Psychologists defend linking masculinity to violence, sexism, homophobia

Critics argue new psychology guidance pathologizes being male.

Read the whole story

 

[aaronb1138]

Hot take. Contrary to these clowns it's OK to be a man.

Nobody said it wasn't ok to be a man. What was pointed out as problematic is a lot of the "traditionally masculine" behaviors like bottling up emotions to the point where you snap, and end up lighting several cars on fire because a cosplayer at an anime convention rejected you.

So the actual issue is psychologists are not familiar with what "traditionally masculine" behavior consists and instead decided to redefine it via negative stereotypes.

Sounds about right.

Appears roughly the same as when shock jocks redefine feminism as man-hating and anti-family.

 

[vlam]

Ok serious comment. There’s basically no question that cultural ideas of traditional femininity have negative effects on the health outcomes of some women and girls right? Especially with regards to body image and eating disorders.

So why should it be remotely controversial that machismo (which I’ve always thought had negative connotations FWIW) could have negative effects in the health outcomes of boys and men?

Part of it is the orientation of the argument. With women, beauty is shoved onto them. The blame lies with the media, Hollywood, portrayals of what an attractive woman should be, etc. All external factors. When we discuss the issues with masculinity, we discuss internal factors. People make comments like "don't be a dick." The blame falls squarely on the man who has been deemed negatively masculine.

I can very easily understand why someone would look at that and wonder why they're being blamed. If men are partly to blame for how women attempt to be found attractive, why aren't women partly to blame for how men attempt to be found attractive (machismo)? Of course, most people cannot find it within themselves to actually articulate this in any other way than "oh fuck you, what's wrong with being a man?" They just don't like that they're being blamed - and apparently for both sides of the coin.

I would say that portrayals of masculinity in media are just as prevalent, with varying levels of (I don't want to say 'toxicity') self-destructive or destructive traits. Humphry Bogart, James Dean, Clint Eastwood, James Cagney, Arnie, Stallone, Bruce Willis, etc.

Boys are taught from a very young age that 'tough' = cool. That rebels don't care about rules or feelings. 'Big boys don't cry' etc. This is reinforced by authority figures as well as peers, and might even have biological roots (where showing weakness invites challengers).

I do agree with you that figuring out what one is supposed to do or not supposed to do is a very complex process for children and youths, even in the best of circumstances, but I do think that both sexes are subject to all sorts of external and internal pressures on behavior and self image that are often toxic or pathological.

TLDR; people are fucked up, man.

See, you took my post one step further to point out that we absolutely have the raw materials to say "Look, guys, this may not actually be all your fault. Maybe, like with our ridiculous standards of female attractiveness, we've built some expectations for you that lead you to some of these traits." I agree with your assertions.

Instead, we get answers like "Don't be a dick." I don't think that's a very helpful response. I believe that many of the people who reject these guidelines and the conclusions that they're based on aren't nearly as awful as we might portray them. They just have a strange instinct about what's happening, and they can't place a finger on it, but they just know it feels wrong. I believe that this instinct leads to the "society churns out broken people" conclusion, but they don't know how to get there. We fuck up our little girls, sadly. We also fuck up our little boys, sadly.




** There are, of course, people who actually are straight up fuck nuggets. These are sexist assholes. But there are many people who wouldn't agree with the APA on this and also aren't sexist assholes. They create controversy because, as I stated above, they're uncomfortable with what they perceive as being blamed for the problem. And I also think that we are a little too quick to blame them. But fuck the actual sexist assholes.

 

[fknuckles]

Why would anyone disagree with calling "sexism, violence, mental health issues, suicide, and homophobia" a problem? But there's nothing manly about any of that, I'm extremely manly and have none of those.

You're not manly enough.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alp ... _Manliness

 

[Renzatic]

But there I go making sense again.

You're assuming an attack on an entirely group of people that the article in question doesn't make. It's about certain behavioral characteristics that, in extremis, can be harmful to those who possess them, and to those around them.

It's as if you read the clinical definition of narcissistic personality disorder, then immediately turn around and say "SO HAVING A HIGH SELF ESTEEM IS CONSIDERED A PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER THESE DAYS?" That's not what's being stated. That's what you're assuming is being stated.

Your assumption is wrong.

