recent, Satire

Thank You, APA

People who don’t live in northern climates may not realize that construction doesn’t stop even in the coldest months. I live in North Dakota and was driving by a building site just the other day and saw a bunch of men stoically working in subzero temperatures and generally miserable weather conditions. I then started thinking about the other difficult and dangerous jobs that are dominated by males such as logging workers, fishing workers, roofers, and iron and steel workers.

For some strange reason, men seem to be uniquely willing to do dangerous jobs. In fact, economist and American Enterprise Institute scholar Mark J. Perry has documented a gender occupational fatality gap. Turns out that even though men make around 53 percent of all workers in the United States, they account for about 93 percent of workplace fatalities.

Thanks to the new guidelines from the American Psychological Association (APA) for practice with men and boys, male psychology is no longer a mystery and mental health professionals are now equipped with the tools they need to combat the worst forms of it. According to the APA, boys and men are at risk of suffering from traditional masculinity which is on the whole unhealthy. Turns out, the traditional masculinity that drives many of us men to be confident, assertive, adventurous, stoic, and willing to take risks for our goals, the people we love, and sometimes even complete strangers are bad for us and society.

Who knew?

Biologists, philosophers, theologians, physicians, parents, and really almost all regular folk have long believed that there are meaningful and biologically-based psychological differences between males and females. Fortunately for us mere mortals, the APA is setting the record straight. It is an oppressive patriarchy, not biology, that has shaped our psychology. Gender and the masculine traits associated with being male are social constructs. The APA obviously isn’t denying that evolution is true. They aren’t some kind of silly group of religious fundamentalists. But like most educated progressives, they understand that evolution stopped at the neck.   

There is this odd group of evolutionary psychologists who seem hell-bent on holding onto antiquated views about human mental and social life. It seems pretty clear that these individuals are the academic wing of the alt-right. Don’t be fooled by surveys suggesting the majority of evolutionary psychologists self-identify as liberal. We can’t trust people to self-report their own politics. Only the most enlightened are in a position to tell everyone else what they really think. I would laugh at how ridiculous the academics are who continue to insist that males and females are distinct in any meaningful way, but I now know that comedy is a form of oppression.

Perhaps the saddest part of reading the new APA guidelines is realizing just how many American boys and men suffer from traditional masculinity and don’t even realize it, and how many mothers and wives tolerate and even promote this sickness. There are millions of couples and families across the United States who are living lives imprisoned by traditional gender roles and on the surface appear to be happy and flourishing. I especially feel for all the conservatives and devout Christians who are most vulnerable to this illness. It doesn’t help when alt-right institutions such as Harvard publish research suggesting that children may benefit from being raised in such traditionally religious homes.

In fact, it is surprising the number of universities that are willing to allow scholars to publish research that gives credence to traditional ways of approaching life. For example, I recently read a peer-reviewed research paper reporting that conservatives have a stronger sense of meaning in life than liberals. Other studies find that conservatives are also in many ways physically healthier than liberals.

It must be difficult for the APA to do the good work of promoting a progressive psychological agenda at the same time as some researchers are annoyingly documenting a lack of viewpoint diversity in psychology and related fields. For instance, studies indicate that the vast majority of psychology professors are liberals and that many of them admit they would discriminate against a conservative academic when it comes to hiring decisions, conference invitations, and research grant funding. How exactly is this a problem? Most of the academics I talk to certainly don’t find it concerning. And as I already pointed out, despite this supposed lack of viewpoint diversity, some academics still manage to sneak through the peer-review system research findings that appear to be promoting the idea that some traditional ideas and lifestyles have psychological, social, and physical health benefits. Clearly, the real problem is we haven’t done enough to purge conservative and traditional ideas from the academy.

With great shame, I have to confess that after some introspection I now realize that the problem of traditional masculinity has taken hold of my own household. For years, I thought my wife and I were making division of labor and parental role decisions as equal partners and in a way that allowed us to balance as best we could our practical needs with our natural inclinations and interests. I thought my traditional masculinity and her traditional femininity were totally natural and healthy. Now I realize that we were both victims of a suffocating patriarchy. I am trying my best to get her to see the light but she may be beyond help. She still seems so happy and fulfilled. Maybe I should ask her to take some gender studies classes.

Now that I think about it, my past has been punctuated with multiple outbreaks of severe traditional masculinity. I’ll never forget an episode from my college years when my friends and I were walking through a parking lot late at night after going out to a club. I saw a man beating on a young woman. Traditional masculinity overwhelmed me and without a second thought I immediately ran over and attacked the man. A fight ensued and I successfully submitted him just before a couple of police officers arrived. My act of violence almost landed me in jail but thankfully the cops were sympathetic to my condition. Of course, the woman would have been more badly hurt had I not intervened, but why is her physical safety any more important than me keeping my masculinity illness in check?

Just think about all those horribly afflicted soldiers, police officers, and fire fighters who regularly engage in physical risk-taking behaviors that could and sometimes do cost them their lives out of some sense of masculine duty. This isn’t just a personal pathology. It is a public health crisis.

We should acknowledge the true courage of the APA. It must have been very awkward to craft their guidelines knowing they were doing so in the safe, comfortable, temperature-controlled buildings that were constructed by men, many of whom no doubt suffer terribly from the very traditional masculinity the APA is trying to address. I bet some of these workers occasionally congregate at a bar after a hard day’s work to drink a few beers. A few of them, the really ill ones, may even tell or laugh at politically incorrect jokes. Imagine. Those poor souls.

Even more courageous was the APA’s willingness to openly state that social justice activism is associated with healthy masculinity. Many good progressives know this to be true but are too afraid to so brazenly say it. They prefer a more cryptic approach to equating being a well-adjusted human being with having the correct political ideology. God—I mean Judith Butler—bless the APA!

At the risk of revealing my own ignorance, I’ll admit that I was at first puzzled by the fact that so many academics and prominent public figures have been for many years encouraging girls and women to adopt some of the unhealthy characteristics of traditional masculinity. But now I understand the master plan. If we can push men to be more like women and women to be more like men, they can converge into being interchangeable units who are much easier to manipulate in the service of creating a progressive social utopia.

