What do you guys think of Jordan Peterson?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Please explain. What is a patriarchical society? How can you tell? Whose are we referring to? Any men specifically or just "in aggregate"?
Can a 'patriarchal tyranny' be composed of mostly women? What is it that is the essence of the pathology?...the fact that it's a 'tyranny' or the fact that men are involved? Is there such a thing as a wise and fair and competent male in charge of a group or an organization?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Does it matter? The guideline is about treating men and boys. Not changing our social hierarchy and promoting social justice. Search for social justice in the piece. It's there.
Yes, for the context of the issues pertaining to the advantages and costs it confers.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm fine with that. Although these are more written in terms of cultural considerations taken within the context of treatment where appropriate, rather than a specific, targeted treatment. It'd be like saying that because we have guidelines in understanding cultural concepts related to work with Veterans, there needs to be a treatment manual specifically for Vet culture that needs to be in protocol form.
Yes, for the context of the issues pertaining to the advantages and costs it confers.
LOL...could you or someone else please videotape an example of actually implementing this approach with male veterans? I'm trying to imagine it in my mind without bursting into laughter.
 
LOL...could you or someone else please videotape an example of actually implementing this approach with male veterans? I'm trying to imagine it in my mind without bursting into laughter.

Have you ever treated Vets with PTSD? Issues related to masculinity and how they identify with it come up all of the time. I think I covered it in almost all of my treatments back when I still did therapy in the VA, always brought up by the Veteran.
 
I'm a full-time post-deployment psychologist at a VA clinic. All Ido is treat veterans with severe psychopathology (and about 85-90% of my caseload has PTSD). I also have a reputation (and get feedback directly from the veterans themselves) that my approach to working with them is effective, especially in terms of relating to them as men (those who happen to be male clients). Of course issues related to masculinity come up all the time. But, importantly, a large aspect of veteran's identity is around the POSITIVE aspects of masculinity and how to enact them in one's life without being destructive. No ideology that devalues 'traditional masculinity' as being somehow inherently pathological is going to be broadly successful with most male veterans.
 
But, importantly, a large aspect of veteran's identity is around the POSITIVE aspects of masculinity and how to enact them in one's life without being destructive. No ideology that devalues 'traditional masculinity' as being somehow inherently pathological is going to be broadly successful with most male veterans.

We had a vastly different experience, then. Most of the time they discussed both the positive and negative aspects of the traditional expectations IME.
 
We had a vastly different experience, then. Most of the time they discussed both the positive and negative aspects of the traditional expectations IME.
Well, OF COURSE there are both positive and negative aspects and of course we discuss both. I think we're going to keep talking past one another because the guideline authors don't specify (and fail to refer to other sources that could specify) exactly what their guidelines mean at the level of implementation in context.
 
Well, OF COURSE there are both positive and negative aspects and of course we discuss both. I think we're going to keep talking past one another because the guideline authors don't specify (and fail to refer to other sources that could specify) exactly what their guidelines mean at the level of implementation in context.

Probs, I think we're interpreting these differently as mandatory vs. aspirational/considerations within a treatment context.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Are you arguing that historically men and women had the same economic opportunities in this country for the past 150 years?
No, but are you arguing that it was because the "patriarchy" was "oppressing" women via some ephemeral power? Did women face any other barriers that might have been largely mitigated via technological advancements in the past half-century which allowed them to more readily compete in the workplace?
 
The argument that feminists make is that patriarchy hurts men as much as it does women, by enforcing standards of stereotypical masculinity that are often toxic. It's not masculinity equals bad, it's that our patriarchal society often encourages men to behave in ways that conform to standards that are ultimately harmful, and punishes them for behaving in ways that would be healthier. That's what TOXIC masculinity refers to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
No, but are you arguing that it was because the "patriarchy" was "oppressing" women via some ephemeral power? Did women face any other barriers that might have been largely mitigated via technological advancements in the past century which allowed them to more readily compete in the workplace?

I believe the argument would be on just how much those barriers have been mitigated.
 