 

[Thad Boyd]

In the same way to person you're responding to (and likely the people you're downvoting) assuming a priori that women are not inherently weaker than men (despite the empirical fact that on average they are, and by a large margin). Otherwise the study doesn't make sense, since most men and women rightfully assume that any randomly chosen man is very likely to be stronger than any randomly chosen woman.

That's what you wanna double down on, huh? Don't-Call-Me-a-Nazi's disingenuous interpretation of my use of the words "strength" and "weakness" to refer to physical strength? You couldn't find any other strawmen to glom onto?

(Wait, is "all men who associate strength with males over females are more likely to commit violence" another strawman, or merely a restatement of the same strawman?)

Thadboy's quotation of "Men who are led to associate strength with men and weakness with women are likelier to commit violence against women" is not found anywhere in the APA guidelines linked in the article

Pages 9-10:

Sexism exists as a byproduct, rein
-
forcer, and justification of male privilege.
Although the majority of young men may
not identify with explicit sexist beliefs
(McDermott & Schwartz, 2013), for
some men, sexism may become deeply
engrained in their construction of mascu
-
linity (O’Neil, 2015). For instance, most
boys are taught from an early age that
they will suffer negative consequences for
violating masculine role norms (Reigeluth
& Addis, 2016). The impact of such sex
-
ism extends from boyhood into adulthood,
sometimes influencing critical identity-for
-
mative processes such as career choices
(Fouad, Whiston, & Feldwisch, 2016) and
thus contributing to gender imbalances in
female- or male-dominated professions.
Growing up in a patriarchal society may
also contribute to important public health
concerns such as gender-based violence.
Indeed, early socialization experiences
in childhood, such as being repeatedly
shamed for expressing vulnerable emo
-
tions, can have lasting influence into adult
-
hood in ways that shape their intimate
relationships (Pollack, 1995). For example,
several controlled experiments have found
that adult men who endorse sexist male
role norms are likely to aggress against
male and female participants who vio
-
late those norms (e.g., Parrott, Zeichner,
& Hoover, 2006; Reidy, Shirk, Sloan, &
Zeichner, 2009). Men who rigidly adhere
to sexist, patriarchal masculine norms also
tend to endorse and commit higher levels
of intimate partner and sexual violence
toward women (Kilmartin & McDermott,
2015). Feminist scholars have argued that
some men use violence and control in rela
-
tionships as a way of maintaining sexist
beliefs and dominance over women (e.g.,
the Duluth Model; Pence & Paymar, 1993).
Researchers in the psychology of men
and masculinity have identified that inse
-
curities stemming from early childhood
experiences (such as attachment insecuri
-
ties) are linked to adherence to traditional
masculinity ideology (Schwartz, Waldo, &
Higgins, 2004). Research also suggests
that insecurely attached men not only rig
-
idly adhere to sexist gender role ideology,
but that they may act on those schemas in
ways that promote or justify intimate part
-
ner violence (Mahalik, Aldarondo, Gilbert-
Gokhale, & Shore, 2005; McDermott &
Lopez, 2013).

Pardon the formatting on the copy-paste.

 

[s73v3r]

This is the major psychological organization saying that after reviewing a massive body of work, they have some specific guidelines they think might help men have fewer health problems.

This is spoken with the confidence of someone who has no idea what the DSM is, or the history of its problems.

Assuming that the above statement was serious, Google "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders", the Wikipedia page has a decent overview.

So, because the DSM is not above reproach—and, in fact, had some seriously dubious recommendations in the past—these guidelines are automatically to be ignored? Without even considering the validity or quality of the research they're based on?

Oddly enough, many of these same people have no qualms citing the "studies" that say that women don't belong in a tech environment, or that minorities are inherently inferior to whites.

 

[ip_what]

Hot take. Contrary to these clowns it's OK to be a man.

Nobody said it wasn't ok to be a man. What was pointed out as problematic is a lot of the "traditionally masculine" behaviors like bottling up emotions to the point where you snap, and end up lighting several cars on fire because a cosplayer at an anime convention rejected you.

So the actual issue is psychologists are not familiar with what "traditionally masculine" behavior consists and instead decided to redefine it via negative stereotypes.

Sounds about right.

Appears roughly the same as when shock jocks redefine feminism as man-hating and anti-family.

Do you think we can get the APA to put out a call for volunteers to come in for a free mental health evaluation to “show them what a real man is?” Honestly, could nip a mental health crisis in the bud.

