What do you guys think of Jordan Peterson?

[msgeorgeeliot]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Exactly. A guide for men as written by feminists with borderline personality disorder that think everything is your fault.

Jon Snow!!!!!!!!

I was aiming for a super chill re-entry to SDN. Why do you do this to me.

 

[MCParent]

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.

We literally have this across several measures. It is literally exactly what the guidelines are about. (Mahalik and my CMNI, Levant’s MRNI, O’Neil’s GRCS, and many more depending on the specific thing wanted to be measured).

 

[MCParent]

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.

My study on men's maladaptive social media use and depression was the 6th most-downloaded APA article of 2018 and it's still in press 😉
The top 10 journal articles

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Sure. Why is it there?

I do not agree that I am assuming things not in the text. How does that help us treat men? Does social and economic power by some men and its effect in relationship to some women hold relevance in a specific individual therapeutic context? This comes off to me as having been written by someone who, when thinking about men, thinks about privilege and social and economic power and patriarchy as it pertains to women. I.e., a feminist.

My study on men's maladaptive social media use and depression was the 6th most-downloaded APA article of 2018 and it's still in press 😉
The top 10 journal articles

That's useful research. Thanks for linking to it. I couldn't help but notice that there was a similar study examining the harmful effects of instagram (another form of social media) usage among women. Yet I still observed the same odd asymmetry (between how women's and men's problems are characterized) that I observed earlier in this thread. In the women (instagram) study, women are portrayed as the victims of 'bauty standards' which aren't being characterized as being associated with a construct such as 'toxic femininity' but are rather being portrayed as being inherent in society itself, I suppose. Yet in the study of men, the culprit is 'toxic masculinity,' that is, there is something essential about being male/masculine that is 'toxic' and to blame for the problems.

This is the issue I have with this whole literature (the asymmetrical--with respect to men/women--biases that pervade it). I checked out an article on the first measure of 'masculinity' you referenced above (the Conformity to Masculine Norms scale) and found it surprising that the scales composing the 'masculine norms' were, more than half the time, things that I think would more typify antisocial behavior/attitudes or externalizing behavior problems, e.g., Risk-Taking, Violence, Power Over Women, Dominance, Playboy, Disdain for Homosexuals, and Pursuit of Status). I take issue with these being described as basically 'masculine' traits or characteristic of how, for example, our fathers taught us how to be men.

Just because a researcher can identify dimensions of psychopathology that men may be, statistically, more prone to (antisociality, violence, 'power over women'), it doesn't necessarily follow that these constitute the essence of 'masculinity' any more than if researchers could identify dimensions of psychopathology that women may be statistically more prone to (whatever these would be) that these would constitute the essence of 'femininity. '
Negative, maladaptive, and unhelpful psychological/behavioral traits (violence, bigotry, emotional lability) are negative, maladaptive and unhelpful (and legitimate targets of psychotherapeutic treatment) whether they are manifest in a man or a woman and, to my mind, don't necessarily map onto the essence of either basic 'masculinity' or 'femininity.' The fact that they may be statistically more prevalent among men does not mean these constitute core traits of masculinity.

One might say that conflating psychopathology (or dysfunctional attitudes) in males with 'masculinity,' per se (or 'traditional masculinity') could reveal the epistemological/ideological preconceptions of the folks who are choosing the labels for the measures and/or the factors. I couldn't imagine anyone publishing a similar scale which was heavily loaded with psychopathological traits that may, statistically, be more heavily represented in women than men and then go on to entitle the scale a measure of 'femininity.' The outrage would be earth-shattering.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't see it as asymmetrical at all. They're both generally talking about societal pressures/expectations that lead to adverse behaviors and health (broadly defined) consequences. How these pressures/expectations present behaviorally can be very different due to power differentials, both historic and continuing, but it's still presented as due to exogenous issues affecting behaviors and beliefs.

 

[MCParent]

I read it. It's an interesting article.

What is your opinion of the term "toxic masculinity" relative to the public, non-scientific sphere?

Regarding your specific article, the social media elements are interesting and certainly one can see dynamics of troll behavior in the context of aggression and that anonymity might contribute, but a colleague of mine, a woman, noted that aggression/snarkiness in women forums (e.g., reddit ask women, or some such) tends to be of a different character but also unpleasant. Toxic, if you will. What I am wondering is about the coupling of these negativities with masculine or feminine constructs.

