Social Jordan Peterson Savagely Rips Apart New APA Guides on Toxic Mascuilinity

[vengeful]

I'm gonna go on a Test/Tren cycle next week, so I'll let y'all know all about toxic masculinity when I'll have 10x as much androgens in my system as what is in the normal male.

 

[Zankou]

You didn't refute anything there, you just claimed it to be pseudoscience because you feel targeted by it. Feel free to refute the argument. Give me some examples of toxic femininity causing serious problems for women, I imagine social media would be an interesting place to go for that and I would probably not disagree. You're getting caught up on specific words and missing the forest for the trees.

Example would be if you argued that women’s focus on their perceived value in interpersonal relations leaves them far more likely to be depressed, anxious, and vulnerable ... and that this is a problem with *femininity itself*, not just with an individual woman ... it would go nowhere, because it’d be seen as offensive. Sure, you could say that one person should stop caring so much about what other people think. But when you move to indicting a class identity, relative to other classes, it becomes a political problem.

 

[HOLA]

I'm gonna go on a Test/Tren cycle next week, so I'll let y'all know all about toxic masculinity when I'll have 10x as much androgens in my system as what is in the normal male.

Masculinity is ORDER!

Femininity is CHAOS!

This is why Jordan Peterson fans have to be told to wash their penis and clean their room.

 

[Gluteus Swag]

People intrinsically understand why the concept of toxic masculinity is offensive when "masculinity" is replaced by a word that describes any other group of people.

For some reason many just can't wrap their head around the idea that the phrase retains its offensiveness when used to refer to men.

 

[HOLA]

People intrinsically understand why the concept of toxic masculinity is offensive when "masculinity" is replaced by a word that describes any other group of people.

For some reason many just can't wrap their head around the idea that the phrase retains its offensiveness when used to refer to men.

"Toxic polluters" is an offensive term?

It's fascinating how upset lobsters get over being told not to harass women etc.

 

[Slick_36]

Example would be if you argued that women’s focus on their perceived value in interpersonal relations leaves them far more likely to be depressed, anxious, and vulnerable ... and that this is a problem with *femininity itself*, not just with an individual woman ... it would go nowhere, because it’d be seen as offensive. Sure, you could say that one person should stop caring so much about what other people think. But when you move to indicting a class identity, relative to other classes, it becomes a political problem.

We actually did discuss that in sociology. No one got shut down or accused of sexism. You're taking this as a personal attack when it's a critique on specific cultural norms that there's an argument for changing.

 

[Juventud]

There's nothing masculine about Jordan Peterson or is there listening to him.

If you need someone like Peterson to tell you how to be a man you're already a lost cause.

 

[Fronk]

The APA document is written inside a frame that presupposes that social justice / intersectionality / social constructionism / third wave feminism precepts are real and correct, though they haven't proven them to be true. They just arbitrarily assume they are and construct everything on top of it. They're hitting on all the usual privilege, institutional power, ageism, gender identity, race/gender/sexuality oppression totem pole, etc, talking points. They're laying it on real thick. It's a dumb unscientific document that can't help any male client because it's written inside a frame that assumes that white, heterosexual men are inherently problematicTM®. It's like a misogynist writing a document on how women should be encouraged to behave.

One of my main gripes with social constructionism is that it often presupposes that because something is "socially constructed" it can then be "deconstructed". All it can point to is cultural and historical variation, but somewhere it also has to reject an objective reality to make it fit. It has to reject so many things it often steers itself into absurdity. Add on top of this the constant redefinition of concepts like class, etnicity, race etc. and you will understand why it's such a mess to decipher. Especially class and it's relation to social stratification and how it fits into relations of power has been abused. Marx would be turning in his grave.

I mean if we are "deconstructing" every definable concept we can find in society, then what are we left with? It won't ever work. You will only end up in the state of endless redefinition of the concepts you use, becuase there will always be "social constructs" to "deconstruct" since "social constructs" are what constitutes human relations. How can we be without it? We have to literally reject reality to make it fit, we don't, and never will operate, like the "deconstructers" want us too.

 

[Gregolian]

Or how the APA suggested that psychologists fight anti-male bias.

I think if you look at what Peterson did with this is the "fighting anti-male bias"... though he talks about that a lot wasn't the focus of this piece this time at least.

I liked Peterson when I first heard him with Rogan but the guy for me is more and more falling into the "it feels like he writes everything with a thesaurus next to him just to sound smarter but it just makes everything he say way harder to understand" trap.

I see lawyers do it a ton, especially the ones that are sole practitioners without a legal assistant or paralegal to rein them in.

 

[Zankou]

I'm reading this because I read large chunks of the APA document, I'm surprised that Peterson wrote the following

That's a blatant mischaracterization of what he himself quoted. The APA says that these young men are less willing to seek mental health treatment. That's a far cry from saying their mental health is destroyed. Its so sensationalistic that I can't believe that he's writing that seriously.