 

[woodelf]

I just skimmed through the APA guidelines. As far as I understand it, the APA is saying that:

- Some norms of masculinity are linked to race and ethnicity and that's not a good thing.
- Some norms of masculinity are potentially abusive and related to aggression and violence.
- Psychologists need to be mindful that men are human beings too and treat them accordingly.
- Psychologists should encourage the healthier aspects of masculinity, including fatherhood and strong families.

What's controversial about this?

Having about 1/2 the paper before getting upset.

Actually it's referred to throughout the paper as "traditional masculinity". I would have less of an issue with the guidelines had mentioned "toxic" or "extreme" masculinity instead of implying "normal" or "traditional". Then the paper basically goes on how "traditional masculinity" is basically the problem with everything.

I don't know about the rest of you, most of the 'traditionally masculine" males in my life while might be stoic and competitive, would be appalled by displays of aggression and dominance.

So on the one hand, we're in danger of a no true Scotsman fallacy here. The guidelines define the specific behaviors that are problematic. They comport well with my understanding of "traditional masculinity" in a Western European, and especially USian, cultural sense. But maybe not everyone's notions. So it gets tricky to talk about these things.

But on the other hand, I think you're drawing a line that doesn't exist if you try to describe someone as "competitive" but "not aggressive" and "not interested in dominance". Like, there is a distinction between those 3 things, but they're all kinda facets of one big thing. So I think you're overlooking that to be competitive is to be aggressive and dominant—it's a distinction of degree, not kind. Just because you don't punch people doesn't mean you're not aggressive.

 

[ChickenBandit]

In the same way to person you're responding to (and likely the people you're downvoting) assuming a priori that women are not inherently weaker than men (despite the empirical fact that on average they are, and by a large margin). Otherwise the study doesn't make sense, since most men and women rightfully assume that any randomly chosen man is very likely to be stronger than any randomly chosen woman.

That's what you wanna double down on, huh? Don't-Call-Me-a-Nazi's disingenuous interpretation of my use of the words "strength" and "weakness" to refer to physical strength? You couldn't find any other strawmen to glom onto?

(Wait, is "all men who associate strength with males over females are more likely to commit violence" another strawman, or merely a restatement of the same strawman?)

Thadboy's quotation of "Men who are led to associate strength with men and weakness with women are likelier to commit violence against women" is not found anywhere in the APA guidelines linked in the article

Pages 9-10:

Sexism exists as a byproduct, rein
-
forcer, and justification of male privilege.
Although the majority of young men may
not identify with explicit sexist beliefs
(McDermott & Schwartz, 2013), for
some men, sexism may become deeply
engrained in their construction of mascu
-
linity (O’Neil, 2015). For instance, most
boys are taught from an early age that
they will suffer negative consequences for
violating masculine role norms (Reigeluth
& Addis, 2016). The impact of such sex
-
ism extends from boyhood into adulthood,
sometimes influencing critical identity-for
-
mative processes such as career choices
(Fouad, Whiston, & Feldwisch, 2016) and
thus contributing to gender imbalances in
female- or male-dominated professions.
Growing up in a patriarchal society may
also contribute to important public health
concerns such as gender-based violence.
Indeed, early socialization experiences
in childhood, such as being repeatedly
shamed for expressing vulnerable emo
-
tions, can have lasting influence into adult
-
hood in ways that shape their intimate
relationships (Pollack, 1995). For example,
several controlled experiments have found
that adult men who endorse sexist male
role norms are likely to aggress against
male and female participants who vio
-
late those norms (e.g., Parrott, Zeichner,
& Hoover, 2006; Reidy, Shirk, Sloan, &
Zeichner, 2009). Men who rigidly adhere
to sexist, patriarchal masculine norms also
tend to endorse and commit higher levels
of intimate partner and sexual violence
toward women (Kilmartin & McDermott,
2015). Feminist scholars have argued that
some men use violence and control in rela
-
tionships as a way of maintaining sexist
beliefs and dominance over women (e.g.,
the Duluth Model; Pence & Paymar, 1993).
Researchers in the psychology of men
and masculinity have identified that inse
-
curities stemming from early childhood
experiences (such as attachment insecuri
-
ties) are linked to adherence to traditional
masculinity ideology (Schwartz, Waldo, &
Higgins, 2004). Research also suggests
that insecurely attached men not only rig
-
idly adhere to sexist gender role ideology,
but that they may act on those schemas in
ways that promote or justify intimate part
-
ner violence (Mahalik, Aldarondo, Gilbert-
Gokhale, & Shore, 2005; McDermott &
Lopez, 2013).

