[ POLL ] Traditional Masculinity.

Post Reply New Topic

The American Psychological Association (APA) released guidelines concerning men and boys, saying that so-called traditional masculinity not only is harmful but it could also lead to homophobia and sexual harassment.

"The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity -- marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression -- is, on the whole, harmful", reads the news release.

Source: This Article by Fox News.

Please read the article in its entirety before responding to the poll.

Thank you.

Stoicism is a decent, manly virtue. There's nothing virtuous nor manly about anything else listed there.

We can't change our biology for the most part, but we've thrived as a species because of how adaptable we are in our behavior.

I don't think the masculinity traits listed are all bad, someone who doesn't have at least some stoicism is burdensome for others to be around. Some people need a psychologically compelling force to thrive and competition is very compelling.

I always thought it was ridiculous for people to conform to any gender role with rigidity, it always looked like they were acting out a role for others to see rather than being realistic with themselves or making a genuine effort to self-improve or even enjoy life.

This seems to be what the article is all about -- conformance to ONE particular archaic gender role leading to toxic behavior.

According to the article: For the first time in its history, the American Psychological Association (APA) released guidelines concerning men and boys, saying that so-called “traditional masculinity” not only is “harmful” but also could lead to homophobia and sexual harassment.

The “masculinity ideology” is defined by the APA 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.”

I have read a lot of posts on this site of Aspies and other Autistics that feel let down by the world, by their parents, by the school system and by the psychologist that treated them. So this is an organization of psychologists who in a sense failed in their treatment of many Aspies. So I guess in a way if I question the authority and capability of psychologists, I might also question the credibility of the organizations that they are part of.

Do you have a link to the actual study? My bad if there was one in the article. I did not see it if such was the case.

I think stoicism is a good trait for anyone to have, regardless of sex/gender. Being stoic doesn't mean you don't feel emotions, it just means you take them into perspective. There's more to the world than how you feel.

Other than that, I am a man who has never really fit the traditionally masculine mold since I'm neither aggressive nor competitive (I usually find competition boring and not worth the emotional effort even when I win). I wouldn't consider myself particularly effeminate either, however. Some of the traditionally masculine men I've known are fine, others are unpleasant. I guess I am sort of indifferent to traditional masculinity.

Here's the actual APA GUIDELINES for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men.

Here's an official API statement adding context to these guidelines.

Here's a step by step rebuttal of the API's position on masculinity.

I think stoicism is a good trait for anyone to have, regardless of sex/gender. Being stoic doesn't mean you don't feel emotions, it just means you take them into perspective. There's more to the world than how you feel.



There is no such thing as "THE traditional male". There are actually three archetypal forms of traditional masculinity : the warrior, the artist & the scientist. And each have their own characteristics.

The warrior archetype tends to be aggressive, because aggression is a positive trait for warriors.
Artists tend to be artistic, because artistic talent is a positive trait for artists.
Scientists tend to be intellectual, because intellectualism is a positive trait for scientists.

Try to educate a scientist archetype as a warrior, and he will feel out of place.
Try to educate a warrior archetype as a scientist, and he will feel out of place as well.
Both, however, are equally representative of traditional masculinity.
In fact, the traditional male ideal is a man who combines elements of all three archetypes : the "warrior-priest-poet". The "warrior-priest-poet" is a man who has the traits or a warrior, an artist and a scientist all bundled in one person, and who manages to balance them out perfectly.

The very notion that one cannot be a traditional male if one is not aggressive is nothing but a misandric distortion of what true masculinity is really about... and teaching this notion of masculinity can be harmful to men for all sorts of reasons.

Your typical male geek is just as masculine as your typical male football player. They just exhibit a different form of traditional masculinity.

Thank you for your contributions to this thread, Aspiesavant! I love it when someone provides more information, even when it may force me to change my opinions.

It may be difficult for people with bipolar or depressive disorders to develop any measure of stoicism. As for what you posted, I have to agree with you. There seems to be A LOT of people who seem hell-bent on imposing their emotional states on everyone around them, especially upon those of us who habituate social websites like this one.

In my experience, the most valuable interactions with other people are those that challenge my previously held opinions.



