Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

APA says "traditional masculinity" is a disorder

Page 6 of 6 [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Previous topic | Next topic

karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

05 Mar 2019, 6:22 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
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?



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.
page 10 of the Guidelines wrote:
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.


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.


We can agree on one thing we do not understand each other.

I do not think the 2007 report unfairly attacks men as it is aimed at women.

I think this should be approached on an individualized basis. Too much stoicism is too much stoicism, too much competitiveness is too much competitiveness. Both can lead to problems. In diagnosing autism just having autistic traits should not automatically lead to an ASD diagnosis. Autistic traits should not be automatically deemed harmful. If they are causing problems(impairments) then the diagnosis should be given out.

Why try and solve an issue caused in part by gender stereotyping by gender stereotyping? While we do not like to admit it some stereotypes are based on elements of truth but stereotyping should be discouraged because they oversimplify and are wrong in certain situations. For example More Men than Women Victims of Intimate Partner Physical Violence, Psychological Aggression. How would assuming traditional masculine harm help identify and treat this situation?


My understanding is that men experience more violence than women at the hands of other men, so it does indeed seem to be an issue related to gender. Women aren't attacking other women or men at anywhere near the same rate of violence coming from men. So I assume that's why the APA is talking about issues like aggression being a problem for men and less of a problem for women.

EDIT: Also, I believe the studies you might be referencing when claiming that men experience more domestic violence didn't take into account post-relationship violence (like killing someone who left you), in which case the numbers would show that women experience far more domestic violence, especially the fatal kind, at the hands of men.

https://jezebel.com/domestic-violence-a ... en-5509717

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_ ... gainst_men



kdm1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 443
Location: SW MO, USA

07 Mar 2019, 9:40 am

I totally agree with OP on the problem of American overcorrection (for example, people now see racism and sexism in everything, even where it's contextually not) and a need for more stoicism. I admire and want to be around calm individuals the most, not outbursty firecrackers of emotionalism (I will admit to being somewhere in the middle myself; I can get agitated and angry more than I'd like, but I don't like that quality in myself). My husband is a very calm person. He's great for me to be around.

Competitiveness, dominance, and aggression aren't necessarily bad, either -- there are life contexts where it's needed (sports, leadership, making things happen).

The best men are not either brutes nor effete, but have a healthy masculinity that's dignified and doesn't need to be paraded around because it's secure in itself.


_________________
36 yr old female; dx age 29. Level 2 Aspie.


Prometheus18
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2018
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,866

07 Mar 2019, 10:48 am

^^^

Thank you for your typical good sense. I think this is probably one of the few sensible posts in the thread so far.



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

07 Mar 2019, 12:58 pm

kdm1984 wrote:
The best men are not either brutes nor effete, but have a healthy masculinity that's dignified and doesn't need to be paraded around because it's secure in itself.


So men that aren't as good are the ones who are effeminate. That's the implication of this statement, that the best men aren't effeminate. Does that also mean that women who are "masculine" also aren't the best? What a strange, old fashioned idea to come from a forum full of people who don't generally conform to gender roles very effectively. :lol:



BlueIris24
Raven
Raven

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 113

07 Mar 2019, 1:21 pm

I don't think logic and emotion need to be mutually exclusive. They should go hand in hand. If we go overboard with stoicism, we will likely be unable to empathize with other people and improve as a society. Our emotions help us connect with other people and the world around us. But, with that being said, emotions need logic to balance them out. Emotions aren't always accurate; they are heavily influenced by our perceptions and biases, which aren't always in tune with reality.



Donald Morton
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 279
Location: Upper Midwest

07 Mar 2019, 1:45 pm

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
But socializing boys to suppress their emotions is psychologically harmful to them. Why do you think the suicide rate is higher among men, especially young men? A lot of those boys could be helped if they were able to express their feelings and let people know they need help. All the APA is saying is let's stop telling little boys that "boys don't cry" and stuff like that because boys are human and have feelings just like girls and should feel free to express them like girls are allowed to do. No where are they claiming that masculinity is a disorder, just that they way we sometimes apply gender roles to people as a society is really unfair and restrictive--to both women and men.



