APA says "traditional masculinity" is a disorder

Post Reply New Topic

I keep looking for the fine print in the linked article that states: “Originally published by The Onion”.

“Instilling” masculinity in a boy? My boys came pre-masculinized & I’m glad for it because as a female; I wouldn’t know where to begin. So tired of this “gender as a novelty toy” crap.

Look, men; I always have been & always will be; your polar opposite. I never have been & never will be; less than or unequal to you.

I can be both opposite & equal, I’m not about to stop because there are women who can’t be & hopefully there are plenty of men around who can handle it.

I keep looking for the fine print in the linked article that states: “Originally published by The Onion”.

“Instilling” masculinity in a boy? My boys came pre-masculinized & I’m glad for it because as a female; I wouldn’t know where to begin. So tired of this “gender as a novelty toy” crap.

Look, men; I always have been & always will be; your polar opposite. I never have been & never will be; less than or unequal to you.

I can be both opposite & equal, I’m not about to stop because there are women who can’t be & hopefully there are plenty of men around who can handle it.

Does the report by the APA call traditional masculinity a disorder, or is it just the article that does that? And does the 2007 report about women and girls call femininity a disorder in the same vein? Did any of you bother to find this out before you started reacting emotionally to the phrase "traditional masculinity" and assume an attack on men by the APA?

It is saying traditional masculinity is harmful which would make it by definition "disordered" or "toxic". That they chose to use a neutral sounding synonym rather than a more negative one does not change the basic thing they are saying.

I am reacting to the 2019 guidelines, and am under no obligation to react to the 2007 ones.

I laid out why I do not like the 2019 guidelines. If you think I am wrong or misinterpreting the guidelines, point out why instead of deciding that I am wrong because I am reacting emotionally and leaving it at that.

If you believing comparing the two guidelines is useful to give a link to the 2007 guidelines and point out why comparing them would clear up my misconceptions.

As for now the APA guidelines is asking its members to treat traditional masculinity as if it were a diagnostic labeled disorder

Can you point out where in the new guidelines it says this?

If you are looking for the exact words "treat toxic masculinity like a DSM disorder" you won't find it. But I have no clue how identifying traditional masculine traits, identifying them as a problem, and helping people with said traits differs from identifying autistic traits, identifying them as a problem and helping people with these traits are not conceptionally the same thing????????

The guidelines ask its members to take into account societal biases and conditions and thier own biases when treating women. It also notes how these biases and sitiuations are harmful to women.

I really don't see the difference between the two sets of guidelines. I don't see how they say that masculinity is a disorder to be treated but femininity isn't. It looks to me like they recognize the pressures of gender roles on both groups and ask doctors and clinicians to take them into account when treating patients. I don't see where they treat masculinity as a disorder in a different way than how they talk about femininity in women and girls and what problems can arise from societal pressures on both groups. I think it's significant that you can't point out any specific place in the second set of guidelines where they claim masculinity is a disorder to be treated like a psychiatric condition, because I really don't think that's what the guidelines are saying, I think that's what you're reading into them because of your own preconceptions.

I thought this was interesting, ie. the commentary on how the word 'stoic' was mishandled. While I doubt much thought went into how that word was used, assuming the best here, it also seems strange that if there's an organization who should know something about adaptive coping mechanisms, how they work, and taking care to accurately label them for their contents it should be the APA - ie. if human psychology isn't their professional bread and butter then what exactly is?

