Social New APA Guidelines for raising Boys: Masculinity = harmful

[7437]

Trump has often been declared a "toxic" person, and a lot of that has had to do with him putting no effort into suppressing his emotions, in favour of making rational decisions.

lol, really? you couldnt even make it through a single sentence consistently?

 

[panamaican]

Obviously some forms of hypermasculinity can be harmful to society, but to speak of it as if there isn't a mirror image of that from the female population, I.E : Hyper sensitivity, emotional instability, and fascist behavior etc is just sexist, misleading, and politically motivated.

It's disgusting and I fell vindicated every time I see radical feminism creep more and more into science.

I predicted this 10 years ago on these forums many times.

Why can't we just discuss masculinity without having to discuss/attack femininity?

And for the record, the APA addressed women and girls in 2007. We don't need to play the victim game with everything.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Who cares what a bunch of fem boys think?

This is why we don't let nerds run society.

We would be a nation of bitch tits.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Why can't we just discuss masculinity without having to discuss/attack femininity?

And for the record, the APA addressed women and girls in 2007. We don't need to play the victim game with everything.

Because it's a misleading narrative to only attack masculinity. It's a radical feminist narrative. The problem in the world and with most things is extremism. Hypermasculinity is an extreme form of masculinity that can sometimes be harmful. SOMETIMES! Sometimes in can be helpful when it's present in sports, law enforcement, correctional services, mentorship, and army/military.

We are seeing in western society the chickens coming home to roost from decades of feminist and hyperfemininity and the fruits are rotten to the core. We have enough evidence to show that it's not a good idea to let gynocentric philosophies and thinking control our economy, foreign policy, or even social policy for that matter.

Lots of damage has been done to the west on the intellectual front and our competitiveness with the rest of the world in the stem field as well as other fields is being rapidly reduced.

"Toxic masculinity" infers that masculinity itself is toxic. It's not. It's incredibly beneficial in many ways. We are seeing in Europe and in Canada the rise of female authoritarianism which has so far proven to be much more toxic and dangerous to society, with hyperempathy effecting immigration policy. We saw what's happen in Europe, we see what's happening to Canada. This is because of gynocentrism and hyperfemininity in politics.

The problem is extremism. Not to mention that toxic masculinity is largely a pseudo scientific theory developed in echochamber campuses without the proper peer review science requires.

Edit: Firstly, addressing it once in 2007 is laughable compared to the full on campaign for toxic masculinity that's spanned the last 2 decades and saturated most of the discussion on campuses.

Secondly, do you have a source? Not that I don't believe you, I'm interested in the read.

 

[TheGreatA]

lol, really? you couldnt even make it through a single sentence consistently?

Huh?

I think even some of his stronger supporters will acknowledge that Trump is more of a "go by the gut" guy, rather than a rational decision maker who puts his emotions aside in order to make the most effective decisions.

I reckon a lot of people would wish that Trump suppressed his emotions a little more.

 

[NoDak]

Not sure. These may be what differentiates the ''good" men from the losers. But not possessing the attributes you mention does not someone 'feminine'. So they are not necessarily differentiating in that sense.

Yeah, though I'd wager that not possessing them undoubtedly correlates with low(er) testosterone levels and poor genetics, you shouldn't have to actively 'work' on any of them aside from crystallized intelligence.

Obviously, there's different levels of "fit" but considering the impact on boosting your BMR, creating an environment for burning adipose tissue over lean mass and even directly inhibiting the creation of fat cells, you won't find many people with a total T level north of 1000 ng/dL who at all ever struggle with their weight unless they've got inordinately high levels of SHBG.

 

[panamaican]

Because it's a misleading narrative to only attack masculinity.

I read the whole thing but there's no point addressing anything except this false premise.

They're not attacking masculinity. That's why I mentioned the sense of ongoing victimization.

They're providing guidance to reduce toxic masculinity and ensure productive, useful masculinity. People with a sense of victimization have read it as an "attack". Every time something is discussed, someone is not being "attacked". Someone does not need to be "defended".

Things can simple be discussed in the context of their own strengths and weaknesses without divergences and/or deflections from the subject matter.

Have people read the report to the extent that they can say what about masculinity is being attacked?

Or have they embraced the concept of being attacked because the subject matter is related to them as a males and they cannot envision any report that states that things can be done differently could do so without attacking them?

 

[tonni]

fff

Don’t fff me!!!

