The APA has completely lost the plot. I hope it is not mandatory for all psychologists to belong to it.
It isn’t, but psychologists mostly won’t buck it for fear of getting their licenses punched.
Interesting how they set up a straw man then knock him down. Whoever said traditional masculinity is about “dominance” and “aggression”? Neither is what I learned at my daddy’s knee (or my mommy’s). Stoicism, yes. Competitiveness, yes.
But having set up the strawman, they shoot him in favor of acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism. (Not that any homosexuals are aggressive or dominant or anything)
A total crock.
When they make such garbage prognostications on this sort of thing, it makes one question their worthlessness on everything else. Likely not everything they say is inaccurate, but I’ll assume it is now thanks to this nonsense.
Unfortunately, as has happened with other trends like homosexuality, transgenderism and domestic violence, said wrong conclusions will become the basis of new laws meant to further tear heterosexual men not just apart from their families, but also apart from any positive idea of their masculinity.
So will it become illegal for guy jocular to include making fun of two of your friends by saying they should get married–to get a laugh?
Will it equally be illegal for homosexuals to make fun of their heterosexual friends by saying they should get married to get a laugh?
I remember, long ago during the Iron Curtain era, reading a story of a man in Poland who underwent an enormous amount of stress and fear in deciding when to trust his own children with the truth. One day when his child was recounting what they learned in school that day, the father screwed up his courage to say:
“It’s all lies, son”.
My children are grown, but I have grandchildren. My son has one daughter and five sons, all very young. I can well imagine a day when they’re older and he tells them “It’s all lies, son.”
I think that people are overreacting to these guidelines. The reason they came out with them is because men do have some problems. For example, as one article in the Washington Post pointed out, “men are 3.5 times more likely to die by suicide than women…They’re the victims of 77 percent of homicides (and they commit 90 percent of them).” The author of the article in the Post, Monica Hesse, went to a men’s rights activist conference where she reported that a lot of the men felt like men are under attack. She had some interesting things to say:
Some of the men were, as we’d say, “toxic,” (one kept telling me to make him a sandwich, then saying he was joking, then telling me again — ham and cheese on wheat, b---- ). But a lot of them were just sad. They talked about male suicide rates, male depression, male isolation. They talked, in other words, about a lot of the information included in the new APA guidelines. They were desperate, begging, for someone to pay attention and find a solution.
Most of them, however, were sure the correct solution would have something to do with fixing women . As soon as women would stop taking their jobs, they wouldn’t be depressed anymore. As soon as women would stop categorizing sexual attention as harassment, they wouldn’t be lonely anymore.
I feel like this is a slight misrepresentation. Desperate for attention and for someone else to find a solution isn’t quite what it is. More like, desperate for men to gather together and hold to the solutions they see as being the only possible answers to the problem. The problem is that we have three movements in one:
Neo-conservatism typified by National Review and Jordan Peterson and many “Man Up!” Evangelical protestant preachers. Basically the message is that men need to “Man Up!” and all problems in the world are caused by terrible men. Most contain strong hints of third-wave feminist gender theory, pre-Victorian “chivalry/courtly-love” romanticism, and post-Industrialized Western Supremacy.
Non-Christian Chauvanists. This includes many Incels, most of the Red-Pill culture, some Pagan Revivalists, and much of the Donald Trump “Deplorables” type crowds. Has strong strains of white nationalism tied into the chauvinism, with a genuine sexism that actively portrays women as lesser beings by nature and in some cases by Divine order. Sexual conquest (by any means necessary) is seen as the height of masculinity. This is generally the “face” of the “Masculinity” movement.
A very, very loose coalition of burn-outs, Catholic Traditionalists, a small but growing amount of throwback Protestants, and wanabee philosophers. All of whom do protest against degeneracy in culture and loose sexuality to some degree, but for very different reasons. No real cohesion, these are just the cast-offs who don’t fit in with the other two groups.
Until some man or group of men can “unite” the various movements, they are doomed to nothing more than self-indulgent preening. Say what you want about feminism and feminists, they were generally very good at presenting united fronts on concrete issues, despite being very diverse in every possible way; where they agreed they came together to get results.
Could it be that the American Psychological Association is run by disgruntled women?
Won’t be long now fellas when we’re forced to take our daily estrogen pills to keep that masculinity in check.
With the MSM the way it is, they don’t need pills.
Did anyone see what is described as “Traditional Masculinity?”
I don’t think so.
The study aimed to understand why:
But something is amiss for men as well. Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims. They’re the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women’s. Boys are far more likely to be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder than girls, and they face harsher punishments in school—especially boys of color.
APA’s new Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men strive to recognize and address these problems in boys and men while remaining sensitive to the field’s androcentric past. Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.
Isn’t it slightly peculiar to ask a journalist to make a sandwich?
Not if you’re trying to make the point that women are supposed to wait hand and foot on men. That’s why secretaries were often required to get coffee for men even though it wasn’t in their job description.
Was it because they were women, or because they were administrative support and their bosses wanted/needed lunch regardless of the sex of the assistant?
It’s kind of interesting that they would bring up ADHD. Boys might be more likely to be diagnosed, but it’s not necessarily because boys have ADHD more than girls. Instead, boys with ADHD tend to be more disruptive in class than girls which means that they are more likely to be singled out and diagnosed. Girls, on the other hand, are more likely to have the Predominantly Inattentive presentation of ADHD instead of the Combined presentation and are often underdiagnosed as a result.
They were also targeting very specific legal issues, which enabled a focused and united front.
It’s much more murky now because the legal issues have been addressed. Both sides are now dealing with shades of grey rather than clear black and white issues.
It’s difficult to tell because, at least in the past, most people who did “administrative support” were probably female.
I was in an all-male office where the administrative assistant was expected to make coffee. I asked him if he even drank coffee and he said, “no.” I told him to stop making coffee and let those of us who did drink it make it.