit their organized chauvinists have come up with to explain how the negative and destructive consequences of their behavior aren't their fault, but the fault of the outgroup they blame everything on.

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

Have a history lesson on why this is insincere:

I agree in sentiment but the term toxic masculinity shouldn't be used. It is an example of the deliberate sabotage of mens discourse feminists have engaged in, like the rape culture term that was originally used to describe male prisons until they spammed it everywhere to appropriate the meaning.

Toxic masculinity was originally used by the mythopoetic mens movement to describe a masculinity that arises from a lack of meaningful male relationships. They have utterly deformed the term through deliberate malice. It's a common observation from everyone except feminist hate mongers that the traits associated with toxic masculinity are more common in children without father figures. Yet to hear feminists talk about it it's something men learn from men, this because their worldview is based on viewing men as the source of all evil in society, something that women are only ever infected by and not a source of at all.

The traits of toxic masculinity arise from a "shallow" masculinity according to the mythopoetic mens movement, and the term was only ever used to contrast it with "deep" masculinity formed through male bonds, a contrast feminists never use because they view all masculinity with hate and suspicion, and the notion of male bonds being positive is anaethamae to their paranoid belief that male spaces, organizations, and relationships are the source of the problems. The metaphor is used to imply that the less positive male bonds, the more shallow the masculinity, that each one adds "depth".

The feminists could not adopt that rhetoric because it runs counter to their agenda to paint masculinity in a solely negative light in order to assist their attempts to marginalize, demonize, and vilify men, while pathologizing their behavior and mindsets. The notion that "More" masculinity is a good thing is not something they were ever prepared to concede.

Occasionally they will point out they're merely using the term we invented because they think it's a good one. They don't do that so much anymore, but they used to. This is why that was only ever an insincere deflection of their misuse of it. To use the term as feminists have outside of this context and meaning is to completely change it, and in my view it's a clear enough thing that only malice explains it. Out and out bigoted and hateful feminists did this, and their uncritical peers ran with it without a second thought. They spread this term and its usage, assisting in the sabotage of mens discourse. They are also culpable, because they believed the lies their peers told them and helped them harm others, despite the fact they know full well their peers are often bad people.

So... yes and no.

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.

See above.

"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!"

Pretty much. The problem with the sociological sexism feminists push is that, unlike biological racism, you can use sociology to utterly fuck up every aspect of society and every institution if your model is broken.

Again, daily reminder that the gender 500% more sexist than the other one is the one running the show and crafting narratives, and laying blame on the less sexist one for the dynamics in society.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274

https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec04/women.aspx

(500% sources.)

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.

It is feminism that keeps us from holding women properly accountable for the psychological damage they do to men through their routine and normalized sexism. It is feminism that pushes the meme that mens suffering and problems do not matter, and that women, their needs, their desires, are what society and its members should put at the top of their agenda. It is feminism that pushes the notion that making women happy and being a "Good one" in terms that women define is the highest goal a man should aspire to. It is feminism that creates a vicious cycle where women become more and more chauvinistic over time and less and less empathetic.

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).

Modern femininity would be a better thing to examine, given that women do on average have higher in group bias, and believe irrational things about their gender and their relation to it such as "If I am good, my gender is good", while men do not, and so on.

If you treat the elevated risk of male suicide and homicides committed by men as a death toll due to masculinity, that's about 25,000 per year for suicide plus maybe around 10,000 for homicide. Add in accidental deaths and failure to seek medical treatment, and you go far past that.

This is another problem. Blaming the male suicide crisis on traditioanl masculinity allows feminists to shift blame away from the real problem, the boys crisis in education. Suicide experts noted the biggest predictor was poor education prospects. By shifting the blame to men and their mindsets and away from institutions and their mistreatment of men, feminists can assert their fucked up and sexist narrative "Helps men", even when that assertion is effectively preventing solutions just so they can keep up their pathologizing of men and gaslighting them constanlty, telling them everything that ever goes wrong in society is because we don't like women as much as that pack of mostly chauvinistic bigots s like themselves, so if we just learn to appreciate womens awesomeness everything will be fine. They do this because they are chauvinists, who cannot bare to confront the fact their behavior has harmed men and done them injustice, and because they view themselves overly positively and so assume if there's suffering it must be due to men. It's a vicious cycle where they blame their victims because they hate their victims and love themselves far too much, and the reason that is the case is they have offloaded all responsibility for suffering onto their victims.

This is merely the latest incarnation of feminism and its hostility to recognizing institutional disadvantages men face, preferring to recast such things in "Individual" terms.


