The APA has come up with a new definition of “masculinity”
What does the word “masculinity” mean to you? If you’re a liberal you’ve probably already mentally inserted the word “toxic” in front of it because, well… it’s 2019. If not, then you’re likely picturing the virtues and work ethic many fathers attempt to pass on to their sons. But now, at least according to the increasingly SJW obsessed American Psychological Association, there’s another answer to that question. Masculinity is a harmful psychological condition which males in a civilized society need to be weaned off of.
I first caught wind of this from a great Twitter thread by John P Wright. If you haven’t seen it yet it’s worth the click.
NBC News picked up the story this week and, to nobody’s surprise, seemed to give it a glowing review. Their summary here does a good job of encapsulating the insanity which now passes for “science” in the APA. (Emphasis added)
For the first time in its 127-year history, the American Psychological Association has issued guidelines to help psychologists specifically address the issues of men and boys — and the 36-page document features a warning.
“Traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict and negatively influence mental health and physical health,” the report warns.
The new “Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men” defines “masculinity ideology” as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.” The report also links this ideology to homophobia, bullying and sexual harassment.
Simply incredible. You can read the full report here if you wish, but here’s a short summary which demonstrates this newly adopted standard of describing masculinity (with a thinly veiled conflation with conservative values) as something dangerous and destructive.
The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors. For example, a 2011 study led by Kristen Springer, PhD, of Rutgers University, found that men with the strongest beliefs about masculinity were only half as likely as men with more moderate masculine beliefs to get preventive health care. And in 2007, researchers led by James Mahalik, PhD, of Boston College, found that the more men conformed to masculine norms, the more likely they were to consider as normal risky health behaviors such as heavy drinking, using tobacco and avoiding vegetables, and to engage in these risky behaviors themselves.
Holy smokes. Apparently attributes such as “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression” should now be bred out of society. I suppose competitiveness is a negative attribute if you’re trying to remake society into a socialist model. I’m also sitting here trying to picture what sort of military you could lead into the field without dominance and aggression.
We’re apparently supposed to believe that the male ideal in the 21st century is essentially a nation full of pajama boys. Let’s all pour a cup of hot chocolate and talk about our feelings. And in the process, attempt to tamp down and drown out millions of years worth of evolution and instincts. No thanks, folks. If this is the brave new world we’re leaving for the next generation, I’m grateful that I won’t live to see too many decades of it. Best of luck to the rest of you.