Pardon the formatting on the copy-paste.

That quote is nowhere in the segment you pasted though, so I'm still not sure where you'ree pulling it from (or why you put quotes around it if you're summarizing)

 

[Veritas super omens]

As a bleeding heart liberal, this is not OK.

These guidelines cross the line

You going to back that argument up at all?

fugly, you ought to have that heart checked by a cardiologist, abnormal cardiac bleeding can lead to adverse health outcomes up to, and frequently including, death. I'm sure your local healthcare facility has an easily parsed list of all its procedure so you can see how broke you be.....

 

[woodelf]

What are the effects, on men and women, of the following? I would suspect this is also damaging to both sexes.

1. Inform everyone that girls are equal to boys.

2. Inform boys that they cannot hit girls.

This is socializing sexism into children. If girls are equal, boys can hit girls. Saying otherwise victimizes females in a few ways.

Please find me the people who believe and advocate both of those things? I've never seen anyone advocate #2 who actually believed #1. (I mean, plenty of people think that you shouldn't hit/abuse anyone but that's different from "girls are fragile creatures of glass that need to be protected".)

 

[Renzatic]

Being masculine is fine, as long as you do it exactly as a feminist tells you to.

Oh, tell me about it. Every day I go out, some shrill harridan type screams at me, telling me to tuck my junk between my legs, because external genitalia is a sign of the patriarchy.

We live in a liberal dystopia, suffering under the yolk of an oppressive govherment that dictates what we do because of who we are. WE'RE THE REAL VICTIMS HERE!

 

[woodelf]

A couple of years ago I read an article about how a psychologist improved safety for oil workers upon an off shore drilling platform - by getting the workers to openly discuss their fears and concerns with each other.

Before that, no one felt they could do anything but shrug off accidents - such as one worker kicking some component that was stuck and it freeing so violently that he was whipped around the drill several times, instantly killed. Afterwards, it was far easier for the men to collectively act safely.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... life-safer

 

[gulthaw]

Before I continue on page three there's already some things to quote so, I'll post first and continue reading.

Ive always understood that being a man means supporting your family

Ever heard about single moms? If that's not supporting a family I don't know what it is; ergo, nothing to do with "supporting a family"

No.

Being a family supporter means supporting your family. This isn't limited to men. Being a man means having a penis.

What about cisgender people? Are they not "man" until they get the implant or what?


Imho, being a man is more about the way your brain works. We've all heard how men think on boxes while for women everything is connected and thus they don't have the "nothing" box.
Is just one of the features and I bet someone more knowledgable can add lots more but, imho, is all about how our brain is wired.

Which means they both can do the same jobs and tasks, they just will think of different ways to do them (or will get to the same conclusion through different paths).

 

[Wizer]

Beth,

I really like how you wrote this article. I found it very informative on the topic, and easy to read. Keep up the good work.

 

[Sajuuk]

What are the effects, on men and women, of the following? I would suspect this is also damaging to both sexes.

1. Inform everyone that girls are equal to boys.

2. Inform boys that they cannot hit girls.

This is socializing sexism into children. If girls are equal, boys can hit girls. Saying otherwise victimizes females in a few ways.

Except no one promotes girls hitting boys. Being equal doesn't imply you can assault anyone. What's being promoted is that nobody hit anybody. Jesus Christ.

Edit: funny enough, this is the exact attitude the APA is responding to! Clearly you associate boys with violence, meaning if girls are equal, you can, obviously, commit violence to them.

 

[Renzatic]

It's not a good look, in my opinion, for the "governing body" of psychology to throw out statements like these because most people are only going to read the summary. I was a psych minor, I probably know a bit more than most people. And I also think that they should be emphasizing individual treatment and diagnosis over this type of PR.

So they should more carefully word their synopses, lest someone take it the wrong way, and make an idiot of themselves on a random messageboard somewhere?

 

[Joklers]

What are the effects, on men and women, of the following? I would suspect this is also damaging to both sexes.

1. Inform everyone that girls are equal to boys.

2. Inform boys that they cannot hit girls.

This is socializing sexism into children. If girls are equal, boys can hit girls. Saying otherwise victimizes females in a few ways.

The point most people want to get across is that no one should hit anyone.

But a significant minority of people think boys hitting boys is OK so the message got compromised.