No, but are you arguing that it was because the "patriarchy" was "oppressing" women via some ephemeral power? Did women face any other barriers that might have been largely mitigated via technological advancements in the past century which allowed them to more readily compete in the workplace?

Uh, let me think...
- Lower pay
- Different standards on appearance (make-up, heels, etc)
- Childcare issues and maternity leave, in the USA specifically
- Sexual harassment and rape culture, which as we're now seeing hasn't been dealt with as effectively as we've been led to think
- Shaming women for working and not devoting enough time to parenting
- Studies show that women who act like men in the workplace, e.g. demonstrating assertiveness, are punished for it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Semantics matter. Should be addressing these issues without thinly-veiled sociopolitical connotations. They only are fueling the fire.
 
The argument that feminists make is that patriarchy hurts men as much as it does women, by enforcing standards of stereotypical masculinity that are often toxic. It's not masculinity equals bad, it's that our patriarchal society often encourages men to behave in ways that conform to standards that are ultimately harmful, and punishes them for behaving in ways that would be healthier. That's what TOXIC masculinity refers to.
Uh, let me think...
- Lower pay
- Different standards on appearance (make-up, heels, etc)
- Childcare issues and maternity leave, in the USA specifically
- Sexual harassment and rape culture, which as we're now seeing hasn't been dealt with as effectively as we've been led to think
- Shaming women for working and not devoting enough time to parenting
- Studies show that women who act like men in the workplace, e.g. demonstrating assertiveness, are punished for it
Who is this partriarchy and why are they doing these things? Seems like they hurt both men and women.
I believe the argument would be on just how much those barriers have been mitigated.
Well, birth control and tampons have helped significantly. Granted, there are still issues w/r/t balancing parenthood and career which are harder for women to navigate for biological reasons, should they want to do both.
 
Who is this partriarchy and why are they doing these things? Seems like they hurt both men and women.

Well, birth control and tampons have helped significantly. Granted, there are still issues w/r/t balancing parenthood and career which are harder for women to navigate for biological reasons, should they want to do both.

Patriarchy is men having dominated government, the work force, and other positions that essentially allowed them to shape society to place them first and in higher places of authority, and to give women a systematic disadvantage apart from being wives and mothers who have no power to challenge the men in their lives.

Birth control has helped... so if you look at all of the men in government who are trying to eliminate access to it, don't you have to wonder why that is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I don’t think “toxic” and masculinity should go together. Like “privilege,” it’s not helpful language. Certain groups may like it (e.g., feminists and people that play in a social justice warrior space) but, in general I think it’s tagging on a perjorative to something that people associate with men. There is no “toxic” femininity in the national discourse, nor should their be.

Can we agree that there are specific behaviors that society encourages in men that conform with stereotypes about how men "should" act that ultimately harm women and themselves? I don't really care what we call that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
To the later point, I think some argue that the government shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing what it largely a recreational activity. I personally am for it because people who can’t afford bc often make poor decisions and i would rather pay for birth control than abortions or broken children.

That's the initial argument, but a lot of them ultimately want birth control banned because they buy into the junk science that it causes abortions (or that's the reasoning that they give, but as you can probably guess I think that there's a deeper and more insidious motive).
 
What did we all learn in grad school about testing causal relations in the field of psychology? What work has been done on establishing the validity/reliability of the construct of 'the patriarchy?' Is it a specifiable/measurable thing? How do you measure it? How can you posit 'the patriarchy' as a cause (let alone THE sole cause) of things like differences in wages observed between men and women? Does correlation equal causation? Are there variables that are correlated with sex (such as willingness to relocate for a job or differences in agreeableness/assertiveness) that also correlate with differences in salary?Where are the multiple regression equations or path analyses that would allow us to partition variance in the 'dependent' variable attributable to various putative 'causal' variables. Of course, none of this establishes causality, you'd have to have an experiemental design to settle that (and it can't be done due to ethical and practical constraints). This is my problem...all of this is generally accepted as almost a religious article of faith rather than being explicitly examined/challenged in a scientific framework.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That's the initial argument, but a lot of them ultimately want birth control banned because they buy into the junk science that it causes abortions (or that's the reasoning that they give, but as you can probably guess I think that there's a deeper and more insidious motive).
Really?

