Masculinity is harmful - it's official

#23
BaDUM tish. Alas - buttons
 
#24
All I can say here is an example of how to destroy the credibility of an entire profession with the stroke of the pen.
I don't think they've destroyed the credibility of the military by saying the military suffer from mental problems and that psychologists should study them. Ignoring this reality, as a certain small clique of 'man up' types might want to, is far more lacking in credibility.
 
#25
#26
I don't think they've destroyed the credibility of the military by saying the military suffer from mental problems and that psychologists should study them. Ignoring this reality, as a certain small clique of 'man up' types might want to, is far more lacking in credibility.
and @Oxygen_Thief the guidelines are all very sensible emphasising the need to be sensitive to how a person sees their masculinity. Nothing wrong on the surface with that but the final sentence on the section on Gender I find problematic " this document uses the term gender to refer primarily to the social experiences, expectations, and consequences associated with being a boy or man." It ignores millions of years of evolution and the biological imperatives. Society recognises a number of traits as masculine because it is a natural biological result not a social construct. I understand there are variations and I have nothing against people who do not identify with their sex at birth but they are not the norm. The trend is of the third wave feminist nonsense that is trying to make the anomaly as normative.

It lists a number of characteristics in the negative, i.e. "anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence". I would argue that achievement, eschewal of appearance of weakness, adventure, risk and yes even violence are not negative depending on the context. It's the abnormal expression of some of these characteristics that is the problem rather than having them in the first place.

They seem to imply traditional masculine ideology is bad but I disagree. As I see it the foundations of the document is based on third wave feminists/leftist/whatever other label you choose ideology. The intellectual double talk is clever but I do not agree with their premise.
 
Last edited:
#28
A friend of mine is very masculine and gay as yer like. He has very forceful ideas on why men should be masculine in their gender orientation and free to choose ref their sexuality. Dislikes any "m@ff munching man hate theory " intensely. Quite the Spartan and confuses the fek out of those trying to ingratiate. Has a flock of hetero women, hates lesbians ( because he sees them as anti men ) and anything that he feels takes away or undermines manliness. Funny old world.
 
#29
and @Oxygen_Thief the guidelines are all very sensible emphasising the need to be sensitive to how a person sees their masculinity. Nothing wrong on the surface with that but the final sentence on the section on Gender I find problematic " this document uses the term gender to refer primarily to the social experiences, expectations, and consequences associated with being a boy or man." It ignores millions of years of evolution and the biological imperatives. Society recognises a number of traits as masculine because it is a natural biological result not a social construct.
and some parts of society wonder whether the biological construct is fit for purpose in a modern environment.
It lists a number of characteristics in the negative, i.e. "anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence". I would argue that achievement, eschewal of appearance of weakness, adventure, risk and yes even violence are not negative depending on the context.
Maybe and maybe even in the context where adventure risk and violence are necessary the unwilling participant is less risk to his own mental wellbeing than the more eager participant. Perhaps, and I make plain I have no idea if this is the case I'm just hypothesising, the more enthusiastic you are for the event the bigger shock the reality is and thus the greater likelihood of post event trauma.
They seem to imply traditional masculine ideology is bad but I disagree. As I see it the foundations of the document is based on third wave feminists/leftist/whatever other label you choose ideology. The intellectual double talk is clever but I do not agree with their premise.
I'm not sure there's any intellectual double talk. This is fairly heavily referenced medico-scientific document. The people are drawing the conclusions from the evidence they have. I think you need to ask yourself if 'they seem to imply' doesn't mean, 'there are statements in this I don't agree with but I don't have the evidence to say they're wrong'. I'm not claiming psychologists aren't as prone to trends as any other group, but so are you and I so can we challenge this paper with facts or are we just espousing a masculinist/righty/violent ideology because it makes us feel comfortable.
I recently asked the question on a very different forum from this "Can man be civilised", by which I meant can we adapt our millions of years of biological evolution to cope with modern society. This paper is in effect saying that as psychologists they need to recognise that in many contexts man's biological behaviour patterns are not suitable for modern society and we need to do something about it. Now it is a complicated picture, perhaps we reduce the amount of violence within our society but produce a population so averse to violence we cannot recruit an adequate army and are overrun by a more violent society who then brutalise us to a far greater degree, but saying that we must not only retain but encourage such violence within society to avoid this would be a difficult argument to make outside of the world of the professional military, and probably even within it.
 
#30
A friend of mine is very masculine and gay as yer like. He has very forceful ideas on why men should be masculine in their gender orientation and free to choose ref their sexuality. Dislikes any "m@ff munching man hate theory " intensely. Quite the Spartan and confuses the fek out of those trying to ingratiate. Has a flock of hetero women, hates lesbians ( because he sees them as anti men ) and anything that he feels takes away or undermines manliness. Funny old world.
I have a collegue who is somewhat similar. He came out to everyone's surprise last year. The various lgbtqiftpesaqhedgehogfrotterers in the wider church were all over him like a rash. They were most surprised when he told them all to do one. They still can't quite work him out and he has been quite badly treated by some who feel that if he is not going to embrace the whole queer culture thing he is not properly gay and somthing of a traitor.
 
#32
A friend of mine is very masculine and gay as yer like. He has very forceful ideas on why men should be masculine in their gender orientation and free to choose ref their sexuality. Dislikes any "m@ff munching man hate theory " intensely. Quite the Spartan and confuses the fek out of those trying to ingratiate. Has a flock of hetero women, hates lesbians ( because he sees them as anti men ) and anything that he feels takes away or undermines manliness. Funny old world.
Weren't the Romans like that, it was acceptable to be gay as long as you were very masculine and were the one plunging the pork sword, and not receiving it
 
#33
Weren't the Romans like that, it was acceptable to be gay as long as you were very masculine and were the one plunging the pork sword, and not receiving it
Both the Greeks and the Romans had different opinions of homosexualality than we do now. But generally speaking it was preferable to be cork rather than bottle.
 
#34
I just do not understand any of today's PC culture. Just.. Why.. Like, I am not against any form of rights for people who may be trans or gay, but, this article is beyond levels of fucking bat shit crazy. It's people like this giving Homosexuality a bad name for itself. I know many gay men who are just normal guys asides from their sexual interests, and it does not turn them into an annoying prat who acts like a 12 year old girl.
 
#35
Seems fairly sensible from a clinical psychology point of view. Not sure what,exactly, is upsetting you.

Did you read your own link?

I was just about to say the same - it's basically proposing, without comment, some important research questions about the implications and interactions of masculine identity and military service and if there are any relationships among conditions such as PTSD etc.
 
#36
#39
OP is Jordan Peterson and I claim my $5, or whatever it is in the funny money you poms use.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top