 

[MayhemMonkey]

this is dumb. like really fucking dumb

 

[Long Dark Blues]

Real men have always raised their boys to be thoughtful, compassionate individuals.

Real men know what love is and how to appreciate and reciprocate, and they teach their boys the same.

Real men also know when violence is needed, and when it is not. And they teach their boys.

Real men already know in their hearts what the APA felt needed to be said.

Conclusion: we have too many shithead men running around not raising their fucking kids, most likely because the women in their communities do not hold them accountable.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

its the APA so theres probably a good amount of truth to it

Lol. This blind subservience to and belief in authority is fucking the world up.
I sincerely hope you are not one of those people who bitches about religion. Because religion isn't dangerous without this sort of non-thinking.

I mean, this is an organisation that was found complicit in a torture scandal and cover-up a few years back.

That's not even to mention that the title of this thread is absurd on the face of it.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

It's too bad many people will simply over-react to the concept of harmful masculinity based on headlines and not take the time to read the report itself.
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf


It's worth looking at. They address many of the things that people say are gendered against men and boys and provide guidelines for how to minimize the psychological impact of them, including gender bias in therapy itself.

As the father to a son, it would be irresponsible to simple dismiss something like this without thoroughly reading and digesting it. The contents directly address both myself and my child and could provide life benefiting information I wouldn't have otherwise.

Reading something in its entirety and responding to its arguments is for SJWs and cucks.

Real men just read the headline and react. Reading might lead you to pussyfoot around and doubt yourself.

Anyway, one of Bill Burr's greatest bits ever essentially agrees with the premise of the APA



The irony is that he often defends the same type of traditional masculinity in his other comedy.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

I read the whole thing but there's no point addressing anything except this false premise.

They're not attacking masculinity. That's why I mentioned the sense of ongoing victimization.

They're providing guidance to reduce toxic masculinity and ensure productive, useful masculinity. People with a sense of victimization have read it as an "attack". Every time something is discussed, someone is not being "attacked". Someone does not need to be "defended".

Things can simple be discussed in the context of their own strengths and weaknesses without divergences and/or deflections from the subject matter.

Have people read the report to the extent that they can say what about masculinity is being attacked?

Or have they embraced the concept of being attacked because the subject matter is related to them as a males and they cannot envision any report that states that things can be done differently could do so without attacking them?

No it is an attack on masculinity. I was in criminology, psychology and sociology classes 10 years ago when these theories were being developed. The origins of them come from a belief that men are responsible for the worlds problems and not cultures in general. They were formulated in feminist echo chambers full of young women who based their views on men from teenage males. And again, to speak of toxic masculinity without speaking of toxic femininity is sexist and misleading. Most people in society are not going to read a scientific journal and that's fact. So what you're left with is a major psychology authority suggesting masculinity is toxic, that's all most of society will see.

They ARE attacking masculinity, and camouflaging it. Otherwise they'd be addressing extreme forms of masculinity and femininity together. There is absolutely no excuse to ignore toxic femininity purely because it doesn't manifest it's in physical violence. Over the years the kinds of behavior associated with toxic masculinity have been laughable at best.

 

[Renard]

The interpretation of "masculinity" varies greatly from person to person. For example I spoke to a woman from Yemen, she's a sociology professor. She's a full-on "gender is a social construct" and "third-wave feminism is good" sort of person. In our conversation it became apparent that she had a very negative interpretation of words like manhood and masculinity because of her background. She grew up in Yemen, as a girl she was forced by her family to clean and cook while her brothers were out playing and having fun, she was in servitude to males basically. Her father was authoritarian and strict. For her a "man" was the embodiment of authoritarian, unjust, domineering, toxic, etc. She didn't seem to understand that a western "man" and western masculinity wasn't like this and included a lot of positive elements, not only negative ones. If we had clarified the definitions maybe we could have been in agreement but these were deeply-held beliefs for her and she didn't seem willing to consider that perspective in the moment.

The article is using this definition:

The new “Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men” defines “masculinity ideology” as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.”

I feel like the main problem is the label. They're not separating between negative aspects of masculinity and positive aspects of masculinity (protection, ambition, hard work, resourcefulness, etc). It's just masculinity "ideology" , whatever that means. I agree that some of these are problematic™, or can be problematic when used at the incorrect moment. Violence against innocents? Not so good. Violence against a home invader? Potentially life-saving. I agree that focussing on not showing weakness is a negative, that's how you get high suicide rates and untreated mental illness, guys aren't seeking help. They should be focussing on seeking help and becoming stronger instead of putting up a front but actually being weak. I agree that finding your worth in the idea that "at least you're not a woman" sort of thing is pretty retarded, that's a low self-esteem thing, you're denigrating a group of people to feel better about your pitiful state.