And this goes for what looks like the ENTIRE forum on this issue;
crack a sociology book, for fucks sake.

https://www.slideshare.net/jkonoroth/32 ... -of-health

This is a textbook case of medicalizing a social issue.

Hey.

Maybe we wouldn't keep having broken legs if we got workplace safety regulations.

Hey.

Maybe men wouldn't be ill if we fixed our institutional misandry.

[Conserative Morality]

Probably because proponents of the term took it to ridiculous heights. I don't want to derail this thread, but I'm going to say, there shouldn't be a problem with asking someone where they were born, but to some activists that is a "microaggression". I also don't buy that small subtle cues destroy lives either.

They don't. But hearing "You're pretty polite for a black guy" or "You're Asian, shouldn't you be good at math?" or "Hurr hurr make me a sandwich so funny" all the time gets old real quick.

[The Federated Soviets of North America]

Jokes aside, am I the only one who thinks that declaring "he-men are crazy" is a backdoor attempt at gun control?

I'm sorry what? how are those things even related? I agree with most of the report, and I'm pro-gun.

[Autarkheia]

Jokes aside, am I the only one who thinks that declaring "he-men are crazy" is a backdoor attempt at gun control?

I'm sorry what? how are those things even related? I agree with most of the report, and I'm pro-gun.

If men commit most violent crime, including gun crime, and toxic masculinity is a factor in this, then somehow this leads to gun control even though the APA themselves think that addressing the psychological and social causes of gun violence is a far better solution.

[Iridencia]

Probably because proponents of the term took it to ridiculous heights. I don't want to derail this thread, but I'm going to say, there shouldn't be a problem with asking someone where they were born, but to some activists that is a "microaggression". I also don't buy that small subtle cues destroy lives either.

They don't. But hearing "You're pretty polite for a black guy" or "You're Asian, shouldn't you be good at math?" or "Hurr hurr make me a sandwich so funny" all the time gets old real quick.

Yeah. But this is kind of missing the point.

One of the main perpetrators of this social-justice-bashing cycle is the failure of social justice proponents to directly address the misuses of these terms and instead consistently turn the conversation back around on the critics one way or another. Usually the circle goes like this:

"X is bad, because it means Y."
"No it doesn't, it means Z."
"I agree with the Z definition, but there are people who use it to mean Y all the time."
"No they don't."
*provides proof of people using it to mean Y frequently*
And then usually:
A.) "Those people are the minority, they have no influence, don't pay attention to them." *provides no evidence that this group does not have any substantial influence, just expects you to take their word for it, never mind that two seconds ago they didn't even know this group existed in the first place and are now suddenly knowledgeable enough on them to know their level of influence*
B.) "Okay, but what about when it is referring to Z? Huh, what then?"

Instead of telling the people misusing the terms to knock it off, it's somehow always the critics' fault for acknowledging that those misuses exist. This not only casts distrust on social justice proponents, but allows those misuses to grow as such things do when they are not checked.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm sorry what? how are those things even related? I agree with most of the report, and I'm pro-gun.

If men commit most violent crime, including gun crime, and toxic masculinity is a factor in this, then somehow this leads to gun control even though the APA themselves think that addressing the psychological and social causes of gun violence is a far better solution.

If you're diagnosed psychologically unhealthy you can't get a gun in most states. It's a valid concern that this will lead to disarmament, if you view the right to bare arms as fundamental.

Similar to if they included being excessively black cultured as a psychological condition. It would mean you could start refusing to sell arms on that basis.

[Iridencia]

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

Well, the men whom these guidelines are targeting think that therapy is for pussies anyway, so...what do we do now?

---

Jokes aside, am I the only one who thinks that declaring "he-men are crazy" is a backdoor attempt at gun control?

Am I the only one who thinks that it's kind of weird that He-Man is constantly used as a caricature for overly traditionalist misogynist types when the actual He-Man character himself was actually a pretty chill dude who had no problem fighting alongside strong women and didn't even really seem to have much of a sexuality?

Because... that kind of always bugged my nerdy side.

[The Two Jerseys]

If men commit most violent crime, including gun crime, and toxic masculinity is a factor in this, then somehow this leads to gun control even though the APA themselves think that addressing the psychological and social causes of gun violence is a far better solution.

If you're diagnosed psychologically unhealthy you can't get a gun in most states. It's a valid concern that this will lead to disarmament, if you view the right to bare arms as fundamental.

Similar to if they included being excessively black cultured as a psychological condition. It would mean you could start refusing to sell arms on that basis.