 

[Thad Boyd]

In the same way to person you're responding to (and likely the people you're downvoting) assuming a priori that women are not inherently weaker than men (despite the empirical fact that on average they are, and by a large margin). Otherwise the study doesn't make sense, since most men and women rightfully assume that any randomly chosen man is very likely to be stronger than any randomly chosen woman.

That's what you wanna double down on, huh? Don't-Call-Me-a-Nazi's disingenuous interpretation of my use of the words "strength" and "weakness" to refer to physical strength? You couldn't find any other strawmen to glom onto?

(Wait, is "all men who associate strength with males over females are more likely to commit violence" another strawman, or merely a restatement of the same strawman?)

Thadboy's quotation of "Men who are led to associate strength with men and weakness with women are likelier to commit violence against women" is not found anywhere in the APA guidelines linked in the article

Pages 9-10:

Sexism exists as a byproduct, rein
-
forcer, and justification of male privilege.
Although the majority of young men may
not identify with explicit sexist beliefs
(McDermott & Schwartz, 2013), for
some men, sexism may become deeply
engrained in their construction of mascu
-
linity (O’Neil, 2015). For instance, most
boys are taught from an early age that
they will suffer negative consequences for
violating masculine role norms (Reigeluth
& Addis, 2016). The impact of such sex
-
ism extends from boyhood into adulthood,
sometimes influencing critical identity-for
-
mative processes such as career choices
(Fouad, Whiston, & Feldwisch, 2016) and
thus contributing to gender imbalances in
female- or male-dominated professions.
Growing up in a patriarchal society may
also contribute to important public health
concerns such as gender-based violence.
Indeed, early socialization experiences
in childhood, such as being repeatedly
shamed for expressing vulnerable emo
-
tions, can have lasting influence into adult
-
hood in ways that shape their intimate
relationships (Pollack, 1995). For example,
several controlled experiments have found
that adult men who endorse sexist male
role norms are likely to aggress against
male and female participants who vio
-
late those norms (e.g., Parrott, Zeichner,
& Hoover, 2006; Reidy, Shirk, Sloan, &
Zeichner, 2009). Men who rigidly adhere
to sexist, patriarchal masculine norms also
tend to endorse and commit higher levels
of intimate partner and sexual violence
toward women (Kilmartin & McDermott,
2015). Feminist scholars have argued that
some men use violence and control in rela
-
tionships as a way of maintaining sexist
beliefs and dominance over women (e.g.,
the Duluth Model; Pence & Paymar, 1993).
Researchers in the psychology of men
and masculinity have identified that inse
-
curities stemming from early childhood
experiences (such as attachment insecuri
-
ties) are linked to adherence to traditional
masculinity ideology (Schwartz, Waldo, &
Higgins, 2004). Research also suggests
that insecurely attached men not only rig
-
idly adhere to sexist gender role ideology,
but that they may act on those schemas in
ways that promote or justify intimate part
-
ner violence (Mahalik, Aldarondo, Gilbert-
Gokhale, & Shore, 2005; McDermott &
Lopez, 2013).

Pardon the formatting on the copy-paste.

That quote is nowhere in the segment you pasted though, so I'm still not sure where you'ree pulling it from (or why you put quotes around it if you're summarizing)

Would you have rather I used italics?

It was a paraphrase, not a direct quotation. If that wasn't clear then I apologize, though it doesn't seem that anybody else was confused by it.

It was an accurate summary of one of the assertions in the guidelines. Debating my use of punctuation seems rather beside the point.

 

[MechR]

It's as controversial as Gillette daring to question their own slogan "The best a man can get" by saying "Is it really?" Which is to say it isn't controversial to have a little introspection.

Well apparently it is.

I've come to realize that a major fraction of the cultural backlash is basically resentment over being asked to self-reflect and improve.

Yes, it is, and it's fully warranted. Imagine Nike "asking" blacks to "self-reflect and improve".

That's apples to oranges. Nike isn't the APA, for one thing.

This is the major psychological organization saying that after reviewing a massive body of work, they have some specific guidelines they think might help men have fewer health problems.

You're trying to compare it to, I don't even know, an exploitative ad campaign?

Those are not equivalent.

That reply chain was talking about the Gillette ad, which is more directly comparable. I've added the originating post to the quote nest for clarification.

 

[Great_Scott]

Beth,

I really like how you wrote this article. I found it very informative on the topic, and easy to read. Keep up the good work.

