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.
Advertisement
by Western Vale Confederacy » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:59 pm
by The Regalian Underland » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:02 pm
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:04 pm
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.The Two Jerseys wrote:Jokes aside, am I the only one who thinks that declaring "he-men are crazy" is a backdoor attempt at gun control?
by LiberNovusAmericae » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:18 pm
Autarkheia wrote: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".LiberNovusAmericae wrote:"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.
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:24 pm
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).LiberNovusAmericae wrote: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".
by Conserative Morality » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:31 pm
LiberNovusAmericae wrote: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".
by LiberNovusAmericae » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:32 pm
Autarkheia wrote: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).LiberNovusAmericae wrote: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".
by LiberNovusAmericae » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:39 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:LiberNovusAmericae wrote: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.
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:40 pm
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.LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Well much of academia is corrupted with social justice so that wouldn't surprise me either if it was introduced by other subjects.
by Ostroeuropa » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:29 pm
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.
Autarkheia wrote:Hell yeah let's do it.That men need to be encouraged to redefine and find a new masculine ideal.
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.
The Rich Port wrote:
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.
Novus Wrepland wrote:Wasn’t toxic masculinity termed by the MRAs anyway? Seems like more stupid outrage.
Autarkheia wrote: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.
The reaction to this just proves that outrage culture is far from limited to the left.
Shofercia wrote:
"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!"
Page wrote: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.
New haven america wrote:Thermodolia wrote: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).
Tahar Joblis wrote: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.
by Conserative Morality » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:46 pm
LiberNovusAmericae wrote: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.
by The Federated Soviets of North America » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:55 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Jokes aside, am I the only one who thinks that declaring "he-men are crazy" is a backdoor attempt at gun control?
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:57 pm
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.
by Iridencia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:04 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:LiberNovusAmericae wrote: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.
by Ostroeuropa » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:05 pm
Autarkheia wrote: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.The Federated Soviets of North America wrote:I'm sorry what? how are those things even related? I agree with most of the report, and I'm pro-gun.
by Iridencia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:11 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Des-Bal wrote: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?
by The Two Jerseys » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:12 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Autarkheia wrote: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.
by The Two Jerseys » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:25 pm
Iridencia wrote:The Two Jerseys wrote: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.
by Autarkheia » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:32 pm
That seems very paranoid and highly unlikely. Nothing in the paper says masculinity is a mental illness.The Two Jerseys wrote: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".
by Conserative Morality » Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:51 pm
Iridencia wrote: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.
by Costa Fierro » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:53 pm
Major-Tom wrote:Masculinity and toxic masculinity are two different things.
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.
by Infected Mushroom » Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:58 pm
by Page » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:21 am
Infected Mushroom wrote: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.
by Infected Mushroom » Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:27 am
Page wrote:Infected Mushroom wrote: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.
by Kubra » Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:05 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Almighty Biden, Ancientania, Attestaltarragaby, Daphomir, Elejamie, Ethel mermania, Haganham, Hypron, Ifreann, Juansonia, La Paz de Los Ricos, Meshcheria, Muffinses, Nimzonia, Nu Elysium, Port Carverton, Soviet Haaregrad, The Black Forrest, Uvolla, Valentine Z, Wortel, Zurkerx
Advertisement