I look forward to the day when we no longer are slaves to gendered names and pronouns but can refer to each other by the identification numbers issued to us by the state. This will help us realize the true utopian vision of anti-natalism in which our descendants won’t have to suffer from oppression because they won’t be burdened by existence.


Clay Routledge is a Quillette columnist and professor of psychology at North Dakota State University. You can follow him on Twitter 
@clayroutledge.

Feature photo by Sundry Photography / Shutterstock

171 Comments

  1. Saw file says

    A good ‘tongue in cheek’ article, but it articulates a fair warning.
    Men (and our women) know our roles, and we know that they very. We choose to be as we are.
    We are the ready made army that the elites fear, and the leftists hate.
    Both know that they can never rule us.

  2. Truthseeker says

    I am wondering how many readers and commenters are going to read this excellent piece and miss the humour and sarcasm that is the soul of what has been written here.

    • Sandra says

      @Truthseeker
      I had the same thought. But I hope those who will the sarcasm pay very close attention to this sentence:
      “If we can push men to be more like women and women to be more like men, they can converge into being interchangeable units who are much easier to manipulate in the service of creating a progressive social utopia.”
      Obvioulsy, Routledge was not being sarcastic here. He nailed the undeclared mission of the left, in that the progressives pretend to care about an issue while what they are really after is absolute power on road to utopia which is littered with moving goalposts.

      • “what they are really after is absolute power on road to utopia which is littered with moving goalposts”. Rather than moving goalposts, I think the road to utopia will be littered with corpses.

      • scubajim says

        I agree withthe slight modification Like: ” If we can push men to be more like women and women be the correct behavior, they can converge into being interchangeable units who are much easier to manipulate in the service of creating a progressive social utopia.”

    • Some. But it’s not all sarcasm, even when it seems to be couched in sarcasm. There are very biting (appropriately so) comments and observations of the sickness that is identitarian ‘social justice’ through-out.

      • david of Kirkland says

        Most sarcasm plays that role unless you’re just being a dick, er, a urine deboarder.

    • Brhjagisiaj says

      If this wasn’t quillette and it was BuzzFeed, or the dailymail or something I would 100% believe this was serious.

    • Stanley Ketchel says

      Serious zealots on either tail of the political bell curve tend to be humorless ideologues. Poking fun and deflating their balloons is a greater threat to their views and self worth than all the reasoned arguments. Looking like a fool is much worse than being a martyr.

    • JustPassingThrough says

      The 1st few paragraphs had me thinking “is he out of his f-ing mind”, followed by “this has to be sarcasm”, followed by “oh thank God, it’s sarcasm possibly at it’s finest”.

    • Nakatomi Plaza says

      You’re congratulating yourselves for identifying an obvious piece of satire as satire? Uh, great work, guys. I think half of the readers on here would expect a round of applause for wiping their own asses.

    • Alice Williams says

      Satire may be a more appropriate description than sarcasm.

  3. BeeBee says

    It’s only anecdotal evidence but growing up in an extremely traditional Christian country (Poland), I have yet to meet children who ” benefited from being raised in such traditionally religious homes “. All of my friends have kids now and woved to never put them through the ideological brainwashing they experienced as children both at school and at home. My female friend said that as a mother, she feels that she cannot risk sending her child to an institution that for years, insisted on protecting child molestors. Her father in law refuses to see his granddaughter because she was not christened.

    Abortion is banned but provision for children born with Dawn syndrome and other developmental issues is abysmal but hey, it’s “God’s will” after all and it must be that all these families deserved their children to be born this way because they were bad Christians.

    My sister is gay and she moved abroad. I am happy about that as she was bullied at school and tried to commit suicide at 18. But hey, she’s upsetting the “natural” order so the devout Christians would probably want her dead anyway.

    I moved abroad at 20 and do not miss home at all. UK’s definition of conservative seems relaxed by my standards and I met some “traditional Christians” who seemed vanilla next to what I grew up with but still, I am in no hurry to visit the church.

    • Emmanuel says

      From one country to the other (and from one place to the other within the same country), words like “conservatives” or “traditional values” can refer to very different things. What Clay Routledge writes about some parts of the USA probably does not apply to the rest of the world.

    • northernobserver says

      I get it, life is suffering, but the sexual utopia of the West is not turning out to be the unalloyed good as advertised. When you collapse traditional modes of life there are unintended consequences. More moderation and humility is needed if we are to “progress”

    • There’s a saying: 180 degrees from sick is still sick. It, basically means, something entirely opposite of sick cultural practice is, often, just as bad. If only in a different way. Both sides of a bi-model thought process can be wrong.

    • BirdInThe Hand says

      I know some older Poles and I was under the mistaken impression that the institution that caused the most suffering for them was the Communist government. Those silly people told me that the Church gave them comfort and support at a time when they were isolated from the West and feared persecution and imprisonment. However, those times were long ago and they are old and don’t know anything about real oppression, like woke SJWs do. Feel free to jettison your religious traditions – it’s working out wonderfully for the Western world.

      • Mistaken indeed. I am from a post-Soviet country – soviets were nothing if not traditionalists. They denounced and repressed religion, sure, but kept to perhaps even more extremist-puritan values. As anyone with any inkling of Soviet society would tell you: “There is no sex in the SU”. No sex-ed, no gays, not even acknowledgement that sex is a thing people do.
        If anything, those older poles are doing a good job keeping alive the soviet values they grew up with – corruption, puritanism and ignorance.

        • El Uro says

          Post hoc ergo propter logical fallacy. America was created by WASPs. SU was created by atheists

    • Aylwin says

      Well said BeeBee. I had the similar reservations about this piece. Yes, the APA may be making a mistake. But so is this piece by beating a traditionalism drum. The follies of the left have their counterparts in the follies of the right.

      The dogmatic impositions of both the left and the right have to be challenged. I don’t know which I fear the most – a theocratic, regressive, illiberal right, or a fanatically regressive left. (Quillette, at least in the comments, seems to have veered from independent and rational, to somewhat right – which seems to have happened about the time of Jordan Peterson’s prominence, attracting the religiously befuddled with his bizarre religious apologetics).

      I’m heartened that your new (of twenty years) home here in the UK is to your liking!

      • El Uro says

        Inquisition is responsible for a death of less than 30,000 people during centuries. Communism killed above 100,000,000 people in half of a century. Communists are a bit more efficient, isn’t it?