Couldn't agree more 8)


_________________
The impossible is only something that hasn't been done yet.


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

07 Mar 2019, 4:55 pm

Donald Morton wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
But socializing boys to suppress their emotions is psychologically harmful to them. Why do you think the suicide rate is higher among men, especially young men? A lot of those boys could be helped if they were able to express their feelings and let people know they need help. All the APA is saying is let's stop telling little boys that "boys don't cry" and stuff like that because boys are human and have feelings just like girls and should feel free to express them like girls are allowed to do. No where are they claiming that masculinity is a disorder, just that they way we sometimes apply gender roles to people as a society is really unfair and restrictive--to both women and men.



Couldn't agree more 8)


People here are acting like this perspective is somehow radical, I don't understand it. All the guidelines are trying to point out is that evidence is showing there are serious negative consequences both individually and societally to not teaching boys that to have feelings is OK, and how to identify and express and cope with emotions and thereby how to empathize with others; and that sometimes the way we as a society impose gender roles on people (both men and women--they covered women in the 2007 guidelines) can have negative consequences both for people who comport themselves too extremely to the societally expected roles and also those who don't fit into the standard binary one way or the other.

Some of the expectations we have, as a society, for boys and for girls are unhealthy, and we should be willing to re-examine those expectations and how they impact individuals in the context of treating people with mental health issues. That's all these two papers are trying to say.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York

07 Mar 2019, 6:56 pm

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Donald Morton wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
But socializing boys to suppress their emotions is psychologically harmful to them. Why do you think the suicide rate is higher among men, especially young men? A lot of those boys could be helped if they were able to express their feelings and let people know they need help. All the APA is saying is let's stop telling little boys that "boys don't cry" and stuff like that because boys are human and have feelings just like girls and should feel free to express them like girls are allowed to do. No where are they claiming that masculinity is a disorder, just that they way we sometimes apply gender roles to people as a society is really unfair and restrictive--to both women and men.



Couldn't agree more 8)


People here are acting like this perspective is somehow radical, I don't understand it. All the guidelines are trying to point out is that evidence is showing there are serious negative consequences both individually and societally to not teaching boys that to have feelings is OK, and how to identify and express and cope with emotions and thereby how to empathize with others; and that sometimes the way we as a society impose gender roles on people (both men and women--they covered women in the 2007 guidelines) can have negative consequences both for people who comport themselves too extremely to the societally expected roles and also those who don't fit into the standard binary one way or the other.

Some of the expectations we have, as a society, for boys and for girls are unhealthy, and we should be willing to re-examine those expectations and how they impact individuals in the context of treating people with mental health issues. That's all these two papers are trying to say.


They did not stop there, they went beyond that to condemn as harmful "traditional masculinity" and specific traits they labeled as such. I guess people are calling it "radical" because it reads in part like a political position paper which I why I put in this section.


_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”

Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

07 Mar 2019, 9:23 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Donald Morton wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
But socializing boys to suppress their emotions is psychologically harmful to them. Why do you think the suicide rate is higher among men, especially young men? A lot of those boys could be helped if they were able to express their feelings and let people know they need help. All the APA is saying is let's stop telling little boys that "boys don't cry" and stuff like that because boys are human and have feelings just like girls and should feel free to express them like girls are allowed to do. No where are they claiming that masculinity is a disorder, just that they way we sometimes apply gender roles to people as a society is really unfair and restrictive--to both women and men.



Couldn't agree more 8)


People here are acting like this perspective is somehow radical, I don't understand it. All the guidelines are trying to point out is that evidence is showing there are serious negative consequences both individually and societally to not teaching boys that to have feelings is OK, and how to identify and express and cope with emotions and thereby how to empathize with others; and that sometimes the way we as a society impose gender roles on people (both men and women--they covered women in the 2007 guidelines) can have negative consequences both for people who comport themselves too extremely to the societally expected roles and also those who don't fit into the standard binary one way or the other.