I couldn't agree more. The article fits right into Ars current style of coverage as well. Concise, precise, well written, and guaranteed to generate commentary.

 

[ZhanMing057]

I just skimmed through the APA guidelines. As far as I understand it, the APA is saying that:

- Some norms of masculinity are linked to race and ethnicity and that's not a good thing.
- Some norms of masculinity are potentially abusive and related to aggression and violence.
- Psychologists need to be mindful that men are human beings too and treat them accordingly.
- Psychologists should encourage the healthier aspects of masculinity, including fatherhood and strong families.

What's controversial about this?

Having about 1/2 the paper before getting upset.

Actually it's referred to throughout the paper as "traditional masculinity". I would have less of an issue with the guidelines had mentioned "toxic" or "extreme" masculinity instead of implying "normal" or "traditional". Then the paper basically goes on how "traditional masculinity" is basically the problem with everything.

I don't know about the rest of you, most of the 'traditionally masculine" males in my life while might be stoic and competitive, would be appalled by displays of aggression and dominance.

To the contrary, my reading is that the APA is being fairly cautious about claims about traditional masculinity, and is consistently clear that fatherhood and family values are not only consistent with mental health but integral to it.

I agree with the other response to you that my reading of "traditional masculinity", at least in American culture, is pretty much in line with the APA's description. You can hardly ascribe this behavior to, say, Japanese or British male culture, although both have their own not insignificant problems.

 

[talon_262]

I just skimmed through the APA guidelines. As far as I understand it, the APA is saying that:

- Some norms of masculinity are linked to race and ethnicity and that's not a good thing.
- Some norms of masculinity are potentially abusive and related to aggression and violence.
- Psychologists need to be mindful that men are human beings too and treat them accordingly.
- Psychologists should encourage the healthier aspects of masculinity, including fatherhood and strong families.

What's controversial about this?

Because it denies that men (mostly, white men, at that) are the center of the universe and the fount for all that is right and just.

/do I really need to?

 

[Joklers]

I'm a young man in college, and I spend a lot of time thinking about what it means to be a man, and a good one. I think we can at least agree that whatever being a man entails, we want there to be good ones, not assholes. So, let's look at the APA's list of characteristics defining traditional masculinity: “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.”

Anti-femininity: this is dicey, because it's not clear what anti-femininity means. I think this has its worst appearances in middle, and high-school age boys, and those who don't mature past it and simply shout "don't be a p***y." But at the same time, I think it derives from an understanding that men and women are different, and that it's not a good idea to be something you're not. On the other hand, I think a lot of stereotypically "feminine" characteristics (like emotional openness) are important and good for men to develop. I'm open to discussion on this point, however.

Achievement: I legitimately don't see how this is intrinsically bad. Obviously a desire for achievement can become disordered, but it also drives a lot of, well, achievement, and should generally be encouraged.

Eschewal of the appearance of weakness: Ooh. Much like anti-femininity, this is tricky. I certainly think it's a natural instinct, and one that serves some use. On the other hand, when does it become dishonest posturing?

Adventure/risk: much like achievement, this is natural, and I don't think it's intrinsically bad. Risk-taking is part of learning, and achievement. Again, I acknowledge that some risk-taking is just plain stupid and shouldn't be done.

Violence: the issue here is that not all violence is the same. Some is destructive (like rape) , some is protective (like tackling a rapist), and some is recreational (like mock lightsaber duels). Destructive violence is obviously bad, protective obviously good, and recreational can go either way. The difficulty is that men generally seem more violent than women, and that what kind of violence is okay is extremely unclear. It would be nice if we could progress past the use of violence entirely, but human nature being what it is, that seems unlikely.

On the whole, I'm largely in agreement with David French that boys need to be raised to be better men, and instead of being told that all their natural instincts are toxic, be helped and guided to use those instincts constructively where possible, and to restrain them when not. Violence is an excellent response to a robber, not to an argument with one's wife. Risk-taking could be helpful in investment baking, less so in playing with bears.
This is, again, difficult in that our society doesn't seem to have a clear idea of what a man is and should be. I think the APA was well-intentioned, but that they stepped on a lot of toes of other well-intentioned people.

TL;DR: not sure that all the characteristics of traditional masculinity the APA lists are toxic. Think we need to raise better men. Open to discussion about what that entails. Peace.