I’ve always seen it as a question of who pays for it. Where is your insight on intent coming from?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Can we agree that there are specific behaviors that society encourages in men that conform with stereotypes about how men "should" act that ultimately harm women and themselves? I don't really care what we call that.
Sure. But it cuts both ways (the same is true for women). Any virtue--if practiced in excess--becomes a vice (or at least a problem). Too much 'justice?' now you have a tyranny. Too much 'compassion?' now you've enabled an addict to continue abusing drugs.

Perhaps, instead of focusing on (ideologically disparaged a priori)'bad' values (i.e., traditional masculine values, according to APA), we should help people use good judgment to implement their values (e.g., achievement-striving) in moderated, healthy, non-harmful and non-pathological ways.
 
Last edited:
Really?

I’ve always seen it as a question of who pays for it. Where is your insight on intent coming from?

The fact that research demonstrates birth control access decreases abortion, but they push for abstinence only education and decreasing access to birth control (if not outright banning it). Also the fact that they don't push for improved prenatal care or other healthcare measures that would decrease miscarriages and pregnancy complications.

I believe that the pro-life movement in general is about controlling women and making sure that they know their place, and the anti-birth control movement is just one part of that.
 
What did we all learn in grad school about testing causal relations in the field of psychology? What work has been done on establishing the validity/reliability of the construct of 'the patriarchy?' Is it a specifiable/measurable thing? How do you measure it? How can you posit 'the patriarchy' as a cause (let alone THE sole cause) of things like differences in wages observed between men and women? Does correlation equal causation? Are there variables that are correlated with sex (such as willingness to relocate for a job or differences in agreeableness/assertiveness) that also correlate with differences in salary?Where are the multiple regression equations or path analyses that would allow us to partition variance in the 'dependent' variable attributable to various putative 'causal' variables. Of course, none of this establishes causality, you'd have to have an experiemental design to settle that (and it can't be done due to ethical and practical constraints). This is my problem...all of this is generally accepted as almost a religious article of faith rather than being explicitly examined/challenged in a scientific framework.

I mean, it's a sociological concept. If that's why you're not okay with APA talking about it, fine, but I'm seeing people in this thread challenge that it exists at all.
 
I mean, it's a sociological concept. If that's why you're not okay with APA talking about it, fine, but I'm seeing people in this thread challenge that it exists at all.

I think it's more that many people view equality and power as a zero sum game and it's easy to be afraid of things that don't exist. I learned a long time ago that life is so much easier with no fear of imaginary things like god, the baba yaga, or that someone was coming to take my guns or masculinity away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The fact that research demonstrates birth control access decreases abortion, but they push for abstinence only education and decreasing access to birth control (if not outright banning it). Also the fact that they don't push for improved prenatal care or other healthcare measures that would decrease miscarriages and pregnancy complications.

I believe that the pro-life movement in general is about controlling women and making sure that they know their place, and the anti-birth control movement is just one part of that.
That seems pretty black and white. What about people that don’t want to outlaw birth control or abortions but don’t want the government to pay for them?

Labeling and categorizing is incredibly counterproductive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I mean, it's a sociological concept. If that's why you're not okay with APA talking about it, fine, but I'm seeing people in this thread challenge that it exists at all.

Well, that's just plain heresy.
 

Ok, because it's so far only been used to critique arguments on one side of the playing field. I haven't seen the same caution or demands of data to back up such assertions of the "hegemony" of "postmodernism" on college campuses. I think it's fine and dandy to want to know about the basis for certain hypotheses/theories whether or not they are amenable to RCT type control, or more loose sociological constructs, but it's pretty clear that we're pretty selective in which ideas we demand this type of caution or need for data from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Ok, because it's so far only been used to critique arguments on one side of the playing field. I haven't seen the same caution or demands of data to back up such assertions of the "hegemony" of "postmodernism" on college campuses. I think it's fine and dandy to want to know about the basis for certain hypotheses/theories whether or not they are amenable to RCT type control, or more loose sociological constructs, but it's pretty clear that we're pretty selective in which ideas we demand this type of caution or need for data from.
Personally, I've yet to see a proposal for applying the philosophy of science (and scientific methods) to a topic at issue in this forum that I didn't like. Now, as to the feasibility of doing so (and the details), of course there's going to be devilish aspects to the details. Did someone say we SHOULDN'Tutilize a scientific approach to address a topic at issue in this forum or something due to their ideological biases?
 