That's actually a statement by Minder, from the post preceding mine, which ended up in my post by accident when I was quoting his previous statement.

Having said that, I do agree with the position expressed by that statement. It boggles my mind, really, how anyone can think of stoicism as something negative.



Controlling your emotions is an art that is taught by various Asian philosophical schools. Sure, there may be limits to this, especially for people with an intense emotional life. However, this by no means implies that controlling your emotions is in any way or form a bad thing.

Mainstream culture today is obsessed with abiding to every petty emotion of every individual, and this rarely amounts to anything positive.

Psychology is not a true science.

Yet we're all here because of it.

I completely agree.

Toxic masculinity is killing us

Men Are Responsible for Mass Shootings

Toxic Masculinity Is Killing the Planet

The general consensus so far seems to favor agreement with the conclusions of the study. No surprises there.

I'm sort of a "traditional" sort of male.

I'm not aggressive. I'm sort of a placid person, actually. I do have opinions, though. And I express them.

I don't sexually harass people. I do flirt, though. And (most of the time), the women I flirt with don't mind at all. It's sort of like banter; it doesn't mean I'm going to jump in the sack with them. If a woman doesn't like it when I flirt with her, I'll stop.

I do like my sports.

I like talking about women with my buddies. I get irritated, though, when other men talk about women as if they're "all sluts." I don't join in those sorts of conversations.

I believe the man should usually initiate if he wants to have a relationship with a woman.

I won't ever go into a woman's bathroom.

I believe there is a "women's domain." And I believe there is a "men's domain." There are times when women don't want men around because they want to talk about something like menstruation or whatever.

I believe in equal rights in all areas for all genders.

I like a "feminine" women sexually much more than I like an "androgynous" women sexually. There's nothing wrong with being androgynous, though. People have a right to "present" the way they want to "present."

I don't believe in strict gender roles. I've known women who like to be carpenters. I've known men who are into flower arranging. All that doesn't bother me. I suck at carpentry. I suck at flower arranging.

I have some "male" interests, but mostly "gender-neutral" interests.

You would be surprised how many women are diehard sports fans these days.

It used to be. Unfortunately, the human sciences (which includes but is not exclusive to psychology) have been taken over be demagogues, who (ab)use these sciences to push their political agenda.



Each of these "articles" is nothing but pure, unadulterated, sexist demagoguery...



So sad to see how mainstream anti-male propaganda & hatred have become ...

And then people wonder why the suicide of men is skyrocketing...



What does that mean in the real world, though?

What does that mean in a world where the average man and the average woman are biologically different, in a way that translates to not just physical differences but also different emotional experiences & cognitive behavior?

What's wrong about the traditional notion of the sexes being complementary and having different needs according to their different attributes?



I've found myself sexually attracted to both "feminine" women and "androgynous" women. And I think it's kind of stupid to force women to behave "feminine" if it doesn't fit their character.

Having said that, I've found that "androgynous" women often do tend to be on the spectrum... which shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with Baron-Cohen's ideas on ASD.



Gender roles are based on the natural affinities of average men and average women.

This means that áre useful for eg. education. If you teach boys according to male gender roles and girls according to female gender roles, you would appeal to the natural affinity of the average boy and the average girl. And that's a good thing.

The problem isn't so much the existence of gender roles. The problem is forcing people into a certain role they don't fit into. "Androgynous" people, for example, may not fit into a the role associated with their gender. And they should be at least given the option to choose a different part.

This is something that transcends gender roles, however. We don't want geeks and jocks to be educated the same way ether.



Yet I wonder how many of them do enjoy watching sports for very different reasons than their male counterparts... like this being the main interest of their spouse... or like enjoying the sight of males in their prime running around in shorts...

Hmm ...

[X] Claiming men have "Special Needs" that women don't.
[X] Claiming there's nothing wrong with "Traditional" gender roles.
[X] Claiming traditional gender roles are "Natural" (instead of imposed).
[X] Insinuating that any man who is not a "jock" is gay.

No toxic masculinity in this thread ... move along ... nothing to see ... move along ...

That last line is sarcasm, by the way...