I think you're missing two very important factors:

1) These guidelines apply when someone's being treated for psychological issues. These are suggestions for how to decide which psychological issues may apply and where to start helping the person suffering. They're not applicable to everyone. People who are roughhousing are not going to fall under the diagnostic criteria.

2) From the article: "Rigid adherence to this ideology can lead to a range of issues, from homophobia, sexual violence, and bullying to cardiovascular problems, the guidance cautioned." The traits themselves aren't necessarily an issue. Rigid adherence, aka taking them to an extreme, is the problem.

 

[Totally Radical Liberal]

I only read half of the article because I know how it ends. I'm now angry about it. I'm not going to discuss any of it in a rational way. I'm going to the bar now to drink this away with some vague friends of mine.

Drinking with friends? I only drink alone, usually when I clean my collection of revolvers, stare deep into the fireplace, or trim my chest hair.

Trimming your chest hair? You woman!

I legitimately am a competitive shooter, auto racing enthusiast, gamer, and ex-MMA fighter (retired only because of medical problems). I don’t know how I could be any more manly. But I totally agree with the new clinical guidelines. Toxic masculinity is clearly a thing and I encounter it regularly in pretty much every hobby I just listed (except MMA, weirdly; the lady fighters got treated equally, except of course when sparring because physical differences). Here’s hoping there’s more of a culture shift for the next generation.

 

[Joklers]

Why would anyone disagree with calling "sexism, violence, mental health issues, suicide, and homophobia" a problem? But there's nothing manly about any of that, I'm extremely manly and have none of those.

Very woke of you. But your views are ideology.

Sexism is to acknowledge a substantive difference of the sexes.

Sexism is thinking it's OK to harass women and not men or vice versa. Sexism is preventing girls or boys from getting the education they need for the careers they want, or looking down on them if they do get into those careers, because those are the 'wrong' careers for their gender. Sexism is paying women less because you don't think they're worth as much, or laughing at men who want to be teachers.

Sexism has nothing to do with 'acknowledging differences' and everything to do with who can exert power and who can't fight back.

 

[graylshaped]

I only read half of the article because I know how it ends. I'm now angry about it. I'm not going to discuss any of it in a rational way. I'm going to the bar now to drink this away with some vague friends of mine.

Be sure to pee in an alley as you stumble home.

 

[uhuznaa]

I had a epiphany at one point in my younger years: ALL the assholes I ever met understood themselves as really manly men while all the bearable guys didn't need to make a point out of having a dick. Surprisingly (or not) things were very similar for the women.

My personal interpretation was this: Some people strive for a global optimum with regard to the sex/gender dimension, trying to be more male or female than everybody around. This is only truly achievable for very few, while most are becoming more and more desperate, because there's always someone threatening their perceived alpha status they're clinging to by their nails. They are in constant war mode, which makes them unbearable assholes.

Others are happy with a local optimum instead, just striving for what they can make out of what they are, with no or little regard to this global male/female scale, which makes them much happier and allows them to grow to their own strengths and to be truly unique individuals with their very own strengths and weaknesses.

Over time I found there's little doubt about what is more healthy and what makes people more happy.

 

[graylshaped]

So.
[Strawman]

Thaty's the best you got?

 

[Voldenuit]

What are the effects, on men and women, of the following? I would suspect this is also damaging to both sexes.

1. Inform everyone that girls are equal to boys.

2. Inform boys that they cannot hit girls.

This is socializing sexism into children. If girls are equal, boys can hit girls. Saying otherwise victimizes females in a few ways.

Please find me the people who believe and advocate both of those things? I've never seen anyone advocate #2 who actually believed #1. (I mean, plenty of people think that you shouldn't hit/abuse anyone but that's different from "girls are fragile creatures of glass that need to be protected".)

I cannot attest to what others actually believe, but these were both said to me by many people throughout life. Parents, friends parents, friends themselves, girls themselves, teachers, at least one pastor, and on and on. These are mantras repeated without thought. Women are equal. Men don't hit women. Women are equal. Men don't hit women.

Nobody stops and says "uh, these do not agree with each other."

No awareness of context or cues?

I'm a guy. I don't hit other guys unless I'm in a martial arts tournament, sparring, or defending myself or others.

The obvious unstated context of 'men don't hit women' is that it refers to a domestic or relationship context.

If I were in a domestic or romantic relationship with someone, be they male, female, or other, I'm not supposed to hit them, either.

If a crazy person comes at me with an axe, I'm fighting back without checking their gender.