Application
When working with boys and men, psychologists can address issues of privilege
and power related to sexism in a developmentally appropriate way to help them
obtain the knowledge, attitudes, and skills
to be effective allies and potentially live
less restrictive lives. Male privilege tends
to be invisible to men, yet they can become
aware of it through a variety of means, such
as education (Kilmartin, Addis, Mahalik,
& O’Neil, 2013) and personal experience
(O’Neil, 2015; O’Neil, Egan, Owen, & Murry,
1993). Indeed, awareness of privilege and
the harmful impacts of beliefs and behaviors that maintain patriarchal power have
been shown to reduce sexist attitudes in
men (Becker & Swim, 2012) and have been
linked to participation in social justice
activities (e.g., White, 2006). When working with gender-diverse survivors of systemic gender oppression, it is important to
assess for experiences of trauma and barriers that are enforced in ways that either
favor cisgender masculinity or assume a
binary identity (Richmond, Burnes, Singh,
& Ferrara, 2017). Providers are encouraged
to help clients to develop self-advocacy
skills and to tap into their personal and
collective resilience in addressing these
difficult experiences (dickey, Singh, Chang,
& Rehrig, 2017).
Men who understand their privilege
and power may be less apt to rely on power,
control, and violence in their relationships
(McDermott, Schwartz, & TrevathanMinnis, 2012; Schwartz, Magee, Griffin, &
Dupuis, 2004). Research suggests that
helping men understand the negative consequences of sexism for themselves and
their relationships with others reduces
endorsement of sexist attitudes (Becker
& Swim, 2012). Psychologists can help clients develop awareness of systems that
assume cisgender masculinity expression
is the expected norm, and identify how
they have been harmed by discrimination
against those who are gender nonconforming. Given the connections between sexism and other forms of prejudice, psychologists may find it useful to link oppressions
as a pedagogical strategy, especially when
working with boys and men in groups.
Psychologists working with boys and men
may model gender-egalitarian attitudes
and behaviors; modeling non-sexist constructions of masculinity may be especially
important. For instance, researchers have
found that men tend to overestimate the
degree to which other men hold sexist
beliefs, and that developing awareness
of this discrepancy reduces sexist beliefs
(Kilmartin et al., 2008). To further help
accomplish this goal, psychologists are
encouraged to explore their perceptions
of boys and men and to understand that,
although not all boys and men hold sexist
ideologies, these beliefs are ingrained in
the culture at large.

Thing is "traditional femininity" causes instances harmful bottling up of problems. Examples would be mothers ignoring their own health issues to care for there kids, wives not expressing their emotions to their husbands in order not seen "bitchy" etc. And if you do not think "traditionally feminine" women cannot be overly competitive you have not experienced life.

Their job is to treat an individual client not to be a social justice advocate. But it goes beyond that, they are advocating Social Justice activism as a treatment. While these guidelines are far from a repeat of Stalinist Russia history is replete with the harmful use of psychology and psychiatry for socio-political purposes, ie you disagree with me you have a mental problem. Any hint of this type of thing raises internal alarm bells with me.

Thing is "traditional femininity" causes instances harmful bottling up of problems. Examples would be mothers ignoring their own health issues to care for there kids, wives not expressing their emotions to their husbands in order not seen "bitchy" etc. And if you do not think "traditionally feminine" women cannot be overly competitive you have not experienced life.


I do agree with the vlogger about agenda pushing.


Bolding mine
Their job is to treat an individual client not to be a social justice advocate. But it goes beyond that, they are advocating Social Justice activism as a treatment. While these guidelines are far from a repeat of Stalinist Russia history is replete with the harmful use of psychology and psychiatry for socio-political purposes, ie you disagree with me you have a mental problem. Any hint of this type of thing raises internal alarm bells with me.

Doesn't it make sense to approach it this way when men are the gender committing most of the violence in society? I mean, violence is measurable harm--and the large majority of it is done by men, usually against other men. So shouldn't that be taken into consideration when treating men and boys, that they are more likely to have to deal with violence and the harm that comes from that? Women aren't murdering each other in large numbers like men are so there is going to be some imbalance in the reports and the guidelines for that reason. Should there not be? Should we ignore the fact that men are more violent because it makes some men feel bad to think about that, or should clinicians be aware of this and what causes it? Like, if there's a link between mental health issues and domestic violence, shouldn't clinicians be talking about that?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/254475.php

And what if research shows that bottling up emotions and insisting on stoicism can actually cause people to be more aggressive? Shouldn't clinicians be talking about a factor that can cause men to be more violent, if it's caused by a behaviour that society pressures men and boys to act out (stoicism and burrying feelings instead of talking about them)?

https://psychcentral.com/news/2011/03/2 ... 24643.html

I just don't see how this report and the report in 2007 are somehow unfairly attacking men. I'm trying really hard but I don't understand your perspective on this at all, how you came to interpret these guidelines the way you did.