I'm also surprised that he didn't devote any time to the actual treatment that the APA mentioned. Or how the APA suggested that psychologists fight anti-male bias.

I think you are misreading him. He is quoting two different things. First, the APA’s claim that “traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to ... negatively influence mental health.” That’s what it says.

Second, that they are less likely to seek mental health treatment. That’s a different issue, and Peterson has a legit concern that a discipline which pretty much works to impose a standing indictment against ‘excessive masculinity’ is healing insult on injury when it bitches about why men don’t do go to psychologists, and fails to consider why the academic discipline is primarily full of women — currently a three-to-one disparity in graduate school, which is flat out incredible (and, as Peterson says, goes ignored, as if it were not significant).

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Well toxic masculinity is the ultimate expression of "traditional" masculine values, like emotional self-restraint and the "alphaness", the "will to impose", that Peterson holds so dear. So there is no mystery where he is coming from with this. You can think he is wrong of course, but there is a logical step between masculinity in general and its toxic variant since they are dependent on each other.

But isn't Peterson all about men having outlets for their emotions? His book, his website and his entire enterprise are about "helping men." He just doesn't say the phrases "emotional self-restraint is good" or "stoicism is what we should shoot for."

Also, can anyone really disagree with this?:

The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner.aspx

The competitiveness part is the only one that's kind of iffy. But I really don't think they mean "get rid of sports, contests, or awards" but rather something like "obsessively comparing yourself to others and trying to be better than them."

There is a logical step from one to the other, but I think the step is SO important that someone like Peterson absolutely is aware of it, he just knows what his audience wants to hear.

 

[Gregolian]

fails to consider why the academic discipline is primarily full of women — currently a three-to-one disparity in graduate school, which is flat out incredible (and, as Peterson says, goes ignored, as if it were not significant).

To be fair....

Traditionally most male advice boils down to:

1. Rub dirt on it
2. Take a knee and drink water
3. Stop being a pussy


At least amongst my group of friends that are guys.

 

[HOLA]

I think if you look at what Peterson did with this is the "fighting anti-male bias"... though he talks about that a lot wasn't the focus of this piece this time at least.

I liked Peterson when I first heard him with Rogan but the guy for me is more and more falling into the "it feels like he writes everything with a thesaurus next to him just to sound smarter but it just makes everything he say way harder to understand" trap.

I see lawyers do it a ton, especially the ones that are sole practitioners without a legal assistant or paralegal to rein them in.

It's absolutely what he does. Underneath the pseudo-profundity and long-windedness is a bunch of banal life advice whose most attractive feature is feeding the victim complex of incels. That's all.

 

[Gregolian]

It's absolutely what he does. Underneath the pseudo-profundity and long-windedness is a bunch of banal life advice whose most attractive feature is feeding the victim complex of incels. That's all.

Like just for context my first encounter with him was when the "Toronto pronoun" thing was going on and he basically told the school he worked for to fuck themselves "I ain't calling someone Zer"

 

[HOLA]

Like just for context my first encounter with him was when the "Toronto pronoun" thing was going on and he basically told the school he worked for to fuck themselves "I ain't calling someone Zer"

Yeah, he became famous for lying about a law designed to protect trans people from discrimination. An odd claim to fame, but evidently a lucrative one.

 

[Slick_36]

Yeah, he became famous for lying about a law designed to protect trans people from discrimination. An odd claim to fame, but evidently a lucrative one.

What was the lie?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

To be fair....

Traditionally most male advice boils down to:

1. Rub dirt on it
2. Take a knee and drink water
3. Stop being a pussy


At least amongst my group of friends that are guys.

Advice the stands the test of time.

 

[ben236]

I'm reading this because I read large chunks of the APA document, I'm surprised that Peterson wrote the following:

We’ll begin with this quote: “Research suggests that socialization practices that teach boys from an early age to be self-reliant, strong, and to minimize and manage their problems on their own yield adult men who are less willing to seek mental health treatment,”...

So, it’s not only that men who encourage their boys to be “self-reliant, strong and manage their problems on their own” destroy the mental health of their children...

That's a blatant mischaracterization of what he himself quoted. The APA says that these young men are less willing to seek mental health treatment. That's a far cry from saying their mental health is destroyed. Its so sensationalistic that I can't believe that he's writing that seriously.

That would be a blatant mischaracterization of what he himself quoted.... If only that was what he himself quoted and responded to... Which it wasn't.

This is what he wrote...

The document opens with the claim that “socialization for conforming to traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict, and negatively influence mental health” – a claim derived in no small part from the “research” published by the very people who wrote the guidelines, and one presented, like the definitions, with no indication whatsoever that this claim by no means constitutes anything resemblng established scientific fact.

Let me translate this opening salvo into something approximating clear and blunt English. The authors are claiming that men who socialize their boys in a traditional manner destroy their mental health.

 

[BoxingFan653]

Toxic masculinity is because there is no socialism. Only socialism is the answer

 

[HOLA]

What was the lie?

The code doesn't specify what pronouns you have to use.