I skimmed the pdf and it seems like there's a lot of social justice nonsense in it, a lot of intersectionality, they mention microaggressions. Psychologists are pretty smart though, I know a few, I don't think they're getting punked by this. Or even reading it in the first place. The field, for the moment, isn't very social justice-y.

 

[JonesBones]

Suppressing honest expression leads to people hiding in the shadows. Hiding from themselves within themselves.

That's a real psychologist. Psychology has made no progress since Freud started talking to patients and giving them drugs.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

. My class had mostly females in it, and there was this group of girls who always overpowered the conversations in class about how men were problematic and women were better "leaders" since they are less destructive (they would repeatedly use this word). .

I always loved this one the most, because out of all the examples we have of females with unchecked power throughout history, they every single time behave no different from men did. All the way back to Hatshepsut of Ancient Egypt, who pillaged and destroyed along the west Arabian peninsula to fund her construction projects. From the sick fuck Empresses of ancient China, to Bloody Mary Tutor in England who burned more people at the stake than the rest of Europe, they all fell victim to power.(Power corrupts absolutely and absolute power corrupts). Many of these women behaved as badly as some of the worst roman Emperors in some ways.

In society today, where is the evidence that females are better leaders? In the military I've seen some great female leaders, none of which were the greatest I've seen, and they often suck badly.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

I wonder if mike Tyson kissed dudes on the mouth when he was in prison.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but that is neither here nor there, the point is that @NoDak offered his personal experience, and I offered the example of a supremely bad motherfucker implying that dominating another man sexually is the ultimate way to demonstrate superiority (not that @NoDak was in any way talking about raping somebody).

I think having anal sex with a woman makes one feel powerful, and I have discussed this with friends over the years who have also stated that it makes them, universally, feel powerful. Anal sex is not something I have ever discussed with gay male friends or gay male family members, but it isn't a surprise to hear that homosexual anal sex makes homosexual/bisexual males feel powerful. It would be interesting to hear the experience of lesbians who use strap-ons to have anal sex with their female partners while we are at it.

Overall though it seem that you just have a problem with homosexuals and homsexual behavior.

 

[panamaican]

No it is an attack on masculinity. I was in criminology, psychology and sociology classes 10 years ago when these theories were being developed. The origins of them come from a belief that men are responsible for the worlds problems and not cultures in general. They were formulated in feminist echo chambers full of young women who based their views on men from teenage males. And again, to speak of toxic masculinity without speaking of toxic femininity is sexist and misleading. Most people in society are not going to read a scientific journal and that's fact. So what you're left with is a major psychology authority suggesting masculinity is toxic, that's all most of society will see.

They ARE attacking masculinity, and camouflaging it. Otherwise they'd be addressing extreme forms of masculinity and femininity together. There is absolutely no excuse to ignore toxic femininity purely because it doesn't manifest it's in physical violence. Over the years the kinds of behavior associated with toxic masculinity have been laughable at best.

Oh wow!!!!! you took classes 10 years ago so you don't need to read something written recently.

I guess that explains alot.

 

[panamaican]

Reading something in its entirety and responding to its arguments is for SJWs and cucks.

Real men just read the headline and react. Reading might lead you to pussyfoot around and doubt yourself.

Anyway, one of Bill Burr's greatest bits ever essentially agrees with the premise of the APA



The irony is that he often defends the same type of traditional masculinity in his other comedy.

I know the bit, it's pretty good. It's also ironic that people will say how insightful Bill Burr is when he's saying the same general thing that the APA actually wrote. But because he's a comedian and the APA is some SJW liberal group, he's accurate and the APA is attacking men. Same message but different messengers.

The craziest part is that the people who spend post after post talking about anti-male bias don't care that the APA is literally stating that there are biases against men that should be addressed.

That just tells you that there's no intellectual thought being applied. They are disagreeing because the APA wrote something, not because what was written is inaccurate.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Oh wow!!!!! you took classes 10 years ago so you don't need to read something written recently.

I guess that explains alot.

I've kept my finger on the pulse over the years don't you worry about that!! And after reading some of the study, it's full of pseudo scientific buzz phrases and other such nonsense.

You still haven't given me a source for your 2007 reference, and you haven't addressed anything I said other than trying to camouflage the intent behind the study.