Ok, because it's so far only been used to critique arguments on one side of the playing field. I haven't seen the same caution or demands of data to back up such assertions of the "hegemony" of "postmodernism" on college campuses. I think it's fine and dandy to want to know about the basis for certain hypotheses/theories whether or not they are amenable to RCT type control, or more loose sociological constructs, but it's pretty clear that we're pretty selective in which ideas we demand this type of caution or need for data from.
Was I labeling or categorizing something, or are you responding to the thread in general?
 
Did someone say we SHOULDN'Tutilize a scientific approach to address a topic at issue in this forum or something due to their ideological biases?

Not at all, just commenting on the things people will blindly accept with a lack of evidence against the things they demand more evidence for.
 
Was I labeling or categorizing something, or are you responding to the thread in general?

In general, the call against it is pretty one-sided.

Also, afternoon meeting time, good luck with this thread all, I assume it will be out of control or in the SPF before I get back.
 
In the context of multiple views of masculinity, yes, it is.
Well, seems like we'd need multiple measures, then or at least a sufficient field of items to capture possible 'sub-factors.' Would be interesting to examine the construct validity of the concept.
 
In general, the call against it is pretty one-sided.

Also, afternoon meeting time, good luck with this thread all, I assume it will be out of control or in the SPF before I get back.
LOL. Have a good meeting.
 
In general, the call against it is pretty one-sided.

Also, afternoon meeting time, good luck with this thread all, I assume it will be out of control or in the SPF before I get back.
Consider me confused based on my limited contributions here today. Maybe I’m confused everyday? o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'll be sure to relay this to all of the women in my life.
The irony is that you treat this as such a trivial point when they were probably two of the defining inventions of the 20th century, significantly contributing to the empowerment of women on a global scale. You were the one who brought up "the last 150 years." Seems to me the last 70 have been a turning point in human society.
Patriarchy is men having dominated government, the work force, and other positions that essentially allowed them to shape society to place them first and in higher places of authority, and to give women a systematic disadvantage apart from being wives and mothers who have no power to challenge the men in their lives.

Birth control has helped... so if you look at all of the men in government who are trying to eliminate access to it, don't you have to wonder why that is?
But is it not possible that highly competent men competed their way to the top of these organizations? Why does it have to be about dominance and power? Did those few "powerful" men dominate (via the "oppressive patriarchy") the remaining majority of other men who are also not in positions of "power"?

I don't recall arranged marriage being a major feature of American culture over the past 250 years. So why would women choose to live with men who would cast them in such a narrow role? Is it not possible that they made conscious, mutual decisions for the betterment of their family? Is there something wrong with being a wife and a mother? I'd argue there's a lot to be admired about that role.

As for your BC point, I don't think "all of the men in government" ARE "trying to eliminate access to it." Do you really think our government is so functional that all the men in congress are able to engage in a grand conspiracy to dominate women by banning birth control?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
But that’s what republicans want to do. Control women. Oppress minorities. They’re overly masculine, violent war-hawks, who are sexist and racist and want to perpetuate white male dominance over society so they don’t lose their privilege.
I only rarely engage in this sort of thread. When I do, it's with the goal of either having my mind changed or changing someone else's mind. I don't find creating strawman extreme positions in a mocking fashion to be conducive to that goal. Nor do I have much sympathy for Republicans.

Granted, I haven't represented my position perfectly ITT.
 
The irony is that you treat this as such a trivial point when they were probably two of the defining inventions of the 20th century, significantly contributing to the empowerment of women on a global scale. You were the one who brought up "the last 150 years." Seems to me the last 70 have been a turning point in human society.