That's exactly what I was getting at. "Classify masculinity as a mental illness" followed by "use that as grounds to take guns away from people".

[The Two Jerseys]

Well, the men whom these guidelines are targeting think that therapy is for pussies anyway, so...what do we do now?

---

Jokes aside, am I the only one who thinks that declaring "he-men are crazy" is a backdoor attempt at gun control?

Am I the only one who thinks that it's kind of weird that He-Man is constantly used as a caricature for overly traditionalist misogynist types when the actual He-Man character himself was actually a pretty chill dude who had no problem fighting alongside strong women and didn't even really seem to have much of a sexuality?

Because... that kind of always bugged my nerdy side.

The He-Man Woman Haters Club predates He-Man by 45 years, so it's kind of like naming your kid Adolf and then wondering why everyone thinks he's a Nazi.

[Autarkheia]

That's exactly what I was getting at. "Classify masculinity as a mental illness" followed by "use that as grounds to take guns away from people".

That seems very paranoid and highly unlikely. Nothing in the paper says masculinity is a mental illness.

[Conserative Morality]

Yeah. But this is kind of missing the point.

One of the main perpetrators of this social-justice-bashing cycle is the failure of social justice proponents to directly address the misuses of these terms and instead consistently turn the conversation back around on the critics one way or another. Usually the circle goes like this:

"X is bad, because it means Y."
"No it doesn't, it means Z."
"I agree with the Z definition, but there are people who use it to mean Y all the time."
"No they don't."
*provides proof of people using it to mean Y frequently*
And then usually:
A.) "Those people are the minority, they have no influence, don't pay attention to them." *provides no evidence that this group does not have any substantial influence, just expects you to take their word for it, never mind that two seconds ago they didn't even know this group existed in the first place and are now suddenly knowledgeable enough on them to know their level of influence*
B.) "Okay, but what about when it is referring to Z? Huh, what then?"

Instead of telling the people misusing the terms to knock it off, it's somehow always the critics' fault for acknowledging that those misuses exist. This not only casts distrust on social justice proponents, but allows those misuses to grow as such things do when they are not checked.

Yes, for some reason playing apologist for the use of bigoted terminology does not endear you to those who are in opposition to it. Who would have guessed. I also love the bit where you assert that the terrible SJWs don't give evidence and expect you to take their word for it, while the noble, honorable opposition does. It's like the people who say the Confederate flag means "Heritage, not hate!", who are fond of making grand assertions and vague references to purported evidence (that rarely says what they suggest it does) while demeaning the motives, methods, and morality of those who dispute their position.

[Costa Fierro]

Masculinity and toxic masculinity are two different things.

In practice. In theory toxic masculinity as a term is vague. Somewhat ironically, I could ask 100 self-professed feminists to give me examples of what toxic masculinity is or how they'd define it, and I'd get 100 different answers.

The reality is that toxic masculinity means whatever the person using the term wants it to mean. That way behaviour that doesn't benefit women could be considered as toxic masculinity, or social issues that men bring up that feminism has a significant impact on could be argued away as toxic masculinity. It's like patriarchy; a vague, meaningless term that allows feminists to do whatever they want with it.

I understand the need to critique the toxic, harmful mindsets sometimes associated with males who are suppressed emotionally and are sort of stunted in some regards, but this paper is heavy-handed.

That's the way it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be heavy handed because how else can you control half the population if not through convincing them that their problems are their own?

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not surprised. Psychology isn't a real science. Only some of it is even scientific, the rest has always been heavily politicised/ideological.

I am not surprised.

[Page]

I'm not surprised. Psychology isn't a real science. Only some of it is even scientific, the rest has always been heavily politicised/ideological.

I am not surprised.

Psychology cannot be divorced from politics. Politics affect our lives and what affects our lives affects our brains. I think the capitalist system in which we live probably contributes more to the epidemic of depression and anxiety than any other factor.

[Infected Mushroom]

I'm not surprised. Psychology isn't a real science. Only some of it is even scientific, the rest has always been heavily politicised/ideological.

I am not surprised.

Psychology cannot be divorced from politics. Politics affect our lives and what affects our lives affects our brains. I think the capitalist system in which we live probably contributes more to the epidemic of depression and anxiety than any other factor.

indeed

I do wonder when the people will rise up against Exploitation

[Kubra]

Well whaddaya know, OP misstates a paper and here were are, pages in.
man ya'll go on about librul attacks on masculinity, but no one will ever tell me their tested 1-5rm dl.