The APA Says "Traditional Manhood" Is "Harmful." Here's What We Need to Do for Our Sons

Article here. Excerpt:

'Let's get right to it: Why are we writing about raising boys? And why now? Some may argue that boys, being members of the dominant gender, coast through life on a cloud of male privilege. After all, by age 5, boys are already more likely to be seen as "really, really smart."

When they get to school, male students are not only called on more often by teachers, they're asked more sophisticated questions and are given more extensive feedback. They're more likely to take on leadership roles in math and science classes - and are more likely to be viewed as leaders in general. They go on to become the CEOs of 95% of the Fortune 500 companies and hold 76% of seats in the United States congress. From the outside, boys seem to be doing just fine.

When you look closer, though, it's clear that today's men are in crisis. In January 2019, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued its first-ever guidelines to help psychologists work with men and boys because, it says, "something is amiss for men." The organization paints a bleak picture: "Men commit 90% of homicides in the United States and represent 77% of homicide victims. They're the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women's."

According to the APA, manhood itself is the problem - at least in the way it's come to be defined. "Traditional masculinity," the guidelines state, "marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression is, on the whole, harmful."'

Like0 Dislike0


“Toxic masculinity" is hate speech.
Modern main stream media, social sciences literature and scientific literature generally identify specific racial, sex, gender, sexual preference or other groups using sensitive language that at least does not offend or more commonly is preferentially adopted or approved by the majority of people of that identity. Even when there are small numbers of people who find particular labels offensive, their offense is considered empathetically. The nebulous term "toxic masculinity" has been imposed on men and boys despite many stating clearly and passionately that this term is offensive.
None of the behaviours considered destructive are described by the term, and many good behaviours associated with masculinity are not specifically excluded. The pretence that the underlying meaning of the term cures it of offense is disingenuous at best, and to suggest that men should not be offended, or are exhibiting toxicity by being offended, is to suggest that men should be silenced rather than heard.
Continuing to use the term “toxic masculinity” knowing it causes offense, blaming and demeaning men when they challenge this approach, and more importantly, conducting a dialogue about masculinity that focuses on entirely negative and offensive terms, reveals an entrenched culture of gender bias and a less than benevolent intention.

Like1 Dislike0

Yep, that guy who died charging the UNC shooter was in a full-on attack of Toxic Masculinity and he should have just run out the door and away from the shooter. It would have been better had he eschewed the traditional (ie, TOXIC) masculine role as protector and struck a blow instead for gender equity.

Had he not rushed to take the glory, some bi-pan-sexual womyn with 4 different ethnic ancestries instead could have lept up and died defending her fellow liberal studies students and gotten the glory that this cis-gendered hetero white male stole from her.

Another example of cis hetero white males bropropriating credit and glory from marginalized people of color. Sheesh.

Like1 Dislike0