But is it not possible that highly competent men competed their way to the top of these organizations? Why does it have to be about dominance and power? Did those few "powerful" men dominate (via the "oppressive patriarchy") the remaining majority of other men who are also not in positions of "power"?

I don't recall arranged marriage being a major feature of American culture over the past 250 years. So why would women choose to live with men who would cast them in such a narrow role? Is it not possible that they made conscious, mutual decisions for the betterment of their family? Is there something wrong with being a wife and a mother? I'd argue there's a lot to be admired about that role.

As for your BC point, I don't think "all of the men in government" ARE "trying to eliminate access to it." Do you really think our government is so functional that all the men in congress are able to engage in a grand conspiracy to dominate women by banning birth control?

I could have phrased that better - I meant to say look at all of the men who are trying to, not that all of the men are. Hope that the difference in phrasing makes as much sense to you as it does to me, heh.

Also, I'm guessing that men who allowed more flexibility in gender roles during marriage were few and far between. There's nothing wrong with being a wife and mother, but it was a role that was forced onto women and we weren't supposed to question it.

I'm not going to respond to the comments about the pro life movement - I don't want this thread moved to SPF and there's no way that won't happen if it continues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ok, because it's so far only been used to critique arguments on one side of the playing field. I haven't seen the same caution or demands of data to back up such assertions of the "hegemony" of "postmodernism" on college campuses. I think it's fine and dandy to want to know about the basis for certain hypotheses/theories whether or not they are amenable to RCT type control, or more loose sociological constructs, but it's pretty clear that we're pretty selective in which ideas we demand this type of caution or need for data from.

There was a fairly recent article (2015) in the Association for Psychological Science (APS) Journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences entitled, 'Political diversity will improve social psychological science." They presented evidence in support of four claims: 1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years; 2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods; 3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority's thinking; and 4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination.

Their focus in son the social psychology subspecialty...I'd be intrigued by any available data from clinical (I'm not currently aware of any).

I also appreciate the patience of the moderators as well as the bravery of everyone coontributing to this thread because these are topics that are not often discussed in 'mainstream' circles.

Duarte, J.L., et al. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 130, 1-58.

If you just search the title of the paper, pdf is available free online

It's a start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I could have phrased that better - I meant to say look at all of the men who are trying to, not that all of the men are. Hope that the difference in phrasing makes as much sense to you as it does to me, heh.

Also, I'm guessing that men who allowed more flexibility in gender roles during marriage were few and far between. There's nothing wrong with being a wife and mother, but it was a role that was forced onto women and we weren't supposed to question it.

I'm not going to respond to the comments about the pro life movement - I don't want this thread moved to SPF and there's no way that won't happen if it continues.

Life was difficult for women and men 50-150 years ago, but their lives were difficult in slightly different ways. Most people fail to acknowledge that life was difficult for BOTH. Sure, historically, men have had more rights, but men also had more dangerous responsibilities. Arguably, they had these responsibilities because of their biology (strength). For a long time, only (or primarily) men went to war and risked and lost their lives. Men (only or primarily) did the dangerous, difficult, and unsafe, work. We know who hunted and who gathered. Women had few rights but they also had responsibilities that were less risky. Women's biology largely dictated their role as well. The inability to control pregnancy overall, the timing of pregnancy, the lack of decent medical care, and sometimes the necessity to have children to help with work, meant that women were going to be shut out of a more public life.

Men are not perfect but I don't care if it was 100 years ago or today men try their best to take on risk to protect women and children. This has always been the case and I hope it never changes.
 
From the Vox article I posted earlier, which was trying to explain why white women vote republican. This is a political article. And, it sounds a lot like the male psychotherapy guidelines article from APA. To me, this is the language of the progressive left. To its logical end, the conclusion is men are bad, white people are bad. Vote Democrat!! Here are some quotes.

And while there were many thrilling, historic wins for progressive women and women of color in particular in the 2018 midterms, as well as data showing that some white women are peeling away from Trump, white women overall rendered more disappointment.