Some of the expectations we have, as a society, for boys and for girls are unhealthy, and we should be willing to re-examine those expectations and how they impact individuals in the context of treating people with mental health issues. That's all these two papers are trying to say.


They did not stop there, they went beyond that to condemn as harmful "traditional masculinity" and specific traits they labeled as such. I guess people are calling it "radical" because it reads in part like a political position paper which I why I put in this section.


I understand that's how you interpret the guidelines, what I don't understand is why you interpret them that way when I and others don't interpret them that way.

As I mentioned earlier, it seems reasonable to mention the harm done by gender roles in regards to men when they lead to more violence against other men and women as well. Women aren't committing as much violence and thereby doing as much societal harm in a measurable way, so it makes sense to me to put more emphasis on the ways gender contributes to violence. Men literally do more harm in regards to physical violence, why is it radical for psychologists to talk about that in these guidelines?



kdm1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 443
Location: SW MO, USA

08 Mar 2019, 1:11 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
kdm1984 wrote:
The best men are not either brutes nor effete, but have a healthy masculinity that's dignified and doesn't need to be paraded around because it's secure in itself.


So men that aren't as good are the ones who are effeminate. That's the implication of this statement, that the best men aren't effeminate. Does that also mean that women who are "masculine" also aren't the best? What a strange, old fashioned idea to come from a forum full of people who don't generally conform to gender roles very effectively. :lol:


Wow, you sure are twisting my words and reading things into my post that aren't there. I said, in these exact words, that the best men are not either brutes nor effete. For women, the same logic applies: the best ones are neither doormats nor domineering. And that logic couldn't be more clear: extremes on either side aren't desirable.


_________________
36 yr old female; dx age 29. Level 2 Aspie.


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

08 Mar 2019, 2:54 am

kdm1984 wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
kdm1984 wrote:
The best men are not either brutes nor effete, but have a healthy masculinity that's dignified and doesn't need to be paraded around because it's secure in itself.


So men that aren't as good are the ones who are effeminate. That's the implication of this statement, that the best men aren't effeminate. Does that also mean that women who are "masculine" also aren't the best? What a strange, old fashioned idea to come from a forum full of people who don't generally conform to gender roles very effectively. :lol:


Wow, you sure are twisting my words and reading things into my post that aren't there. I said, in these exact words, that the best men are not either brutes nor effete. For women, the same logic applies: the best ones are neither doormats nor domineering. And that logic couldn't be more clear: extremes on either side aren't desirable.


So effeminate men can't be the best. "Effete" means feminine, right?



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

08 Mar 2019, 3:56 am

kdm1984 wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
kdm1984 wrote:
The best men are not either brutes nor effete, but have a healthy masculinity that's dignified and doesn't need to be paraded around because it's secure in itself.


So men that aren't as good are the ones who are effeminate. That's the implication of this statement, that the best men aren't effeminate. Does that also mean that women who are "masculine" also aren't the best? What a strange, old fashioned idea to come from a forum full of people who don't generally conform to gender roles very effectively. :lol:


Wow, you sure are twisting my words and reading things into my post that aren't there.


Welcome to my world... :wink:



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York

08 Mar 2019, 4:26 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
kdm1984 wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
kdm1984 wrote:
The best men are not either brutes nor effete, but have a healthy masculinity that's dignified and doesn't need to be paraded around because it's secure in itself.


So men that aren't as good are the ones who are effeminate. That's the implication of this statement, that the best men aren't effeminate. Does that also mean that women who are "masculine" also aren't the best? What a strange, old fashioned idea to come from a forum full of people who don't generally conform to gender roles very effectively. :lol:


Wow, you sure are twisting my words and reading things into my post that aren't there. I said, in these exact words, that the best men are not either brutes nor effete. For women, the same logic applies: the best ones are neither doormats nor domineering. And that logic couldn't be more clear: extremes on either side aren't desirable.