I definitely think there are parallel constructs for women, but they’re harder to pin down (I also just published a paper on women’s objectification of women, after my students noted that all items on measures of objectification experiences were gendered to be things men do to women (hoot from a car or whatever) and women’s behaviors to other women were absent.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I don't see it as asymmetrical at all. They're both generally talking about societal pressures/expectations that lead to adverse behaviors and health (broadly defined) consequences. How these pressures/expectations present behaviorally can be very different due to power differentials, both historic and continuing, but it's still presented as due to exogenous issues affecting behaviors and beliefs.

'Masculinity'' is exogenous to men?

 

[WisNeuro]

'Masculinuty' is exogenous to men?

What constitutes "masculinity" is. That is, what it means to be a "man." Those traditional roles and expectations most certainly are.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

What constitutes "masculinity" is. That is, what it means to be a "man." Those traditional roles and expectations most certainly are.

LOL...I forgot...'masculinity' is that which we want to purge men of (these days)...e.g., violence, boorishness, and antisociality....it has no positive attributes.

 

[MCParent]

I read it. It's an interesting article.

What is your opinion of the term "toxic masculinity" relative to the public, non-scientific sphere?

Regarding your specific article, the social media elements are interesting and certainly one can see dynamics of troll behavior in the context of aggression and that anonymity might contribute, but a colleague of mine, a woman, noted that aggression/snarkiness in women forums (e.g., reddit ask women, or some such) tends to be of a different character but also unpleasant. Toxic, if you will. What I am wondering is about the coupling of these negativities with masculine or feminine constructs.

I wouldn’t use toxic masculinity to refer to anything except the definition used by Kupers originally in studies of incarcerated men, where it is characterized by obsessive anti-woman and anti-gay/effeminacy attitudes and intense zero sum competitiveness. I can’t really say anything about buzzfeed using it to refer to men who sit with their knees apart on the bus, and I wouldn’t care to bother to study that.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I wouldn’t use toxic masculinity to refer to anything except the definition used by Kupers originally in studies of incarcerated men, where it is characterized by obsessive anti-woman and anti-gay/effeminacy attitudes and intense zero sum competitiveness. I can’t really say anything about buzzfeed using it to refer to men who sit with their knees apart on the bus, and I wouldn’t care to bother to study that.

Is there even an equivalent concept or construct comparable to 'toxic masculinity' that is applicable to women? Where are the articles on 'toxic femininity?' Where are the purported measures of femininity (or 'traditional femininity') that are so laden with frankly psychopathological traits?

...and people still don't see the asymmetry

 

[MCParent]

LOL...I forgot...'masculinity' is that which we want to purge men of (these days)...e.g., violence, boorishness, and antisociality....it has no positive attributes.

There is plenty of research on positive masculinities. A google scholar search will show up a bunch. That work is mentioned in the guidleines, too.

 

[MCParent]

Where are the purported measures of femininity (or 'traditional femininity') that are so laden with frankly psychopathological traits?

Uh... all eating disorder research?
Work on poor socialization regarding conflict and poor negotiation skills in jobs etc.
There’s lots.

 

[MCParent]

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.

I did a paper last year applying the minority stress model to Christians. The first round of reviews at Big Social Justice Journal rejected the paper on entirely ideological grounds (eg criticizing my sampling, which was exactly the same as sampling methods for minority groups). The reviewers were clearly furious at my heresy. I’m not even Christian, it’s just a useful way to look at the model. So, agree.

Is Minority Stress in the Eye of the Beholder? A Test of Minority Stress Theory with Christians. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Uh... all eating disorder research?
Work on poor socialization regarding conflict and poor negotiation skills in jobs etc.
There’s lots.

And so there are scales out there with names like the 'Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory' that are chock full of undesirable/psychopathological traits characteristic of mentally ill women suffering from eating disorders, BPD, and substance abuse? And these scales are considered ways to instantiate the explicitly labeled construct of 'toxic femininity.' I'll have to check out that research, then.

 

[MCParent]

And so there are scales out there with names like the 'Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory' that are chock full of undesirable/psychopathological traits characteristic of mentally ill women suffering from eating disorders, BPD, and substance abuse? And these scales are considered ways to instantiate the explicitly labeled construct of 'toxic femininity.' I'll have to check out that research, then.

Yes that is the name of the scale I refined 🙂 I get MANY fewer requests for it compared to the CMNI though. I think because EDs are so severe, common, and fundable they eclipse most of the other areas of interest related to women’s gender roles.
Nothing makes the CMNI or CFNI exclusive to a specific gender, fyi. The relations remain mostly the same regardless of gender though the mean values and distributions are different.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Yes that is the name of the scale I refined 🙂 I get MANY fewer requests for it compared to the CMNI though. I think because EDs are so severe, common, and fundable they eclipse most of the other areas of interest related to women’s gender roles.
Nothing makes the CMNI or CFNI exclusive to a specific gender, fyi. The relations remain mostly the same regardless of gender though the mean values and distributions are different.

There is some hope left with respect to integrity / symmetry in this area of the field, then 🙂. But I still am not aware or any work on any construct of 'toxic femininity.' Certainly no male authors writing journal articles with that term in the title.

 

[MCParent]

There is some hope left with respect to integrity / symmetry in this area of the field, then 🙂. But I still am not aware or any work on any construct of 'toxic femininity.' Certainly no male authors writing journal articles with that term in the title.

I’m working on it actually 🙂 it’s just much less clear than the stuff with men. The women’s objectification of women scale was one step.

Google Scholar

(Best. Article. Title. Ever.)

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Forgive my ignorance of this area of the field (I'm going to try to learn more about it). But I still see asymmetry. Consider the following:

Here are the names of the scales for the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI): Winning, Emotional Control, Risk-Taking, Violence, Dominance, Playboy, Self-Reliance, Primacy of Work, and Power Over Women.

By contrast, here are the names of the scales for the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory (CFNI): Nice in Relationships, Thinness, Modesty, Domestic, Care for Children, Romantic Relationship, Sexual Fidelity, and Invest in Appearance.

Hmm.

So no bias at all in terms of how masculine traits are characterized/described/llabeled vs. feminine traits?

Sugar and spice and everything nice, I suppose.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I’m working on it actually 🙂 it’s just much less clear than the stuff with men. The women’s objectification of women scale was one step.

Google Scholar

(Best. Article. Title. Ever.)

Looks like a fascinating article...thanks for the link!

 

[MCParent]

Forgive my ignorance of this area of the field (I'm going to try to learn more about it). But I still see asymmetry. Consider the following:

Here are the names of the scales for the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI): Winning, Emotional Control, Risk-Taking, Violence, Dominance, Playboy, Self-Reliance, Primacy of Work, and Power Over Women.

By contrast, here are the names of the scales for the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory (CFNI): Nice in Relationships, Thinness, Modesty, Domestic, Care for Children, Romantic Relationship, Sexual Fidelity, and Invest in Appearance.

Hmm.

So no bias at all in terms of how masculine traits are characterized/described/llabeled vs. feminine traits?

Sugar and spice and everything nice, I suppose.

Is something like "romantic relationship" all positive and good? Items include things like "having a romantic relationship is essential in life." Probably not adaptive to being thoughtful and selective in mate choice. Items on "Nice in relationships" includes "I would be ashamed if someone thought I was mean" -- probably not adaptive in many settings. Is social pressure to have and care for children stressless? (do you know how often women are asked not whether they want to have children but how many they will be having and what they will do with that silly "career" once the kids come along). Is modesty always a virtue? Extreme endorsement might mean letting others take credit for your own work. Etc.

I think there is an asymmetry, but a lot of it lies in that the pathological level of endorsement is less studied outside of body image things, and a little harder to pin down. I have not encountered anything but enthusiasm from women when I talk about the women's objectification of women scale.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Is something like "romantic relationship" all positive and good? Items include things like "having a romantic relationship is essential in life." Probably not adaptive to being thoughtful and selective in mate choice. Items on "Nice in relationships" includes "I would be ashamed if someone thought I was mean" -- probably not adaptive in many settings. Is social pressure to have and care for children stressless? (do you know how often women are asked not whether they want to have children but how many they will be having and what they will do with that silly "career" once the kids come along). Is modesty always a virtue? Extreme endorsement might mean letting others take credit for your own work. Etc.

I think there is an asymmetry, but a lot of it lies in that the pathological level of endorsement is less studied outside of body image things, and a little harder to pin down. I have not encountered anything but enthusiasm from women when I talk about the women's objectification of women scale.

Another important asymmetry: While the focus groups utilized to come up with the 'feminine norms' for the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory were composed ENTIRELY of women (makes sense), the focus groups utilized to come up with the 'masculine norms' for the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory were composed MOSTLY OF WOMEN (more women than men). Am I reading this right?

CFNI focus groups were made up of 32 women participating in 5 focus groups.

CMNI focus groups were made up of 'two focus groups made up of both men and women'...specifically:
Group 1 = 1 Asian American man, 1 Euroean American Man, and 2 European American Women
Group 2 = 2 European American men, 2 European American women, and 1 Haitian Canadian woman.
So, CMNI focus groups were composed of 4 men and 5 women. And every single one of them were master's and doctoral-level students in counseling psychology (whereas the focus groups for the CFNI were composed of 'recruits of a college campus in the Northeast and through contacts of the researchers.')

So the 'identification of masculine norms in the dominant culture in the U.S.' emerged from discussion groups composed (total) of 4 men and 5 women, all graduate students in counseling psychology.

Please tell me if I'm reading this wrong.

The articles I'm reading are:
Development of the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory

Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory

I mean, the focus groups for the development of masculine norms didn't even have a majority of men (they were composed mostly of women). No wonder factors like 'Playboy' and 'Control Over Women' show up.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Is something like "romantic relationship" all positive and good? Items include things like "having a romantic relationship is essential in life." Probably not adaptive to being thoughtful and selective in mate choice. Items on "Nice in relationships" includes "I would be ashamed if someone thought I was mean" -- probably not adaptive in many settings. Is social pressure to have and care for children stressless? (do you know how often women are asked not whether they want to have children but how many they will be having and what they will do with that silly "career" once the kids come along). Is modesty always a virtue? Extreme endorsement might mean letting others take credit for your own work. Etc.

I think there is an asymmetry, but a lot of it lies in that the pathological level of endorsement is less studied outside of body image things, and a little harder to pin down. I have not encountered anything but enthusiasm from women when I talk about the women's objectification of women scale.

You don't discern, for example, a 'social desirability' difference between a label such as 'Nice in Relationships' (a feminine factor) vs. 'Emotional Control,' 'Violence,' 'Dominance in Relationships,' 'Playboy,' and 'Control Over Women?' (dem masculine evil factors)

 

[MCParent]

You don't discern, for example, a 'social desirability' difference between a label such as 'Nice in Relationships' (a feminine factor) vs. 'Emotional Control,' 'Violence,' 'Dominance in Relationships,' 'Playboy,' and 'Control Over Women?' (dem masculine evil factors)

Not in emotional control (it's not "emotional suppression" or something). Not really so much in "playboy" either (that seems to me to usually be applied without a lot of negativity, unlike something like "womanizer" or whatever). In the others, sure, somewhat. But I think that's fairly consistent with what the content of gender socialization is, taken to the extremes (eg bullied boy is told to be a man and stand up for himself [ie engage in violence], bullied girl is told to resolve it other ways, etc.)

 

[MCParent]

Another important asymmetry: While the focus groups utilized to come up with the 'feminine norms' for the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory were composed ENTIRELY of women (makes sense), the focus groups utilized to come up with the 'masculine norms' for the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory were composed MOSTLY OF WOMEN (more women than men). Am I reading this right?

CFNI focus groups were made up of 32 women participating in 5 focus groups.

CMNI focus groups were made up of 'two focus groups made up of both men and women'...specifically:
Group 1 = 1 Asian American man, 1 Euroean American Man, and 2 European American Women
Group 2 = 2 European American men, 2 European American women, and 1 Haitian Canadian woman.
So, CMNI focus groups were composed of 4 men and 5 women. And every single one of them were master's and doctoral-level students in counseling psychology (whereas the focus groups for the CFNI were composed of 'recruits of a college campus in the Northeast and through contacts of the researchers.')

So the 'identification of masculine norms in the dominant culture in the U.S.' emerged from discussion groups composed (total) of 4 men and 5 women, all graduate students in counseling psychology.

Please tell me if I'm reading this wrong.

The articles I'm reading are:
Development of the Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory

Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory

I mean, the focus groups for the development of masculine norms didn't even have a majority of men (they were composed mostly of women). No wonder factors like 'Playboy' and 'Control Over Women' show up.

Sure; not the methodology I'd have used for the original study. I also have always found it super weird that physical strength never shows up in any of the measures (except for a recent measure of masculinity that focused on resilience [https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/men-men0000018.pdf], but there it was more conspicuous bc disease processes would influence physical strength).

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Not in emotional control (it's not "emotional suppression" or something). Not really so much in "playboy" either (that seems to me to usually be applied without a lot of negativity, unlike something like "womanizer" or whatever). In the others, sure, somewhat. But I think that's fairly consistent with what the content of gender socialization is, taken to the extremes (eg bullied boy is told to be a man and stand up for himself [ie engage in violence], bullied girl is told to resolve it other ways, etc.)

What about 'violence' that is utilized to protect the innocent, or the vulnerable? We all depend on the police to do that. It just seems to me that a lot of these characteristics are extremely context dependent when we are considering the dimension of virtue or 'good v. evil.' I had a male client today who probably would score in the 1% percentile of 'Power over Women' dimension, lol. He is essentially dominated/terrorized by his wife and can't be assertive at all. I would consider him deficient (to a pathological degree) on the whole 'Power over Women' factor. Dude needs to respect himself and ask that his wife respect him as a person. It's all pretty complex.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Not in emotional control (it's not "emotional suppression" or something). Not really so much in "playboy" either (that seems to me to usually be applied without a lot of negativity, unlike something like "womanizer" or whatever). In the others, sure, somewhat. But I think that's fairly consistent with what the content of gender socialization is, taken to the extremes (eg bullied boy is told to be a man and stand up for himself [ie engage in violence], bullied girl is told to resolve it other ways, etc.)

I would wonder...do women respond with positive valence to a 'Playboy' or are they turned off by it? It could be a good thing.

 

[FlowRate]

I did a paper last year applying the minority stress model to Christians. The first round of reviews at Big Social Justice Journal rejected the paper on entirely ideological grounds (eg criticizing my sampling, which was exactly the same as sampling methods for minority groups). The reviewers were clearly furious at my heresy. I’m not even Christian, it’s just a useful way to look at the model. So, agree.

Is Minority Stress in the Eye of the Beholder? A Test of Minority Stress Theory with Christians. - PubMed - NCBI

Sadly ironic, given they'll publish anything with the right bias.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Sadly ironic, given they'll publish anything with the right bias.

Yeah, I think Christians (and Christianity, in general) get a bad rap in the social sciences these days. It's important to watch what people DO (vs. what they SAY THEY DO)...Christian and non-Christian alike.

I think some people 'get it' with respect to Christianity and try to embody humility, love, and a sense of awe about existence itself. Others, obviously, get on a judgmental power-trip. But I would consider that attendant to ALL ideologies (metaphysical and material) when they take possession of a person. Just because you label yourself an 'atheist' doesn't mean that you are free from religious impulse...it's just generally directed through a secular ideology.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Not in emotional control (it's not "emotional suppression" or something). Not really so much in "playboy" either (that seems to me to usually be applied without a lot of negativity, unlike something like "womanizer" or whatever). In the others, sure, somewhat. But I think that's fairly consistent with what the content of gender socialization is, taken to the extremes (eg bullied boy is told to be a man and stand up for himself [ie engage in violence], bullied girl is told to resolve it other ways, etc.)

I think we may have different notions of masculinity. I would consider 'standing up for yourself' and meeting violence with the appropriate level of violence to be a virtue. The reality on the playground (for guys) is that you don't exactly talk yourself out of the bullying. You don't (especially if you are a kid) outline your needs, opinions, and boundaries to Johnny who is ready to bash your head against a tree. There is a time for talk, and a time for fists and fists are not necessarily toxic when his are flying at your head 🙂. It's okay to be strong, especially if you are in the right and defending your territory against unwarranted aggression or if you are defending the people you love from predation.

 

[norapport]

I think we may have different notions of masculinity. I would imagine that 'standing up for yourself' and meeting violence with the appropriate level of violence to be a virtue. The reality on the playground (for guys) is that you don't exactly talk yourself out of the bullying. You don't (especially if you are a kid) outline your needs, opinions, and boundaries to Johnny who is ready to bash your head against a tree. There is a time for talk, and a time for fists and fists are not necessarily toxic when his are flying at your head 🙂. It's okay to be strong, especially if you are in the right and defending your territory against unwarranted aggression or if you are defending the people you love from predation.

The fact that you had to spell this out to another Psychologist is beyond telling.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

The fact that you had to spell this out to another Psychologist is beyond telling.

I would imagine that psychologist probably understands and agrees. But I would not assume. These kinds of conversations make us all wiser. I *burp* for all of masculinity.

 

[barbatenussapientes]

The fact that you had to spell this out to another Psychologist is beyond telling.

I didn't take the original statement as making any value judgment. He simply stated that violence is consistent with male socialization (e.g., a bullied male more likely to be told to react with violence than a female). Thus, one could argue that it potentially makes sense for the extreme of that socialization be featured on the scale.

I don't really see where the poster made any attempt to classify whether that was justified or not.

Although I do actually agree that the semantics of the male scale is not doing it any favors.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

The fact that you had to spell this out to another Psychologist is beyond telling.

I was one of those 'sensitive' guys growing up. Then I played football. Then I had to go head-to-head with other fellas my age in 'the cage' (one of those Southern Alabama football contraptions that force you, when you are slamming against the other guy in pads, not to rise above a certain level--the point was quite technical...the lower you are when you drive, the more able you are to disable your opponent...butt, lock, lift and drive and all that). I did pretty well. All you have to do to give the other guy a concussion is accelerate right before the moment of impact. It worked. Yay. I am now 'respected.' I have ambivalence toward the whole 'traditional masculinity' thing but also a love for it.

My dad was/is a great guy and wasn't violent...he just liked me being able to stand up to the violence of others.

 

[MCParent]

I think we may have different notions of masculinity. I would consider 'standing up for yourself' and meeting violence with the appropriate level of violence to be a virtue. The reality on the playground (for guys) is that you don't exactly talk yourself out of the bullying. You don't (especially if you are a kid) outline your needs, opinions, and boundaries to Johnny who is ready to bash your head against a tree. There is a time for talk, and a time for fists and fists are not necessarily toxic when his are flying at your head 🙂. It's okay to be strong, especially if you are in the right and defending your territory against unwarranted aggression or if you are defending the people you love from predation.

The problem being that Dylan Klebold thought that’s what he was doing.

To be clear, these are pathological when violence etc is the default response, not the weighted best available option.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

You are right. Kleibold had no love for humanity. He rejected existence itself. Anyone who loves any human...the kid at the candy store, the old woman delivering the mail, the crusty dude at the 7/11, the substance abusing veteran who is here for the 1000th time...has hope.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Masculine and feminine energies should combine to constitute society, as they've always done.

 

[MCParent]

Masculine and feminine energies should combine to constitute society, as they've always done.

I’ve heard this before and its meaning has always been unclear to me. It was brought up several times in the twitter related to the APA post about the guidelines (eg, “this is how society has always been organized”). To what imagined past does this aspire? The history of most of the world through most of time is one of toiling uselessly for kings or priests and dying at 35. If you’re male you’re lucky enough to go to war and suffer from untreated trauma until you die. The history of “masculine and feminine energies combining” has not historically worked out well for women.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I’ve heard this before and it’s meaning has always been unclear to me. It was brought up several times in the twitter related to the APA post about the guidelines (eg, “this is how society has always been organized”). To what imagined past does this aspire? The history of most of the world through most of time is one of toiling uselessly for kings or priests and dying at 35. If you’re male you’re lucky enough to go to war and suffer from untreated trauma until you die. The history of “masculine and feminine energies combining” has not historically worked out well for women.

I would hope than individual men and individual women could work out mutually respectful and beneficial agreements.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

the older I get, the more I realize that everybody suffers.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

The problem being that Dylan Klebold thought that’s what he was doing.

To be clear, these are pathological when violence etc is the default response, not the weighted best available option.

I think that this has to have something to do with it, even the Klebold monsters:

…give [man] economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. lt is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself […] that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar. And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. (1.8.4)

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I’ve heard this before and its meaning has always been unclear to me. It was brought up several times in the twitter related to the APA post about the guidelines (eg, “this is how society has always been organized”). To what imagined past does this aspire? The history of most of the world through most of time is one of toiling uselessly for kings or priests and dying at 35. If you’re male you’re lucky enough to go to war and suffer from untreated trauma until you die. The history of “masculine and feminine energies combining” has not historically worked out well for women.

I've actually had veteran patients come in, recently, and talk about 'wanting to watch the world burn' as if they don't realize that I watched the most recent Batman flick at some point in time. The impulse to destroy/deconstruct is simple and reflexive. The motivation to build, create, and love is more complex, I think...and far more effortful.

 

[Pragma]

Looks like JP has predictably been quite critical of these guidelines.

Others too:

Psychologists Issue Controversial Report on Masculinity | Psychology Today

APA is ideologically too homogeneous. It has become an echo chamber.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Looks like JP has predictably been quite critical of these guidelines.

Others too:

Psychologists Issue Controversial Report on Masculinity | Psychology Today

APA is ideologically too homogeneous. It has become an echo chamber.

Men bad, wimmin good.

 

[belowthefray]

I think someone mentioned this video earlier but I think it’s an excellent analysis of JP and how he formulates his arguments, the good and the bad. Be warned, this youtuber uses a lot of sexual jokes and self-deprecatory humor to get her points across, but she’s rather incisive and gets at some of the problems I have noticed when I watch JPs videos.





Also, the few videos I have seen where JP addresses women seem pretty terrible and reactionary. In one video (I will have to find it), he literally states that women who do not want children have “something wrong with them.” In another video he chooses a pretty specific group of women (distressed women in their 30s practicing in high stress ‘big law’ environments) and uses them as an argument that work makes women unhappy in general. Lastly, some of his statements on enforced monogamy as a solution to so-called “incels” strike me as bizarre. Apparently hierarchy and competition are just fine until it is damaging men that women are not attracted to?

 

[FlowRate]

male socialization

Is it society that makes boys more violent, though?

he literally states that women who do not want children have “something wrong with them.” In another video he chooses a pretty specific group of women (distressed women in their 30s practicing in high stress ‘big law’ environments) and uses them as an argument that work makes women unhappy in general. Lastly, some of his statements on enforced monogamy as a solution to so-called “incels” strike me as bizarre.

Pretty sure you've completely mischaracterized his position on all of these issues. Also, enforced monogamy doesn't mean what you probably think it means.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Is it society that makes boys more violent, though?


Pretty sure you've completely mischaracterized his position on all of these issues. Also, enforced monogamy doesn't mean what you probably think it means.

There are many positive aspects of male socialization. Most decently socialized males have experienced them. And they don't involve misogyny, random violence, or domination of women.

They involve honor, virtue and getting your ass kicked when you deserve it.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Sadly, women don't realize that when you blindly harm men, you harm yourself.

 

[deleted480308]

I think someone mentioned this video earlier but I think it’s an excellent analysis of JP and how he formulates his arguments, the good and the bad. Be warned, this youtuber uses a lot of sexual jokes and self-deprecatory humor to get her points across, but she’s rather incisive and gets at some of the problems I have noticed when I watch JPs videos.





Also, the few videos I have seen where JP addresses women seem pretty terrible and reactionary. In one video (I will have to find it), he literally states that women who do not want children have “something wrong with them.” In another video he chooses a pretty specific group of women (distressed women in their 30s practicing in high stress ‘big law’ environments) and uses them as an argument that work makes women unhappy in general. Lastly, some of his statements on enforced monogamy as a solution to so-called “incels” strike me as bizarre. Apparently hierarchy and competition are just fine until it is damaging men that women are not attracted to?

Can yoy specify “enforced monogamy” from his comments and cite the statement please?

 

[deleted480308]

With men, be polite, but don't kiss ass. Think of the movie, Gran Torino. Or your experiences, if you have them, on the football field.

What does that have to do with citations about enforced monogamy quotes from peterson?