75 percent of white women—more even than white men!—voted for Republican Brian Kemp, who is passionately pro-life, over Stacey Abrams, a staunch protector of women’s reproductive rights,

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, a supporter of alleged assaulters President Trump and Brett Kavanaugh, over Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who is dedicated to improving women’s health care

The numbers were similar in the Florida governor’s race, where 51 percent of white women voted for Republican Ron DeSantis, who has voted against equal pay and the Violence Against Women Act, instead of Democrat Andrew Gillum, who wanted to protect no-cost birth control in the state

Note, maybe some women don't see these things as anti-women? Or, maybe they vote based on other concerns of how government works?

The numbers are disheartening and disappointing and, for some progressive white women, shame inducing, that they are part of a demographic that has the power to decide key elections but continually uses it in favor of candidates whose policies are anti-women.

Note, the group identity argument for shame. I don't give a rip that Jeffery Dahmer was white. I don't feel shame because of that. Why should skin color drive this shame?

We theorize and spitball: Are they so invested in their own white privilege that they simply don’t care about other women? Are they parroting their Republican husbands

Ah, there's the racist, privilege argument and diminishment of women's ability to decide to support something other than a progressive democrat.

t
he rest of us shouldn’t be shocked, because if history serves, there is plenty of precedent for white women protecting their own power and status.

Yep, all identity. All the time. We can explain everything by race and gender.

Society at large tends to make an assumption about white women voters—that because they are oppressed by white men and the patriarchy they will stand with progressive social movements and rally in solidarity with the underrepresented.

How many of you feel oppressed by white men and the patriarchy?

Time and time again some of them have proven that they identify more strongly as Southerners or Christians or GOP members than they do as women—and they vote accordingly, even if and when that vote negatively impacts not only them (voting against equal pay) and their families (paid leave, affordable child care), but women in poverty, women of color, and queer women.

Wait, so women might see other values as important? Maybe, they might have opinions about, I don't know, how the government should be structured, or taxes. . . No. That can't be right. How dare they?

It’s tempting, in light of all this, to want to give up on white women. But even if we see history for what it is and adjust our expectations accordingly, the fact remains that white women make up a voting bloc that is too massive to ignore or simply write off. In both the 2016 general race and the 2018 midterms, white women made up approximately 37 percent of the electorate—more than all black, Latino, and other voters of color combined. Progressives may have no choice but to unglue from the face-palm position and try to connect with white women voters in the hopes of expanding their coalition.

Payne is in the somewhat tricky position of explaining what she has learned, without justifying their actions or denying the white privilege that is certainly at play for some. She says that while some see white women’s overwhelming tendency to vote for the GOP as a personal, moral failure, she believes it is a systemic problem, the result of a yarn ball of issues, including women voters having a lack of information and living with close ties to conservative men in communities that bleed red.

White women in rural, small-town, and suburban America are connected to and surrounded by more conservative white men—fathers, husbands, pastors, uncles, brothers” who they are inclined to vote in tandem with, Payne says. Especially when those same men often “control the clicker”—tuned to Fox News, of course—and women, busy doing the lion’s share of domestic labor, tune out and end up with a lack of information about politics.

So, they're being oppressed and they're stupid.

“They are swimming in the deep end of white male patriarchy,” says Payne.

I asked Payne why white women in prickly, patriarchal districts don’t just secretly cast blue ballots. Anecdotally, she says she’d been told that some do, while others plan to vote Democrat (and even tell pollsters as much) but at the final hour they fold. “These women aren’t talking to one another about what feels wrong,” Payne says. “Their perception is that they’re alone and it reinforces thinking ‘I’mwrong.’”

There are white women voters who willingly, and with all the information at their disposal, cast their votes in favor of politicians who blatantly do not have any of their best interests in mind.
Personally, I don't think that political ideology (of any stripe) belongs in psychotherapy. I think we're supposed to facilitate our clients'--as individuals--process of discovering and articulatting for themselves, as individuals, what their values are and how to enact them in their lives. It's not my job to steer them Left or Right politically. It's not my job to tell a female client how to be a woman any more than it would be the job of a female therapist to tell her male client how to be a man...the very idea is just bizarre to me. Parenthetically, social media appears to me to be making everybody sicker and more distressed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top