Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

11–20 of 113 posts

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

#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

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

#12
I call BS on their assessment. #MeToo bandwagon.

Like it or not, men and women are NOT (edited omission) built the same way, and that includes more than just their private parts. What's harmful, aggression for example, can be dealt with without calling the entire masculinity harmful. The rest (stoicism, competitiveness, dominance) is what helps drive humanity ahead

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

#13
Who specifically are the authors of this piece of flaming garbage? They should be ridiculed.

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

First name on the list: Dr. Fredric Rabinowitz

https://i.imgur.com/YeiuhcF.jpg

The _picture_ of a man lmao

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

#14
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,…

> Not sure why this is on HN, since psycology isn’t a science in its current form:

I won't get into whether psychology is a science, but could you elaborate on this reasoning? It seems to me that plenty of things people discuss here could be described as "not science".

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

#15
This makes a lot of sense, and I'm glad it's finally being treated in this way.

There's 100% nothing wrong with being a man, and there's nothing wrong in taking pride in it. There is, however, a ton of societal pressure to do dangerous, harmful things to ourselves to "prove" our manliness/masculinity. Ignoring pain and sickness because fear of being weak, taking a lesser role in the development of our children because it's seen as girly, harassing women because it's "what guys do", doing dangerous stunts to impress the guys; these are all harmful behaviors that are all rooted in a need to appear masculine.

This is toxic, and we need to recognize that without getting defensive over it just because it's what we know. We can do better for eachother and ourselves and recognition of this fact is a necessary first step.

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

#16
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,…

But HN is not only for science, is it?

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

#17
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,…

HN isn't limited to solely science articles. Anything submitted and found interesting to the community is of course welcome.

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

#20

I call BS on their assessment. #MeToo bandwagon. Like it or not, men and women are NOT (edited omission) built the same way, and that includes more than just their private parts. What's harmful, aggression for example, can be dealt with without calling the entire masculinity harmful. The rest (stoicism, competitiveness, dominance) is what helps drive humanity ahead

Except they're not built the same way? There's significant differences in psychological and physical factors.
Post reply on HN