So effeminate men can't be the best. "Effete" means feminine, right?

Merriam-Webster
Quote:
1 : no longer fertile
2a : having lost character, vitality, or strength
b : marked by weakness or decadence
c : soft or delicate as in pampered existence.
3 : EFFEMINATE sense 1


Oxford
Quote:
1Affected, over-refined, and ineffectual.
1.1 No longer capable of effective action.
1.2 (of a man) weak or effeminate.


_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”

Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

08 Mar 2019, 2:53 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
kdm1984 wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
kdm1984 wrote:
The best men are not either brutes nor effete, but have a healthy masculinity that's dignified and doesn't need to be paraded around because it's secure in itself.


So men that aren't as good are the ones who are effeminate. That's the implication of this statement, that the best men aren't effeminate. Does that also mean that women who are "masculine" also aren't the best? What a strange, old fashioned idea to come from a forum full of people who don't generally conform to gender roles very effectively. :lol:


Wow, you sure are twisting my words and reading things into my post that aren't there. I said, in these exact words, that the best men are not either brutes nor effete. For women, the same logic applies: the best ones are neither doormats nor domineering. And that logic couldn't be more clear: extremes on either side aren't desirable.


So effeminate men can't be the best. "Effete" means feminine, right?

Merriam-Webster
Quote:
1 : no longer fertile
2a : having lost character, vitality, or strength
b : marked by weakness or decadence
c : soft or delicate as in pampered existence.
3 : EFFEMINATE sense 1


Oxford
Quote:
1Affected, over-refined, and ineffectual.
1.1 No longer capable of effective action.
1.2 (of a man) weak or effeminate.


Yes, so it means men who are "soft, ineffective, and effeminate" can't be the best. I'm just going to leave this thread now, I don't know how to talk this way. It seems so backwards and oldfashioned and out of date to me to think these ways about men and women, it's like trying to talk to people from a past century.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,720
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

08 Mar 2019, 4:32 pm

What we really need is a pill that could wipe clean both 1 billion years of evolution and the nature of interaction between people of different statures, strengths, and weaknesses. Maybe an aspie could invent it and become the first trillionaire. I'm not discounting genies though, the right three wishes could be a substitute as well if someone's figured out how to call down that kind of muscle.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,366

09 Mar 2019, 7:10 am

Regarding Extremes in Masculinity and Feminity in both Genders, Diversity Among Members of a Species Fascilitates Survival.

There are Days a ‘Brute’; either Male or Female; may save you from drowning and By God, Be the best brute at it.

And there are Days that just the right soft Romantic song by a ‘Softie Man’ will Facilitate what it takes to Procreate in a stale relationship of your average ‘normal’ couple; Yes, obviously thinking shallow is an issue in this discussion too as Yes by God, Elton John, also helped Father more children than all the ‘Navy Seals’ in the World who Save Lives.

Think out of the box and learn something new.

Oh, and there’s the other thing. There are Days you are soft with a Baby and become a Grizzly Bear to defend that Baby; Male or Female; there are no ‘Black and Whites’ in the Human Condition; there is always potential for change both ways depending on Environmental Factors of what is Best, soft or hard; and some days as an individual, you may encounter cirumstances that require very hard and very soft unless you stay locked in an Ivory Tower or as a Monk in a Monastery and that serves a purpose too on the ‘Wrong Planet’.

The more Hats you can wear, the Better your chances at surviving and thriving; and that includes the Hats of soft and hard out of balance too; you just have to practice how to get back to what works best in the Environment at hand for your comfort zone of balance.

Regarding the ‘Magic Pill’, it’s ‘Agape Love’, And Folks like Elton John tend to swallow it better and Give it at the top of their Game of Giving and sharing; even for ‘profit’.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick