APA Guidelines

[Sushirolls]

---

Members do not see this ad.

The American Psychological Association has gone too far.

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf

In our modern era of cultural sensitivity, and pursuit of cultural competence this publication is a direct assault upon the culture of a large swath of America. The calls for changing (and pathologizing) some social norms, risks disenfranchising a large chunk of the very people they want to assist. Now many will further reject the help of mental health professionals due to their insensitivity towards their culture.

Our jobs are to meet patients where they are, assess their goals and what they want to achieve. Not set out to wage a culture war of conformity to a separate belief structure. We had been making progress with LGBTQ community, as evidenced by the transitions from DSM-II to DSM-5 content.

It's mind boggling the left leaning academia machine and how far they are just jumping the shark. This is risking the integrity of academia and its pursuit of truth. Here is an article highlighting publications of fake articles with extreme left leaning agendas and how there are significant cracks in the foundations of academia.

What the New Sokal Hoax Reveals About Academia - The Atlantic

 

[WisNeuro]

Thy hysteria and reporting about this report is far out ahead of anything actually contained in the guidelines. I'd urge people to actually read the document before blindly listening to internet/podcast demagogues.

 

[Old&InTheWay]

The American Psychological Association has gone too far.

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf

In our modern era of cultural sensitivity, and pursuit of cultural competence this publication is a direct assault upon the culture of a large swath of America. The calls for changing (and pathologizing) some social norms, risks disenfranchising a large chunk of the very people they want to assist. Now many will further reject the help of mental health professionals due to their insensitivity towards their culture.

Our jobs are to meet patients where they are, assess their goals and what they want to achieve. Not set out to wage a culture war of conformity to a separate belief structure. We had been making progress with LGBTQ community, as evidenced by the transitions from DSM-II to DSM-5 content.

It's mind boggling the left leaning academia machine and how far they are just jumping the shark. This is risking the integrity of academia and its pursuit of truth. Here is an article highlighting publications of fake articles with extreme left leaning agendas and how there are significant cracks in the foundations of academia.

What the New Sokal Hoax Reveals About Academia - The Atlantic

I don't see any calls to change social norms or cultural assault in the linked APA guidelines, and I would be curious to know exactly what you object to. In fact, what I read is that they are asking psychologists to (as you suggest should be the goal) meet patients where they are, to recognize there are many ways to be male, and to acknowledge some of the particular challenges men face. I don't see how the Atlantic article you link to is in any way relevant.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't see any calls to change social norms or cultural assault in the linked APA guidelines, and I would be curious to know exactly what you object to. In fact, what I read is that they are asking psychologists to (as you suggest should be the goal) meet patients where they are, to recognize there are many ways to be male, and to acknowledge some of the particular challenges men face. I don't see how the Atlantic article you link to is in any way relevant.

Pretty much sums up my read of the guidelines when I read it a week or so ago. It's a call for consideration, not a mandate of what to do in therapy. In stark contrast to what the fear/hysteria/hype machine are pumping out there.

 

[wolfvgang22]

The only Hysteria worth listening to is by Def Leppard. All my privileged cis gendered friends agree, as well as my other friends.

 

[clausewitz2]

The American Psychological Association has gone too far.

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf

In our modern era of cultural sensitivity, and pursuit of cultural competence this publication is a direct assault upon the culture of a large swath of America. The calls for changing (and pathologizing) some social norms, risks disenfranchising a large chunk of the very people they want to assist. Now many will further reject the help of mental health professionals due to their insensitivity towards their culture.

Our jobs are to meet patients where they are, assess their goals and what they want to achieve. Not set out to wage a culture war of conformity to a separate belief structure. We had been making progress with LGBTQ community, as evidenced by the transitions from DSM-II to DSM-5 content.

It's mind boggling the left leaning academia machine and how far they are just jumping the shark. This is risking the integrity of academia and its pursuit of truth. Here is an article highlighting publications of fake articles with extreme left leaning agendas and how there are significant cracks in the foundations of academia.

What the New Sokal Hoax Reveals About Academia - The Atlantic

I am struggling to use identify what in particular you are responding to apart from maybe the idea that gender is socially constructed?

Hard to discuss in the abstract.

 

[dl2dp2]

This is why I enjoy the medicalization of psychiatry. You are posting on the wrong forum. Psychiatrists are medical doctors and American PSYCHOLOGICAL Association guidelines are basically not relevant to us.

 

[Sushirolls]

I don't see any calls to change social norms or cultural assault in the linked APA guidelines, and I would be curious to know exactly what you object to. In fact, what I read is that they are asking psychologists to (as you suggest should be the goal) meet patients where they are, to recognize there are many ways to be male, and to acknowledge some of the particular challenges men face. I don't see how the Atlantic article you link to is in any way relevant.

The article is to draw attention to the ease of which sociological and psychological publications have lowered their integrity for publishing biased research. This is meant to raise suspicion of publications like these guidelines. The researchers in that Atlantic article have given interviews, even to entities like NPR and were quite intriguing about the implications which I encourage others to explore.

This is why I enjoy the medicalization of psychiatry. You are posting on the wrong forum. Psychiatrists are medical doctors and American PSYCHOLOGICAL Association guidelines are basically not relevant to us.

There is substantial overlap between Psychology, Psychiatry, Advanced Practice Nursing, Social workers, etc. This is further reinforced by the minority of patients having any knowledge of what the differences are. I'm more surprised when patients reference their previous provider as a nurse practitioner, usually they just say, "oh, yeah I was working with Doctor Suchand Such." A minority of patients also have any knowledge of the differences between PsyD/PhD/LICSW/LMHC (and a nod to WisNeuro what a Neuropsychologist is). This is part of the reason why its worth discussing here.

Another reason is the body of published literature isn't always cited based on specialty/field divisions but by subject matter. This is a subject matter pertinent to psychiatry, too.

I do share in your optimism of the medicalization of Psychiatry as a buffer.

 

[Sushirolls]

Pretty much sums up my read of the guidelines when I read it a week or so ago. It's a call for consideration, not a mandate of what to do in therapy. In stark contrast to what the fear/hysteria/hype machine are pumping out there.

I hope more people have your take on it. Unfortunately, my assessment falls more in the "fear/hysteria/hype" category as you've labeled it.

 

[hebel]

The American Psychological Association has gone too far.

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf

In our modern era of cultural sensitivity, and pursuit of cultural competence this publication is a direct assault upon the culture of a large swath of America. The calls for changing (and pathologizing) some social norms, risks disenfranchising a large chunk of the very people they want to assist. Now many will further reject the help of mental health professionals due to their insensitivity towards their culture.

Our jobs are to meet patients where they are, assess their goals and what they want to achieve. Not set out to wage a culture war of conformity to a separate belief structure. We had been making progress with LGBTQ community, as evidenced by the transitions from DSM-II to DSM-5 content.

It's mind boggling the left leaning academia machine and how far they are just jumping the shark. This is risking the integrity of academia and its pursuit of truth. Here is an article highlighting publications of fake articles with extreme left leaning agendas and how there are significant cracks in the foundations of academia.

What the New Sokal Hoax Reveals About Academia - The Atlantic

Ancedotedly, my Facebook feed leans pretty conservative and over the past few weeks I've seen some conservative/Christian blogs linked by relatives which use this document along with the recent Gillette commercial as openers to their posts addressing masculinity.

Generally, the tone often seems to paint psychologists and psychiatrists in a negative light using these guidelines as the basis...(e.g. mental health is pushing an anti-masculine, pro-gay agenda).

 

[WisNeuro]

I hope more people have your take on it. Unfortunately, my assessment falls more in the "fear/hysteria/hype" category as you've labeled it.

Simply, why? As @Old&InTheWay asked, what specifically do you object to? I've asked this to many people who have raised objections to the guidelines, but have yet to have anyone actually cite a specific passage they object to.

 

[Sushirolls]

Simply, why? As @Old&InTheWay asked, what specifically do you object to? I've asked this to many people who have raised objections to the guidelines, but have yet to have anyone actually cite a specific passage they object to.

Page 1: "These guidelines serve to (a) improve service delivery among populations, (b) stimulate public policy initiatives, and (c) provide professional guidance based on advances in the field."
This entire document implies pathology in the collective soup of mainstay American framework of masculinity. Stimulating policy infers there needs to be changes. Providing professional guidance means systematizing a layer of authority to the insinuated advances, which as noted in the Atlantic article has suffered a blow to integrity.

The archetypes of masculinity can run afoul to numerous people in the world based upon the lens they view it. There is no ideal, or perfect definition of masculinity. These guidelines pathologize it and that is what's so inherently wrong with them. You ask a Sikh man, Pakistani, Cambodian, Japanese, Russian, Moroccan, etc who they would identify as their archetype male? You will get a wide variety of answers.

 

[WisNeuro]

Page 1: "These guidelines serve to (a) improve service delivery among populations, (b) stimulate public policy initiatives, and (c) provide professional guidance based on advances in the field."
This entire document implies pathology in the collective soup of mainstay American framework of masculinity. Stimulating policy infers there needs to be changes. Providing professional guidance means systematizing a layer of authority to the insinuated advances, which as noted in the Atlantic article has suffered a blow to integrity.

The archetypes of masculinity can run afoul to numerous people in the world based upon the lens they view it. There is no ideal, or perfect definition of masculinity. These guidelines pathologize it and that is what's so inherently wrong with them. You ask a Sikh man, Pakistani, Cambodian, Japanese, Russian, Moroccan, etc who they would identify as their archetype male? You will get a wide variety of answers.

You clearly have not read most of the document. As was alluded to earlier, it talks about multiple definitions of masculinity, and states that there are possible harmful aspects of some definitions of masculinity, not masculinity in totality.

 

[WisNeuro]

Arent’t these the people that okayed torture at GITMO? The American psychological association is a joke and should be disbanded imo. Pay no heed to their “ethics” as their ethics are up to the highest bidder

HA! Remember when the other APA called homosexuality a mental illness? Good times from people throwing stones in glass houses.

 

[WisNeuro]

Arent’t these the people that okayed torture at GITMO? The American psychological association is a joke and should be disbanded imo. Pay no heed to their “ethics” as their ethics are up to the highest bidder

Oh hey, or what about recent past presidents accepting kickbacks and bribes from pharma?

By the way, I'm fine with moving forward and discussing what's best for our mutual patient population rather than a needless pissing contest about which association has made the worse ethical missteps by leadership in the past.

 

[Old&InTheWay]

Page 1: "These guidelines serve to (a) improve service delivery among populations, (b) stimulate public policy initiatives, and (c) provide professional guidance based on advances in the field."
This entire document implies pathology in the collective soup of mainstay American framework of masculinity. Stimulating policy infers there needs to be changes. Providing professional guidance means systematizing a layer of authority to the insinuated advances, which as noted in the Atlantic article has suffered a blow to integrity.

The archetypes of masculinity can run afoul to numerous people in the world based upon the lens they view it. There is no ideal, or perfect definition of masculinity. These guidelines pathologize it and that is what's so inherently wrong with them. You ask a Sikh man, Pakistani, Cambodian, Japanese, Russian, Moroccan, etc who they would identify as their archetype male? You will get a wide variety of answers.

I can't figure out where exactly you feel it implies pathology or makes any comment (positive or negative ) on particular frameworks of masculinity. And in fact, it aligns wonderfully with your own expressed ideals of recognizing that there is no one "right" way to be or express masculinity.

From page 6-7: "Psychologists are encouraged to expand their knowledge about diverse masculinities and to help boys and men, and those who have contact with them (e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, religious leaders, and other community figures), become aware of how masculinity is defined in the context of their life circumstances. Psychologists aspire to help boys and men over their lifetimes navigate restrictive definitions of masculinity and create their own concepts of what it means to be male, although it should be emphasized that expression of masculine gender norms may not be seen as essential for those who hold a male gender identity."​

 

[Sushirolls]

I can't figure out where exactly you feel it implies pathology or makes any comment (positive or negative ) on particular frameworks of masculinity. And in fact, it aligns wonderfully with your own expressed ideals of recognizing that there is no one "right" way to be or express masculinity.

From page 6-7: "Psychologists are encouraged to expand their knowledge about diverse masculinities and to help boys and men, and those who have contact with them (e.g., parents, teachers, coaches, religious leaders, and other community figures), become aware of how masculinity is defined in the context of their life circumstances. Psychologists aspire to help boys and men over their lifetimes navigate restrictive definitions of masculinity and create their own concepts of what it means to be male, although it should be emphasized that expression of masculine gender norms may not be seen as essential for those who hold a male gender identity."​

Why are definitions restrictive? Why are they not just definitions? These subtle implications on not lost on many people, and is part of why these guidelines are drawing the ire of people.

 

[clausewitz2]

Why are definitions restrictive? Why are they not just definitions? These subtle implications on not lost on many people, and is part of why these guidelines are drawing the ire of people.

I don't think there's anything subtle about it but I also don't understand what you are trying to say. First you say that there a bunch of different ideals of masculinity and that is why the guidelines are bad, but then you say that it is bad that they are saying there are many ways to be masculine?

I am really confused as to what your position here is, no fooling.

It would be helpful if you stated a clear thesis or specific objection or argument rather than vaguely hinting about the left going too far. Can you try and specify the way in which you feel they have done so?

I think the recent hoax imbroglio was an asinine stunt and I am not sure the quality of low-tier psychiatry journals is so high that we should be throwing stones here either. Just because it has a p value doesn't mean it's not a steaming pile of garbage. You have to give psychology credit for really trying to come to grips with that basic unfortunate fact.

 

[wolfvgang22]

I do feel these guidelines are themselves confusing and unecessecarily polarizing. They explicitly take the stance that psychologists should spread a very inclusive understanding of masculinity and gender in the community. To me that is telling the community what their values should be. But then at the same time the guidelines express a patient centered approach of merely supporting the individual patient's values and identity. Shouldn't the guidelines just have this latter part, and eschew the former, and thus avoid all the drama?

 

[WisNeuro]

But then at the same time the guidelines express a patient centered approach of merely supporting the individual patient's values and identity. Shouldn't the guidelines just have this latter part, and eschew the former, and thus avoid all the drama?

I think the guidelines suggest a recognition of negative parts of a social construct of masculinity that can serve to lead to negative outcomes. In my past work with PTSD treatment, this is a very salient issue with many Vets. I don't see the issue with supporting an individual's view of what a social construct means to them, as well as acknowledging some of the negative aspects of some social constructs and how it can impact our mental health.

 

[Old&InTheWay]

Why are definitions restrictive? Why are they not just definitions? These subtle implications on not lost on many people, and is part of why these guidelines are drawing the ire of people.

Definitions are restrictive when society implicitly or explicitly tells you that that’s the only way to be. As you state above, there is not one definition (or archetype) of masculinity. People should be encouraged and supported in exercising their agency in defining themselves.

 

[dl2dp2]

There is substantial overlap between Psychology, Psychiatry, Advanced Practice Nursing, Social workers, etc. This is further reinforced by the minority of patients having any knowledge of what the differences are. I'm more surprised when patients reference their previous provider as a nurse practitioner, usually they just say, "oh, yeah I was working with Doctor Suchand Such." A minority of patients also have any knowledge of the differences between PsyD/PhD/LICSW/LMHC (and a nod to WisNeuro what a Neuropsychologist is). This is part of the reason why its worth discussing here.

Another reason is the body of published literature isn't always cited based on specialty/field divisions but by subject matter. This is a subject matter pertinent to psychiatry, too.

I do share in your optimism of the medicalization of Psychiatry as a buffer.

This is false: as it is practiced, there is VERY little overlap in the average daily life of an average psychiatrist and an average psychologist. There may be some overlap with PNP, though more in the sense that NPs and PAs might have some overlap with physicians in other specialties. Psychologists are more similar to say respiratory physiologist or physical therapists or speech pathologist or occupational therapist: independent licensure, independence training pathway, different core content of practice.

The fact that patients don’t know better doesn’t make any difference. Patients don’t know what’s the difference between a physical therapist and a physiatrist. Or a radiologist from a radiation technician. Doesn’t mean they aren’t completely and utterly different jobs.

A guideline for how a physical therapist might carry out certain types of physical therapy is not particularly relevant to an orthopedic surgeon. Maybe for some subspecialist affectionados but largely irrelevant for most of the people here.

Frankly people have no idea what psychiatrists deal with on a day to day basis: we deal with very often with very sick people who are psychotic and suicidal or severely addicted or children who have severe behavioral problems, or severe personality disorders. The issues mentioned in this document are kind of too quaint frankly. By definition people who see a psychiatrist are on psych meds. And most of garden variety psych meds are managed by primary care now. Community psychiatrists tend to see refractory cases as a median case load.

If you are talking about a small number of a “lucky few” who practice psychoanalytic psychiatry, sure maybe this is a worthwhile discussion. But just keep in mind that field is dwindling, and fast.

 

[clausewitz2]

This is false: as it is practiced, there is VERY little overlap in the average daily life of an average psychiatrist and an average psychologist. There may be some overlap with PNP, though more in the sense that NPs and PAs might have some overlap with physicians in other specialties. Psychologists are more similar to say respiratory physiologist or physical therapists or speech pathologist or occupational therapist: independent licensure, independence training pathway, different core content of practice.

The fact that patients don’t know better doesn’t make any difference. Patients don’t know what’s the difference between a physical therapist and a physiatrist. Or a radiologist from a radiation technician. Doesn’t mean they aren’t completely and utterly different jobs.

A guideline for how a physical therapist might carry out certain types of physical therapy is not particularly relevant to an orthopedic surgeon. Maybe for some subspecialist affectionados but largely irrelevant for most of the people here.

Frankly people have no idea what psychiatrists deal with on a day to day basis: we deal with very often with very sick people who are psychotic and suicidal or severely addicted or children who have severe behavioral problems, or severe personality disorders. The issues mentioned in this document are kind of too quaint frankly. By definition people who see a psychiatrist are on psych meds. And most of garden variety psych meds are managed by primary care now. Community psychiatrists tend to see refractory cases as a median case load.

If you are talking about a small number of a “lucky few” who practice psychoanalytic psychiatry, sure maybe this is a worthwhile discussion. But just keep in mind that field is dwindling, and fast.

I think the better analogy is between physical therapists and PM&R docs, honestly. They are different jobs, but it is actually pretty important for physiatrists to have a good grasp on how physical therapy works theoretically and practically. If they don't have some understanding it is going to be very hard for them to adequately care for their patients, and I think similarly that as a psychiatrist if you don't really understand much about psychology things are not going to go so well for you and your patients.

I definitely agree about the populations that tend to differentiate the two professions on a daily basis, but it is important to note that, especially in academia, there are definitely psychologists who work with the mentally ill as well. I work directly with psychologists multiple times a week at present on an inpatient psychosis unit. It is also fair to point out that plenty of outpatient psychiatrist see affluent depranxious people who probably would do fine with therapy alone; remember the thread a while back describing that one guy who was seeing three established patients for five minutes at the top of every hour? If that is actually adequate time it is very close to the equivalent of going to a cardiologist to get HCTZ for essential HTN.

How do you work with severe personality disorders without working with psychologists or getting significant psychological training yourself?

I don't think the allied health professions are a good comparison for the psychology-psychiatry relationship. It might fit a bit more for master's-level therapists but even then it's not a great fit.

I guess what I'm saying is that analogies to physical health don't necessarily work out as well as we would like them to if we want to maintain we are basically just a kind of physician and nothing more than that.

 

[michaelrack]

If that is actually adequate time it is very close to the equivalent of going to a cardiologist to get HCTZ for essential HTN.

This is actually fairly common

 

[clausewitz2]

This is actually fairly common

Yes, and I'm sure lots of people in some places get seen by an endocrinologist for metformin that adequately manages T2DM, but this is a function of overproduction of specialists in the American medical training system and not really a desirable state of affairs. More importantly for the point I was making, I think, the cardiologist cannot say "oh, I see much sicker people than you, family med guy, so your job is nothing like mine" if HTN on HCTZ is a significant proportion of what he deals with on the daily.

 

[michaelrack]

Yes, and I'm sure lots of people in some places get seen by an endocrinologist for metformin that adequately manages T2DM, but this is a function of overproduction of specialists in the American medical training system and not really a desirable state of affairs. More importantly for the point I was making, I think, the cardiologist cannot say "oh, I see much sicker people than you, family med guy, so your job is nothing like mine" if HTN on HCTZ is a significant proportion of what he deals with on the daily.

I agree ( excluding interventioal and EP cardiologists)

 

[dl2dp2]

Yes, and I'm sure lots of people in some places get seen by an endocrinologist for metformin that adequately manages T2DM, but this is a function of overproduction of specialists in the American medical training system and not really a desirable state of affairs. More importantly for the point I was making, I think, the cardiologist cannot say "oh, I see much sicker people than you, family med guy, so your job is nothing like mine" if HTN on HCTZ is a significant proportion of what he deals with on the daily.

Sure, but I would argue that the difference between a primary care physician and a cardiologist on this issue is much much smaller than the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist. A cardiologist, by definition, is someone who has completed training and can become a primary care physician (perhaps with some slight refresher) if he or she chooses. The guidelines written for a primary care audience may be more useful for a cardiologist. Similarly, a guideline written for a general psychiatrist may be useful for a child psychiatrist. And vice versa--do practicing psychologists really read that (now outdated) AP(hysiatric)A guidelines on how to medicate bipolar patients? Is that really useful? Maybe as a cursory review if you are "academic" and see bipolar patients, but anything beyond that? Do psychologists really have any relevant input on these guidelines? Does anyone even care?

I think it's silly on most practical levels to say that a practice guideline for a physical therapist is reviewed and used to any great extent by a physiatrist. Personally, I have not reviewed ANY guidelines by American Psychological Association in my training or practice, and don't think any such documents would bear any significant relevance to me. I would claim that this is the case for the VAST majority of practicing psychiatrists out there.

Another way to think about this is like medical physicists and rad onc. Rad oncs can do more doxiometry training and learn more physics, if they want to further specialize. Psychiatrists can do more specialized training in therapy, maybe on transgender issues or couples therapy or whatever. But at the end of the day, these are distinct jobs. The guidelines are not really relevant and kind of outside of the scope of practice. Frankly I don't think most psychiatrists input on that set of guideline are very useful (or more useful in any case than any lay person). Should psychiatrists have any useful input on how to do couples therapy? Come on, we got out of that game a LONG time ago--or in the case of couples and family therapy, never in that game in the first place very much... This is clearly fruitless. Psychiatry is going in a completely different direction. We are writing guidelines on INFUSIONS, DEPOT MEDS, TMS, and DEVICES.

 

[FlowRate]

"Each of these social identities contributes uniquely and in intersecting ways to shape how men experience and perform their masculinities, which in turn contribute to relational, psychological, and behavioral health outcomes in both positive and negative ways. Although boys and men, as a group, tend to hold privilege and power based on gender."

It's a straight-up attempt to further legitimize grievance studies as being relevant to the practice of psychology. The complete lack of academic integrity in this field is shocking and I'm appalled that somehow it's infiltrated official APA publications. They literally make stuff up to fit a narrative and then citation launder their existing body of "scholarship" into pseudo-legitimacy. Part of the problem is that there are plenty of ideas worth exploring/studying within this ideology but because ideology is placed before science, things like the above bolded statement are presented as fact when they're actually nuanced, complicated, or even untrue in addition to being ambiguous. For instance, maybe some (exceptional) men hold (somewhat again arbitrary and ambigous) positions of "power and privilege," because of their qualities as people, not their gender...

Short video
Long video

It's a strange weaponized left version of identity politics. It's much more insidious than right identity politics which makes it harder to combat. Both are dangerous in that they reduce the world to identity groups which is inherently tribalistic/antagonistic.

So no, I'm not surprised extreme right groups are seeing this for what it is. One would expect their reaction to be extreme because that's what they do...

 

[Shufflin]

I think the better analogy is between physical therapists and PM&R docs, honestly. They are different jobs, but it is actually pretty important for physiatrists to have a good grasp on how physical therapy works...

I have yet to meet a lay person (non-physician) who knows what a physiatrist or PM&R or even a physical medicine and rehabilitation doctor is. Not kidding.

 

[clausewitz2]

I have yet to meet a lay person (non-physician) who knows what a physiatrist or PM&R or even a physical medicine and rehabilitation doctor is. Not kidding.

The only one I met who knows this used a wheelchair, so...

 

[ridethecliche]

APA? I think I prefer MLA if we're being honest.

 

[WisNeuro]

APA? I think I prefer MLA if we're being honest.

I'm a Turabian man, myself.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

The call to masculinity can, indeed, be toxic...when it leads to violence, particularly. I counseled a veteran today who was going over a road-rage incident with me and who--by all accounts (well, I only had his account)--was simply standing up to a bully. He was right. The guy was a bully. He actually had 'balls' (plastic testicles) suspended off the rear bumper of his car and tried to run the veteran off the road. It was Texas. He showed me the video of the incident his wife had recorded on her cell phone. He (the veteran) was screaming profanities at the offending motorist and egging him on. The veteran even slammed on his breaks (while the motorist was behind him) in what was, objectively, an aggressive action (but, of course, answered by aggressive action on the part of the veteran). I tried to walk the veteran through a review of the events to help him gain some awareness of each step of the escalation toward violence and his part in adding to the tension. He was, of course, blind to it. I tried to explore the origin of his anger, Socratically, and he was 'along for the ride' but having a hard time acknowledging that he was enraged and escalating the situation needlessly.

This is where I'm likely to get some flak from the room, and I'm fine for it. Jung had a great observation, something along the lines of, "Everyone lives out a story, and it's important to understand what your story (that you're living out) is...because it just might be a TRAGEDY...and maybe you don't want it to be." Men who seek a violent solution to complex problems are living out a simple (but tragic) story.

I think that's the spot a lot of men (particularly, 'traditional' men) find themselves in, these days. There is a lot to admire about 'traditional masculinity,' at least how I define it. I consider, for example, Andy Griffith, traditionally masculine. The 'sheriff without a gun.' The masculine impulse without the violence. I think a lot of people, particularly male veterans, get violence confused with masculinity. There is a place for violence, and it is a very narrow space. It is only appropriate to a situation in which there is no alternative and in which you or those you love are threatened with violence.

 

[WisNeuro]

There is a place for violence, and it is a very narrow space. It is only appropriate to a situation in which there is no alternative and in which you or those you love are threatened with violence.

The problem is, in one aspect of traditional masculinity as it is seen in many segments of our current culture, the place for violence is a much more broad space. Additionally, this pressure has both damaging aspects within a person, as well as to other people that violence is thrust upon. Which, is the exact purpose of the guidelines. Being cognizant of the many ways in which masculinity is defined and how some of those definitions are harmful to self and others.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I think we can agree here. A broad space for violence is not masculine, in essence. Masculinity is about the positive qualities of taking responsibility for what happens in 'your space' (generally, your self and your actions).

 

[WisNeuro]

I think we can agree here. A broad space for violence is not masculine, in essence. Masculinity is about the positive qualities of taking responsibility for what happens in 'your space' (generally, your self and your actions).

True, but your definition of "masculine" may not be the prevailing view, or even a regional/local view depending on the makeup of that area. Which is why I am ok with these guidelines. After training/working at 4 VAs in 3 distinct geographic regions, I've seen textbook examples of toxic masculinity. It's not doing the mental health of the person holding those views any favors, and how they exhibit that view of masculinity has generally lead to problems in social and occupational settings for that person, and in a not insignificant number, trouble with the law. I don't see the problem with simply acknowledging this in some individuals as the guidelines propose.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

True, but your definition of "masculine" may not be the prevailing view, or even a regional/local view depending on the makeup of that area. Which is why I am ok with these guidelines. After training/working at 4 VAs in 3 distinct geographic regions, I've seen textbook examples of toxic masculinity. It's not doing the mental health of the person holding those views any favors, and how they exhibit that view of masculinity has generally lead to problems in social and occupational settings for that person, and in a not insignificant number, trouble with the law. I don't see the problem with simply acknowledging this in some individuals as the guidelines propose.

I, too, see no problem with simply acknowledging that some extreme misinterpretations of 'masculinity' are a problem. My personal history with my father and other masculine figures in my life have been generally positive. I also see no problem in that reality.

 

[WisNeuro]

I, too, see no problem with simply acknowledging that some extreme misinterpretations of 'masculinity' are a problem. My personal history with my father and other masculine figures in my life have been generally positive. I also see no problem in that reality.

I think we may disagree with the extent to which the toxic issues are "extreme," at least in the frequency in which they are causing problems in population. I see it as a somewhat pervasive issue. I assume you do not.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I do not. I see the absence of traditionally positive masculine qualities in society to be a problem. I am sure that we disagree.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I also do not understand the reason for conflict. Masculine and feminine should be complements, not enemies.

 

[WisNeuro]

I do not. I see the absence of traditionally positive masculine qualities in society to be a problem. I am sure that we disagree.

I think the differences in what people view as positive masculine qualities is the problem. These are not universal for all populations/individuals.

I also do not understand the reason for conflict. Masculine and feminine should be complements, not enemies.

I think the conflict is in telling someone they have to be one or the other when what we know about biology in utero and beyond would suggest that we possess qualities of each, and how these qualities are expressed in an individual is not static. The conflict is telling someone what they are is wrong, and pushing a constructed ideal onto them.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I think you're right. I honestly don't think you and I disagree.

Also, you are right. And I agree, wholeheartedly.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think you're right. I honestly don't think you and I disagree.

Also, you are right. And I agree, wholeheartedly.

Then it appears we are not in conflict here. 🙂

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Conflict is cool. It produces results. I consider you a very intelligent colleague who produces good results.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

For our field and beyond.

 

[WisNeuro]

Conflict is cool. It produces results. I consider you a very intelligent colleague who produces good results.

Well, productive conflict anyway, rather than conflict for conflict sake. And, likewise. Anyway, I'm done with my financial management and I need to get changed and go play some volleyball. Enjoy the weekend!

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Well, productive conflict anyway, rather than conflict for conflict sake. And, likewise. Anyway, I'm done with my financial management and I need to get changed and go play some volleyball. Enjoy the weekend!

Hope it is a good weekend, Wise.

 

[clausewitz2]

Then it appears we are not in conflict here. 🙂

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

In all seriousness though these guidelines spend so much more time on mealy-mouthed caveats to all of its theses that I struggle to understand what propositions survive intact to even object to, apart from a vague Judith Butler sense of gender being constructed/performed in some way.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

In all seriousness though these guidelines spend so much more time on mealy-mouthed caveats to all of its theses that I struggle to understand what propositions survive intact to even object to, apart from a vague Judith Butler sense of gender being constructed/performed in some way.

It will balance out. The truth is a powerful ally. Men and women are always both perpetrator and victim. The human carnival proceeds.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I love this sentiment, glorious arsehole 🙂: