'Traditional masculinity' labeled 'harmful' by the American Psychological Assc • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Traditional masculinity' labeled 'harmful' by the American Psychological Assc

#61

Post by notacoward » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

Very disappointing to see things phrased this way. Yes, certain aspects of traditional masculinity - suppressing emotion, hypercompetitiveness, risk seeking - are harmful. So are certain aspects of traditional femininity - submissiveness, excessive concern about appearance - and I don't remember an APA warning about that.

Putting 'masculine' or 'feminine' at the center of this just isn't constructive. Address the behavioral syndromes themselves, maybe note in the text that they're traditionally associated or correlated with gender roles, but FFS don't get all gender-essentialist about it. If nothing else, it just triggers all the MRAs and gives their leaders a talking point to rile up the regressives some more.

Re: 'Traditional masculinity' labeled 'harmful' by the American Psychological Assc

#62

Post by js8 » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

smhost wrote: post #60

orasis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the labels describe an interesting pattern then we shouldn’t fear them.

the formula for small "c" conservative language-policing among post-critical folk seems to be: 1) identify a criticism of some traditional power structure (masculinity) 2) hijack the critical language and turn it on itself into a contradiction (anti-sexism is itself sexist) it's the same formula for everything from "atheism is itself a religion" to "anti-racism is racism against white people". to me it just seems lik…

This is a big misunderstanding.

You can criticize power structures in gender-neutral way. You can say, for example, "social hierarchy" instead of "patriarchy". You can talk about "movement for gender equality" instead of "feminism". You can talk about "being asshole" or "taking too much risks" or other trait instead of "toxic masculinity".

I actually agree with the feminist critique (for the most part), I think where they are wrong is putting people into gender boxes. And I don't think other movements for equality (for example, movements for racial and sexual equality) do this to such extent.

Re: 'Traditional masculinity' labeled 'harmful' by the American Psychological Assc

#63

Post by threatofrain » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

jamp897 wrote: post #3

Not sure why this is on HN, since psycology isn’t a science in its current form: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-... > Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally,…

Perhaps people don't think that psychologists are very capable (and thus not worrisome), but I am worried about whatever science will develop from watching people behave and trying to get them to act against their own interests in the market and in politics.

And of course the science of making people behave at large, which I suspect is taking place already.

Re: 'Traditional masculinity' labeled 'harmful' by the American Psychological Assc

#64

Post by Aldo_MX » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

turingspiritfly wrote: post #11

> “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful. This really sounds like an attack on masculinity. One must never forget, the age of information with all it's flaws and good was brought upon the back of a structure who's main building block atleast in terms of values were masculine values which I think is independent of gender/sex

Out of curiosity, if someone agrees with the statement that competitiveness is "toxic", I want to know what search engine does that person use because I'm honestly expecting that person to use a terrible engine like Ask Jeeves.

Without competitiveness we wouldn't have Google or Duck Duck Go.

Re: 'Traditional masculinity' labeled 'harmful' by the American Psychological Assc

#65

Post by busterarm » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

nickles wrote: post #47

Traditional masculinity: "Conforming to the norms of the “masculinity ideology” can result in suppressing emotions and masking distress in young boys as well more risk-taking and aggressive behavior and a lack of willingness to seek out help." "traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful." "Despite its warnings, the APA also encouraged men to emb…

Especially when you see the same behaviors in other animals...

Re: 'Traditional masculinity' labeled 'harmful' by the American Psychological Assc

#66

Post by smhost » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 6:30 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #62

smhost wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the formula for small "c" conservative language-policing among post-critical folk seems to be: 1) identify a criticism of some traditional power structure (masculinity) 2) hijack the critical language and turn it on itself into a contradiction (anti-sexism is itself sexist) it's the same formula for everything from "atheism is itself a religion" to "anti-racism is racism against white people". to me it just seems lik…

This is a big misunderstanding. You can criticize power structures in gender-neutral way. You can say, for example, "social hierarchy" instead of "patriarchy". You can talk about "movement for gender equality" instead of "feminism". You can talk about "being asshole" or "taking too much risks" or other trait instead of "toxic masculinity". I actually agree with the feminist critique (for the most part), I think where…

the point is that our history is gendered. i mean, the history of western thought is almost entirely white and male. if i want to take politics seriously, i immediately come into contact with the patriarchy because we all live in the shadow of great white men. i don't see why language shouldn't reflect history, especially political language.

Re: 'Traditional masculinity' labeled 'harmful' by the American Psychological Assc

#67

Post by moosey » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

makerofspoons wrote: post #26

In the face of ecological collapse, diminishing living standards, and increasing authoritarianism I fail to see how stoicism is anything but healthy. To overcome challenges in the present and future we need fortitude, calmness, and patience rather than panic.

While it might not seem so, stoicism, in the sense that is discussed in this paper, is not really synonymous with fortitude, calmness, and patience.

It is more along the lines that there is a natural order that is good that a person must conform to. I would argue that it's something closer to heteronormativity in personal belief.

Re: 'Traditional masculinity' labeled 'harmful' by the American Psychological Assc

#68

Post by leereeves » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 6:41 PM UTC

smhost wrote: post #60

orasis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the labels describe an interesting pattern then we shouldn’t fear them.

the formula for small "c" conservative language-policing among post-critical folk seems to be: 1) identify a criticism of some traditional power structure (masculinity) 2) hijack the critical language and turn it on itself into a contradiction (anti-sexism is itself sexist) it's the same formula for everything from "atheism is itself a religion" to "anti-racism is racism against white people". to me it just seems lik…

When you start arguing that it's ok to discriminate against or insult people because of what different people in the past have done, you have indeed become what you hate.

We can't change history. We can't fix past injustices with new injustices in the present; that's just creating new injustices and new divisions. The best we can do is treat each other well from this point forward.

Re: 'Traditional masculinity' labeled 'harmful' by the American Psychological Assc

#69

Post by js8 » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 6:43 PM UTC

smhost wrote: post #66

js8 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a big misunderstanding. You can criticize power structures in gender-neutral way. You can say, for example, "social hierarchy" instead of "patriarchy". You can talk about "movement for gender equality" instead of "feminism". You can talk about "being asshole" or "taking too much risks" or other trait instead of "toxic masculinity". I actually agree with the feminist critique (for the most part), I think where…

the point is that our history is gendered. i mean, the history of western thought is almost entirely white and male. if i want to take politics seriously, i immediately come into contact with the patriarchy because we all live in the shadow of great white men. i don't see why language shouldn't reflect history, especially political language.

"i don't see why language shouldn't reflect history, especially political language"

I do see why it shouldn't (unless you are historian, perhaps). If we are to move, as a society, beyond the discrimination of the past, we need to drop the divisive language, too.

It is why I think even the term "feminism" should be dropped and replaced with "gender equality movement" (perhaps in somewhat shorter, witty form).

I think, in general, to structure equality movements around specific identity makes sense in the beginning. But when the movement gains large enough support from society, it will become counter-productive, because it emphasizes the difference rather than sameness. (And I suspect for this very reason, many people, even women, support feminism but are avoiding the label itself.)

Re: 'Traditional masculinity' labeled 'harmful' by the American Psychological Assc

#70

Post by phissk » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

makerofspoons wrote: post #26

In the face of ecological collapse, diminishing living standards, and increasing authoritarianism I fail to see how stoicism is anything but healthy. To overcome challenges in the present and future we need fortitude, calmness, and patience rather than panic.

Stoicism is harmful to the American Psychological Assc. If you 'suck it up' instead of crying to a shrink that's REALLY bad for business.

I'm not sure the psychologists are fully impartial here ...