        • XCellKen says

          And if the Inquisition had the population base, and the technology and killing tools of the Communists, they wouldn’t have killed a few more people ???

          • Probably not. The Inquisition’s tactics were too slow. There were too many kangaroo trials and time consuming methods for extracting confessions. But who is advocating for inquisition style of cult Christianity? We have an entire university system in the Western world indoctrinating students into Marxist/Communist style mass murder as we speak.

  4. Ship Ahoy says

    “I look forward to the day when we no longer are slaves to gendered names and pronouns but can refer to each other by the identification numbers issued to us by the state. This will help us realize the true utopian vision of anti-natalism in which our descendants won’t have to suffer from oppression because they won’t be burdened by existence.”

    LAUGHING OUT LOUD! Humor is the best medicine, especially approaching faculty meetings presided over by genderless Cookie Monsters masquerading as adults.

    Thank you!

  5. Marko Novak says

    I wonder what the daily budget for soy lattes is at the APA? I bet they get to wear their coziest pyjamas all day in the office.

  6. Bubblecar says

    The sad-sack sarcasm on display here is fairly typical of elderly disgruntled conservatives, and it’s a little wearisome to read.

    Nonetheless it is true that males commit far more violent crimes than women, with other males being the most frequent victims. And men commit suicide at a much higher rate, too. And this was the case long before the advent of feminism.

    How much of this is due to culture, and how much to biology? There’s certainly an appeal in ascribing it to culture, because that implies that something can be done to improve the situation.

    Even if it’s all down to biology, future biotechnology may enable us to do something about it. But given that many men on the right, like Routledge, refuse to acknowledge that there’s any problem at all, it’s going to be an uphill battle either way.

    • RadixLecti says

      He didn’t say there wasn’t a problem, he’s taking on the ridiculous assertion that EVERYTHING about traditional masculine attributes is toxic.

      I wish I could post pictures here, to show you some of my fellow toxic male colleagues, out on the deck of my container ship, tying her up in the snow of a North Sea port. I’m sure they’ll be happy to realise that they’ve just brought over the Apple products that feminists and SJWs will use to berate them on Twitter.

    • northernobserver says

      Dear Bubble,

      If the cure is worse than the disease, of what use is the cure?

      And yes, it is biology, and your leap to biotechnology as a solution, directed by whom, guided by what, is less than reassuring, eugenicist and naziesque even.
      There is also a irony in using the most violent are men argument as an argument against men – you’ve legitimated the god of bio mechanics an opened up the use of biological constants across culture in the evaluation of women too and unconsciously affirmed that the “patriarchy” is actually a value neutral hierarchy of human survival and competence rather than a male directed tyranny.

      If that is the case, what is the point of having a gender revolutionary ethic at all? You might as well look to your great grandfather and emulate him.

      • Bubblecar says

        I don’t have a “gender revolutionary ethic”, and I doubt the APA has, either. It’s just a matter of being optimistic that humans aren’t destined to be forever victims of the worst tendencies of our evolutionary and cultural ancestry.

        “unconsciously affirmed that the “patriarchy” is actually a value neutral hierarchy of human survival”

        I’m sure it is indeed value-neutral to conservatives, who tend to suffer a poverty of values. But to those of us who value the highest humanist ideals, tolerating a chimp-style social order until the end of time is a somewhat depressing prospect.

        • That Guy says

          “I’m sure it is indeed value-neutral to conservatives, who tend to suffer a poverty of values.”

          Just because your adversaries still hold dear values like life and liberty that you think outmoded does not mean they suffer a lack of values.

          “But to those of us who value the highest humanist ideals, tolerating a chimp-style social order until the end of time is a somewhat depressing prospect.”

          I’ll trust evolution over totalitarian Utopianism every time.

        • Alistair says

          Hey Bubblecar,

          “I’m sure it is indeed value-neutral to conservatives, who tend to suffer a poverty of values. ”

          Didn’t Haidt etc show that it’s YOU that suffer from an lower amount of value dimensionality? Y’know…stuck with just 2 or 3 out of 7 values…..must be hard, suffering like that….

          Oops, sorry, that’s probably a HateFact and DoublePlusUnGood to you. Go back to your premature epistemic closure and enjoy the safe walled space.

        • Stephanie says

          Bubblecar’s solution to our “chimp-like” human nature is chemical castration. Nice!

        • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says

          @Bubblecar

          “But to those of us who value the highest humanist ideals”

          Yes, what could a conservative know of humanist ideals? We are practically subhuman chimp-style creatures. Only people like yourself can see how it needs to be, what real progress must look like. Yes? Only the radical feminists can say what masculinity should look like. Yes?

        • “I’m sure it is indeed value-neutral to conservatives, who tend to suffer a poverty of values.”

          Hahahahaha hahahahaha

          That was pretty funny. It’s also demonstrably false. Someone else downthread beat me to pointing out the work of Jonathan Haidt.

    • psg82 says

      Suicide among girls is unfortunately on the rise too. As Jonathan Haidt states, suicide in gen z has risen 75% – which is clearly alarming. Why? Social media and bullying among girls seems to be a big factor.. Girls are more likely to fight each other verbally and attack their reputations (gossip etc), while boys tend to fight physically (and become friends next day btw, unlike the girls). The girls strategy is dangerous in this day and age because social media has made is so much easier. I wonder if APA will ever address this as outdated traditional feminine culture that does not belong in this day and age? for me, that’s as toxic as you can get…

      • BirdInThe Hand says

        There was a student at my private girl’s school who committed suicide because the mean girl clique mocked and humiliated her daily due to her weight and bad complexion. That was in the 70’s and there wasn’t a boy in sight on our campus. Anybody who thinks femininity automatically confers superior moral status has never attended an all-girls school. Where are those ’70’s mean girls now? Probably squawking about “toxic masculinity.”

    • peanut gallery says

      This may sound cold, but suicide is a first world problem. It’s a tragedy, but some perspective should be had. I doubt it was a problem in the Bronze Age. If you want men to stop doing it, give them a purpose.

      • Conciousness says

        Children never want to committ suicide do they? When is it learned? How is it instigated by others, and at what age?

      • Vibekke says

        This couldn’t be further from the truth. And it also contributes to the stigma surrounding depression and suicide.

      • peanut gallery, suicide among gen z women has increased far more than among gen z male. The boys have a very tough time, but the girls are suffering more, DK why

    • DeplorableDude says

      @Bubblecar Once you engineer out all that “toxic masculinity” what are you doing to down when you need it to protect you? What you call toxic masculinity is was makes a fireman run into a burning building, a policeman walk by himself in the dark looking for someone who committed a crime and a soldier yell follow me as he climbs out of the trench of runs up a hill. Who will do that for you when you get your way. I know for a fact you won’t be doing it.

      • You realize there are female firefighters, police officers, and soldiers, don’t you?

    • Pointing out absurdity by being absurd has nothing to do with being an ‘elderly conservative’ it’s called sarcasm and is practiced by people of all ages and political stripes.

      Flick your finger and dismiss it because you perceive it’s just some old guy complaining that time has passed him by. He’s probably an agent of the patriarchy too!!!

      Talk about wearisome to read.

    • The necessary biotechnology, lobotomy, has been available for about a century. Why aren’t you advocating that?

    • So you have no scientific evidence that the reason men commit more acts of violence is cultural but you want to take a stab at changing the culture? Do you not see how that could be a problem? How about we stick to the science and take a look at the correlation between low IQ and criminality and then contrast that with the Greater Male Variability hypothesis? Notice how the most successful people in society are men, typically with high IQs and the most vulnerable and failing are also all men, typically with low IQs? Or are you one of those liberals that likes to pick and choose when to rely on science?

    • Charlie says

      Testosterone levels, bone density, adrenaline production, oxygen levels in blood, size of liver, metabolic rates, muscle strength ; all these are biological. What I are find odd is that 160 years after Darwin, Mendel, etc, we appear to be ignoring basic biology. Thatcher said the facts are conservative, perhaps she was right.

      The worst torturers under the Nazis and communists were women ; one made lampshades from human skin. We do not hear about this from feminists. In parts of the Middle East / W Asia it used to be the tradition for women to skin alive prisoners, they even had special knives. Rumour has it some Afghan women spent 10 days skinning a soviet hostage before they died.

      Conservatives had poverty of values ? The most effective opposition to the Nazis were Conservatives inspired by Christian ethics.Cardinal Clemens August Graf von Galen , was criticising Hitler from the pulpit by 1933. Women were massive supporters of Hitler- look at the rallies.

      Progressives like Sartre and Cocteau did nothing to fight the Nazis. The highest human ideals ? The largest supporters of eugenics up to 1939 were progressives – racial hygiene. Progressives also supported Stalin ( Webbs, GB Shaw ) even after the Ukrainian Famine.

      By the way Ibn Khaldun thought it was bad idea for men to rely on walls and garrisons to protect them as they lost their freedom.

      The old fashion of training men was chivalry Boys were trained to fight:, boxing, wrestling and using arms to protect those weaker than themselves – women, children and the old. Historically small , weak and timid boys were taught boxing so they could defend themselves from bullying. The idea of chivalry took hold in the UK from the 1250s and resulted in very low murder rates: Pinker uses data from coroners. Disagreements between men were sorted out with their fists and the use of weapons were despised. There was no police force and once the Parish Constable raised the hue and cry all men between the ages of 15 and 60 were expected to help him; those who did not were fined. rapid urbanisation caused the system to break down resulting in the creation of police forces. However able men were expected to apprehend the criminal until the constable arrived.

      What is interesting are all the threats made against the boys from Covington made by adults. There used to be well used phrase ” Pick on someone your own size”. Women have told me that working in offices on construction sites is far more pleasurable as they are treated with far more courtesy than in offices. Foreman are usually tough, practical and chivalrous.

    • Asenath Waite says

      @Bubblecar

      I’m sure a general, society-wide shaming of men and treatment of their natural tendencies and desires as a psychological disorder will do wonders for decreasing the violent crime rate in addition to making men much happier, thus dramatically reducing their suicide rate as well.

    • david of Kirkland says

      I thought we were supposed to praise cultures…isn’t multi-culturalism a defining ideal of those who prefer coercion and blandness to liberty and choice?

    • Just replace “males” with “black males” — also statistically supported — and see how your little post comes out.

      We really ought to stop playing these games with statistics. Women are overrepresented in the social forms of bullying. Jews — like me — are overrepresented in financial crimes. I’m sure that people born on Wednesday are overrepresented with respect to bad A, B, and C.

    • Bubblecar – Lately women are on a role making up for the discrepancy in violent murders in the Western world and elsewhere. Since Roe vs. Wade in the U.S. alone women have murdered 50,000,000 of their own babies. Sounds like women are really striving for “equality” in the murder department.

  7. Saw file says

    Ok, buble car
    Plz keep explaining the world of men, that protects you and keeps your ‘world’ actually turning.
    Hint: not you techno- clerks.
    Us

    • Bubblecar says

      You “protect” me? Don’t think so, sweetie.

      Like all law-abiding citizens, I do require an armed police force (of both sexes) to protect me from violent anti-social men. But according to Routledge that’s not a problem, never has been. Violent anti-social men are just part of the natural order of things and we have to put up with them, ‘cos God says so.

      But who knows, one day when God’s not looking we might be able to change the natural order of things, for the better.

      • northernobserver says

        OK mattress girl, tell us another “truth” while you build your “art”

      • Saw file says

        Well.. Reality wise, we do, ‘hon.
        You have previously espoused that techno-clerks (like you) keep civilization running.
        Nonsense.
        You’re scared poopless, of those that actually do it.
        Us.

      • peanut gallery says

        I don’t know where you live, but if you encounter a violent man intent on harming you. The police will show up to the crime scene with you already dead or maimed.

        I don’t know that we can “solve” all the problems with humanity in the way you prescribe. Not without you having others engage in violence for you. We are imperfect. I think we can overcome our limitations, but I think you over-simplify the issue. Utopian dreams have tended to ended up being nightmares.

        I also want to see us improve, but I don’t think appreciate how hard a problem it is to solve. What you imagine seems half-baked. YMMV.

        • There’s little point trying to reason with Bubble. The very fact that she has the ability to post Utopian tinged comments here and elsewhere is only made possible by evolutionary and culturally challenged men keeping the machinery of the modern infrastructure running. Surely many women are critically involved at different levels – but the opening point of this piece spells it out clearly – it’s men doing the physically demanding and dangerous work. It’s always been this way and likely will be this way for the foreseeable future. Guaranteed that when the storm takes out the lights (and Internet) at her place it will be men out there fixing it.

      • Dazza says

        Ignoring the men vs women nonsense that cloggs up this thread (I agree, women are also soldiers, police, paramedics and firefighters ect) I would like to think that your suggestion of biological engineering in the future is just a bit of poking the bear on here. Please tell me you are not serious!

      • A police force functions only because society asa whole allows it to do so.

        That there is a small number of violent anti-social men may be biological in origin and therefore part of the natural order but that does nto mean all men should be condemened or treated a steh minority not that we should not seek to minimise the harm caused by taht small minority.

        Most peopel would say that morally child abuise and murder are the most immoral acts that an be performed and should be a priority to control. It is a fact that the majority of child abuse and murder is committed by women with men and especially the biololgical father being far les slikely to abuse or murder. Should we therefore characterise all women as potential child abusers limt the access of mothers to their children except under supervision and insist on classes to teach women not to murder their children?

        It is an absurdity to characterise and treat an entire gender on the basis of the abherrant behaviour of a tiny minority.

      • Bublecar, I suppose you are unaware that, according to research by Gottman, the rate of violence in marriage is 50%-50% male and female. Intimate violence is surprisingly equal.

  8. Sean J Kouznetsov says

    The fact that there is no link to any APA publication leads me to believe that this is either satire or some kind of left-wing Jordan Peterson

    • psg82 says

      Look again 🙂 where it says “Thanks to the new guidelines..”

      • Asenath Waite says

        @EK

        I forced myself to read the introduction and the glossary of terms. It reads like a gender studies paper.

        I thought this sentence was kind of funny:

        “Although boys and men, as a group, tend to hold privilege and
        power based on gender, they also demonstrate disproportionate rates of receiving harsh discipline (e.g., suspension and expulsion), academic challenges (e.g., dropping out of high school, particularly among African American and Latino boys), mental health issues (e.g., completed suicide), physical health problems (e.g., cardiovascular problems), public health concerns (e.g., violence, substance abuse, incarceration, and early mortality), and a wide variety of other quality-of-life issues.”

        I’m curious to know what they consider the privilege part. Just having more money? I think men usually share that with women.

        • david of Kirkland says

          @Asenath Waite – Indeed!
          Women in the workforce, for example, is only a good if the women want to be there. More workers generally means lower pay unless they become entrepreneurs and create wealth rather than just take a slot in a company. Women in the workforce also means lower birthrates (to me, that’s a side win) and more childrearing by non-family members (but far too often just more years in “school”).

  9. J.D.A. says

    The best response yet to the APA (and Gillette, by proxy) agenda.

  10. Jeff York says

    CR, great article. Many thanks. Hopefully all this micro-transgressions, 57 genders, evil patriarchy, toxic masculinity, silence-is-actually-violence, it’s-hate-speech-if-I-disagree-with-it, worldview of oppressor-versus-oppressed and other such nonsense are fads or a phase that will fade with time. Fads/phases like the anarchist movement of the early 20th century, Marxism, Prohibition, the anarchist movement of the 60s and early 70s (think Weathermen bombings, Symbionese Liberation Army, Patty Hearst kidnapping), the cults of the ’70s & ’80s like the Moonies, etc.

    Hopefully this will end eventually but how much damage will be done in the meantime?

    • XCellKen says

      I spoke with my favorite Anarcho Communist a few weeks ago. Anarchism is still a thing

  11. Wells Marvel says

    I would encourage everyone to go and find what the APA has actually said about their new guidelines before giving into the paranoia of this article. It’s pretty tame stuff. Don’t exclude fruits and vegetables from your diet, dont heavily smoke/drink, and don’t push your emotions down until you commit suicide. Yup. Are these traditionally masculine behaviors? Yes of course.

    Maybe it will be practiced different than it is preached, but literally, the article concludes with, “supporting men in breaking free of masculinity rules that don’t help them.”

    https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner.aspx

    • Rigelsen says

      Since when is taking things to extremes a “masculinity rule”?

    • Reader says

      The guidelines are about half agreeable enough points of social psychology (yes, bottling up emotions can be extremely unhealthy) and about half intersectional gibberish. People largely responded to the latter. In fact that introduction page, IIRC, had much more of the gibberish in it until they got the backlash.

      The first over-arching guideline seems to leave no room for biology playing a role, despite massive, cross-cultural evidence showing meaningful differences between men and women. The word “identity” appears 59 times. The word “depression” appears 40 times. The word “well-being” appears 16 times. The word “hegemonic” appears 7 times. The word “privilege” appears 19 times. The word “power” appears 28 times. [stolen from Twitter]

      Ambiguous, poorly-defined philosophical concepts from the least-academically rigorous and most politically-activist disciplines in the academy shouldn’t have a place in a document summarizing social science research, especially not as a recommendation. Keep the basic mental health advice and lose the loaded bullshit.

    • Stephanie says

      @Wells, Wow, guess that explains my meat-dominant diet, heavy drinking, and constant weed smoking… I’m trans! Amazing, I had no idea :O

      Does that mean I need testosterone or estrogen to cure my traditional masculinity?

  12. psg82 says

    Then one can ask if it’s biological behavior of the girls or if it’s cultural, if one finds it appropriate to do so (I don’t).

  13. Saw file says

    Scots, wha hae wi’ Wallace bled,
    Scots, wham Bruce has aften led;
    Welcome to your gory bed,
    Or to victory!

    Now’s the day, and now’s the hour;
    See the front o’ battle lour;
    See approach proud Edward’s power—
    Chains and slavery!

    Wha will be a traitor knave?
    Wha can fill a coward’s grave!
    Wha sae base as be a slave?
    Let him turn and flee!

    Wha for Scotland’s king and law
    Freedom’s sword will strongly draw,
    Freeman stand, or freeman fa’,
    Let him follow me!

    By oppression’s woes and pains!
    By your sons in servile chains!
    We will drain our dearest veins,
    But they shall be free!

    Lay the proud usurpers low!
    Tyrants fall in every foe!
    Liberty’s in every blow!—
    Let us do or die!

  14. Alan Appel says

    Clay, I agree with your reservations about your reaction to the male on female attack in the parking lot. In retrospect it is obvious that you should have waited for the girl’s feminist sisters to have come to her rescue. But learning from our mistakes is a good thing, and I am sure that you will not repeat that particular error. All the best.

  15. I guess it is some sort of irony that a soft palmed college professor is giving lectures on “traditional masculinity”, and referencing some imaginary Village People cast of construction workers, cowboys, cops and leather men.

    Ironic, because those roles are swiftly disappearing, being absorbed by technology to where the vast majority of men earn their living sitting in a chair staring at a screen.

    Matthew Crawford, in his excellent book “Shopcraft As Soulcraft” spoke about the modern world involves mostly “ghostly forms of work”, that is, jobs where the output is difficult to measure and sense of accomplishment hard to sense.

    Most of the articles like this promote a sort of performative masculinity, where emphasis is placed on the costume of patriarchy without any real underlying need for it.

    Gender differences are very real, and men’s psyches are different than women’s. But rather than perform a desperate revival act trying to recreate the bygone world of steam powered factories, Professor Rutlege would be better off considering how real men are going to make their way in a modern world.

    • Said like a true gender studies student.

      “Most of the articles like this promote a sort of performative masculinity, where emphasis is placed on the costume of patriarchy without any real underlying need for it”.

      What a load of nonsense.

      • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says

        @ Mark

        No, I think @Chip has a point. Most men now do look at screens all day. But I don’t think that means that traditional masculinity is ‘toxic’, only that many of us lack ways to express our masculinity as often as we used to. I think there is some insecurity there, and thus we are a bit touchy when we see something like the Gillette add or this crap from the APA. How real men will make their way in the modern world is a very real question. But I hope it is not up to the APA and the radfems to decide for us.

    • Dazza says

      @chip

      That’s a good point, but will I ever get my wife to put the rubbish out. Probably not.

  16. Lightning Rose says

    The fact that so many people spend so much of their day “staring at screens” is what allows these leftist “narratives,” most of which have no existence in the real world, to gain traction. Get the voices of trolls and idiots out of your head and go outside and do something practical. Listening to this shit is a choice we’re all making.

    • Stephanie says

      It’s a sign of economic weakness that most men are office workers. There are roads to be build, pipelines to be lain, rigs to be mounted, territory to be prospected, oceans to be explored, mines to be opened. Depending on other countries for vital natural resources and neglecting our own infrastructure is a losing strategy. Particularly when we’re the post-Cold War era is coming to a close.

    • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says

      @Lightning Rose

      It is a choice that we sometimes make, but it is being increasingly forced upon us. Elsewhere I’m reading about the explosion of DIE (Diversity, Inclusion and Equity) affirmations that people are being forced to sign in all our wokest companies. It seems that in some companies now, if one is a white male, one must pledge that one is sorry, and one’s foremost goal will be to replace oneself with a woman or a POC or some other person with Victim status. This as a condition of hire.

  17. Brittany Krzyzanowski says

    It’s light on the references–uses the word “studies” and hyperlinks to one article. But I guess this is that sort of piece. Disappointed that they only used one study to make the point on the potential relationship between political orientation and health. Hard to get excited about that. Moreover, that article is not available via campus institution lib or google scholar, so I’d have to pay for it to dive into their methods. Making a case like that would prove rather difficult, and I have my doubts that one could easily account for all pertinent covariates and grab a representative sample (think geographical variation in health and politics). This is made even more difficult given that mental health and physical health are not dependent of one another, so differences in mental health in one group will partially determine differences in physical health.

  18. frederica bernkastel says

    While that APA document was suffocatingly leftist in both tone and substance, this response missed the point entirely. Despite the glaring flaws of that document, what you’ve done here is set up a straw man argument and then oh so hilariously tore that down instead. And by hilarious, I mean insipid and dull beyond belief while regurgitating irrelevant facts and figures that don’t engage with the actual argument.

    For those who still don’t get it: some men feel distress at their own inability to fulfill what they perceive to be other people’s standards of masculinity, and respond to that by lashing out or through self-destructive actions. The key word here is “some”. Not all; that’s not what they’re saying. Some. By helping them to understand that other people don’t necessarily have those standards, and to develop their own idea of how to be a man, that distress can be relieved. Not a word about … “purging conservative ideas” or other such nonsense.

    Now I realise that academics are denser than a black hole in most discussions because they’re too convinced of their own intelligence to admit they’re wrong, but it would really benefit everyone if you would at least try to understand what things actually say before catapulting tripe all over the internet.

  19. Jezza says

    May I suggest you read No More Sex Wars – The Failures Of Feminism by Nicholas Davidson 1992. He explains the Marxist techniques used to promote feminism (he is a lapsed Marxist). He also makes the point that men commit more murders than women, murder being a legal definition of a certain kind homicide, but when you count the number of deaths caused by either sex, women are by far the more deadly. I gave my copy away years ago so I write this from memory.
    And did the author ‘submit’ the assailant in the park or ‘subdue’ him?

  20. Well done. Thank you Professor Routledge, that was excellent reading. I like your style.

  21. Brennan says

    This is not a great assessment of the new APA guidelines. If you read this article without having looked at the guidelines, you would think the guidelines suggested that men and boys were all living horrid lives, but that just isn’t the case. The guidelines are specifically promulgated “for psychological practice with boys and men [to] help to attend to the barriers that lead to” disparities including “receiving harsh discipline” relative to women and girls, “academic challenges,” “mental health issues,” “physical health problems,” and more documented disparities between males and females. See Introduction Section to Guidelines. The guidelines then are specifically issued to help with treatment and research of the documented gender disparities that disfavor men; they aren’t an attack on masculinity. As you can see when you read the guidelines, the authors agree that there are biological components to gender differences, as well as non-biological components. Pg. 7 of Guidelines (citing Banaji and Prentice for the proposition that infants notice gender distinctions, and citing David et al. for the proposition that gender is partly a result of assigning meanings to the concept of masculinity). A lot of the criticism lobbed at the Guidelines appears to be based on the Guidelines’ assumption of traditional masculinity as a harmful psycho-social phenomenon. However, as the Introduction makes clear, the Guidelines are not aimed at discussing how things are going right, but how they can go and are going wrong. Criticizing the Guidelines on this basis is like criticizing a dietician for discussing the negative parts of a normal western diet; that’s what the whole conversation is about. If it were about how to reinforce the good parts, you would be hearing something different.

    • Reader says

      As I posted above, it seems like the guidelines are about half agreeable enough points of social psychology and about half intersectional gibberish. The former, as the defenders correctly point to, is largely fine; the latter is unnecessary at best, harmful ideological dogma at worst. Why include it except as academic entryism?

      That also seems like a rather specific and limited reference to biology for the basis of masculinity, particularly when the first guideline reads “Psychologists strive to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms.” What about the large amount of cross-cultural, replicable evidence that points to biology playing a more central function? Many Quillette readers will instantly think of how Scandinavia shows massive gender differences in social roles like employment choice at a higher scale than countries with lower gender equality measures. I’m not sure the APA can Redefine Masculinity More Healthily their way around these kinds of points.

      Also, the introduction page was wackier until the backlash hit.

    • ccscientist says

      What would make your argument more convincing (that it isn’t just anti-masculinity) would be if there were a companion document concerning toxic femininity. But there is not.
      Yes of course men suffer from failure to fulfill their sex roles. For men failure is more serious than for women.

  22. Farris says

    In Nature v. Nurture it appears Nature is racist, sexist and homophobic. It also appears in every society someone must play the role of “Court Fool”. Presently that role is increasing being filled by the so call professorial class.

    “It is an oppressive patriarchy, not biology, that has shaped our psychology.”

    Yes I’ve seen the minutes from the meeting on a cave wall.

    First order of business: “Evolve, Walk upright, Use tools.”

    Second order of business: “Construct an oppressive patriarchy.”

    The chair recognizes a question from Krug.

    Krug: “What about the women?”

    Chair: “Don’t tell them about the Second order of business.”

    • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says

      @ Farris

      “Nature is racist, sexist and homophobic.”

      That’s interesting. If you said “The facts are racist, sexist and homophobic” the counter would be that what we call ‘facts’ are mere constructions of the Patriarchy. But … nature is female, nature is ‘the Goddess’ that was raped when the Patriarchy was established back in mythological times (before that, all was paradise), so your phrasing is thoughtcrime and blasphemy.

  23. The average psychologist is under 50 and most likely female and of course hyper progressive. So basically garbage in garbage out.

    • R Henry says

      @KevinHerman

      She is is also very likely divorced and has a history of emotional instability. The only people who become therapists need therapy themselves, frequently. Therapists are NOT a happy cohort.

  24. ga gamba says

    I enjoy viewing (wo)man-in-street interviews and after the new Gillette campaign was launched I found some that asked people on a university campus their thoughts. After confirming the person indeed heard about the campaign, they were asked two questions. “Do you approve of the messaging?” The answer was yes by everyone. I suppose it was edited to include only supporters because the real question was: “What is toxic masculinity?” Everyone struggled to answer. “Oh God” and other expressions of befuddlement often preceded the attempts. There were scattered words, the most common being bullying. A lot of erms and pauses. One girl, who stated she was a gender studies student, said it was discussed in her class, and even she had trouble explaining it, though less so than the others.

    Does this make toxic masculinity like pornography? You know it when you see it?

    Delving into this I found what troubled critics of masculinity’s toxicity was, aside from violence and bullying, competitiveness, risk taking, self reliance, physical strength, virility, search for meaning, etc. They mention the hyper or extreme variant. But, still, what’s the difference between competitiveness and hyper competitiveness? I reckon hyper competitiveness may be off putting to those playing Monopoly, but it it could be very valuable in hand-to-hand combat and other life-and-death situations. “Never say die,” has its usefulness. Where is the line? Depends on context? But contexts are always changing.

    In the hands of trained professionals who have questionnaires and ways to evaluate such things I suppose it may aid the management of hyper characteristics. Yet, I see toxic masculinity used far more often by activists and ideologues. Things they dislike are dismissed as that. I’ve even seen it used in forums as an accusation and as justification to moderate commentators. It’s a handy way to shut up people. Sometimes these concepts have ways of creeping into other domains. Could it be in few years a claim of toxic masculinity is considered by police grounds for a domestic abuse arrest?

    Further, bullying, violence, self reliance, and the search for meaning aren’t gender specific. (Or, are they?) Yes, men commit more violence against women (and men, of course) than the reverse, but who commits violence against children? Biological mums murder their minor children roughy equal to biological dads – stepfathers are the most murderous. And the domestic partnerships with the highest incidence of domestic violence are lesbian ones. Clearly, women can be quite toxic too, and I’m sure many women will agree. I’m not offering this as whataboutery, but I wonder why there’s so much emphasis – hyper emphasis – on one gender’s toxicity and very little about the other gender’s toxicity. This leads me to suspect that a driving force behind the amplification of one and the omission of the other is ideologically based and not grounded in genuine psychological concerns. Amongst radfems there’s the belief that female criminality and deviant behaviour is due to The Patriarchy, and because of this most women are blameless.

    There is no female equivalent of the ways in which Toxic masculinity enables abuse. The concept of “toxic masculinity” exists to highlight the organized, political nature of domestic violence and other forms of violence against women. While abuse by women aimed at adult men exists, it’s exceedingly rare and when it isn’t actually self-defense being mischaracterized as an abuse, it happens individualistically, not as part of a patriarchal pattern of political violence. Abuse by women aimed at children is much more common, but the roots of that abuse are also in patriarchy, not femininity. Child abuse is a way in which women can actively participate in supporting patriarchal structure, and Internalized sexism means that women, as well as men, will continue to abuse children as long as patriarchy continues.

    “Political violence.” Hmmm… usually that’s assassination, terrorism, etc. So, is toxic masculinity, if it exists, a form of political violence like assassination and terrorism? If you look at some of the articles published on the APA’s website, you’ll find “Thrill-Seeking, Search for Meaning Fuel Political Violence.”

    Were those who hold such views, such as radfems, involved in swaying the APA to add toxic masculinity to the guidelines? I think it’s worth a look.

    Is the scientific method toxic masculinity? I’ve read arguments that because it’s based on the structures and institutions of cis-heteronormative white Western male capitalism, it’s toxic masculinity. And if all structures are that long list of the bad things, then are the economic, judicial, and political systems – and everything else, it appears – also toxic masculinity? Oh! Look what happened. Has the APA declared everything, including itself, toxic masculinity?

    “Preposterous!” Well, people in the ’80s predicting that political correctness would lead to some whacky things have been vindicated, so we ought not dismiss out of hand the possibility of bizarre outcomes of anything touched by the pomos. The infestation further infests.

    Really, the problem is toxic personalities and the management of characteristics to avoid their being taken to the extreme, but now it’s gendered and gendered it shall be. Of course, behaviours that were once considered deviant by psychologists, such as homosexuality, are no longer deemed so, but this was due to intense lobbying by activists. I think if men fail to understand the forces at play here they may find a massive framework of guidelines, laws, and biases working against them and many of their fine characteristics.

    Something to consider.

    • I think we are already seeing men’s response to this vitriol of “Toxic Masculinity”. It is called MGTOW. The reason that MGTOW is so appropriate for men is because although men are very protective of others, they tend not to be protective of themselves, particularly when the threat comes from someone other than another man. They tend to “suck it up” and go on with their lives. In this case, they are deciding that woman and society are too pathological and antagonistic to deal with so they are choosing not to participate. When enough men check out, there will be a growing concern, mostly from women who realize that men will not have anything to do with them. It will be at that time that they realize they are NOT equal to men and that if things don’t change, they will be in very deep water and no one will be there to save them.

  25. Mark Beal says

    The guidelines are there for use in psychological practice, granted. It is, however, impossible to look beyond the ghastly progressive/intersectional newspeak with which they’re expressed. Quite simply, if someone speaks/writes like a progressive/intersectionalist, then in all probability they are one, because no sensible person ever expresses themself like that. Personally I find it hard to take any publication seriously that uses the term “cisgender” in all seriousness. But I also find it hard to take seriously a publication that can discuss “gender role strain” (“a psychological situation in which gender role demands have negative consequences on the individual or others”) without reflecting on how boys (and young men) might experience it as a strain being constantly told that even quite mundane expressions of masculinity are somehow “toxic”.

    The problem with psychology has always been that it combines a genuine desire to help individuals who are suffering (or who are dangerous to others) with concepts that are difficult (or even impossible) to prove, and an ability to lend ideological legitimacy to whomsoever requires it.

    Homosexuality is perhaps the paradigmatic example. It was once considered an illness; now no longer. Yet nothing about homosexuality has ever changed; it is quite simply sexual attraction to persons of the same sex. What changed was attitudes and legislation, and in this case psychologists dragged their feet. But the point is that nothing about homosexuality itself changed – yet somehow this orientation could go from being an illness to not an illness. This illustrates how ways of thinking within psychology are influenced by the surrounding society, not by any inherent truth uncovered by psychologists themselves.

    A more recent example would be the debate about whether or not Narcissistic Personality Disorder should be removed from the DSM – or at least reclassified. One is tempted to imagine that the election of Donald Trump cemented NPD’s usefulness as a diagnosis in the eyes of the devout.

    Let’s go further, ADHD. From where I’m sitting, it always seemed perfectly obvious to me that the increasing tendency to diagnose children worked in tandem with a public debate increasingly concerned with “unruly” children. It seems equally likely that the one could be used to drive the other, and vice versa. Nobody seemed interested in noting that the proportion of women in teaching jobs had risen, and therefore nobody was in a position to suggest that perhaps a larger proportion of teachers regard boys primarily as “unruly” because they fundamentally misconstrue the kinds of behaviour boys naturally exhibit.

    Gender dysphoria is another odd one. Ordinarily psychologists define conditions in order to cure (or at least contain) them. This is one of the reasons homosexuality ceased to be considered an illness – because it ceased to be acceptable to attempt to cure people of it. For some reason gender dysphoria has assumed a unique position within psychology as a disorder which psychologists indulge rather than seek to cure or contain.

    So should we believe that psychology is a scientifically unbiased discipline holding fast to its own truth irrespective of how the wind blows in wider society? Nah, and for that reason however much the guidelines are guidelines for treatment, and however well-intentioned individuals working within the profession may be, if something’s written in intersectional newspeak, it can’t help but be tainted by intersectional ideology.

    Just two of the passages in the guidelines that give this away:

    Definition of privilege: “Privilege refers to unearned sources of social status, power, and
    institutionalized advantage experienced by individuals by virtue of their culturally valued and dominant social identities (e.g., White, Christian, male, and middle/upper class…” Three out of the four glaring progressive bugbears right there, quite aside from the tenor of the passage in its entirety.

    In one and the same paragraph under the heading “gender”, the authors manage to at once separate gender and sex (the latter referring “to biological aspects of being male or female”) only to claim that “gender and sex can be seen as overlapping and fluid categories with multiple meanings”. Only an intersectional progressive could with no apparent sense of shame claim that “sex” can refer to the simple biological fact of being male or female while simultaneously being a fluid category.

    • Andrew Mcguiness says

      “Nobody seemed interested in noting that the proportion of women in teaching jobs had risen, and therefore nobody was in a position to suggest that perhaps a larger proportion of teachers regard boys primarily as “unruly” because they fundamentally misconstrue the kinds of behaviour boys naturally exhibit.” – Good point, that I hadn’t thought of before.

  26. Lasse Rintakumpu says

    Me, I’m so thoroughly toxic that for me APA still stands for American pale ale.

  27. Morgan Foster says

    I’m too old to be rescuing a battered woman in a parking lot.

    Time neuters all of us in the end, and the toxicity of my masculinity has been reduced to safe levels.

    Not that it will do her any good. She’s on her own. For society, though.

  28. Traditional masculinity built pretty much the entire world we live in. Roads, railroads, buildings, ships, planes, trains, cars, cities, sewer systems, electrical systems, oil rigs, power stations… etc. All these infrastructures were put in by traditionally masculine men. You’re welcome.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @LEX

      A progressive will tell you that all these things you listed have caused global climate change and therefore are, by definition, toxic.

      I think the editorial staff of the APA would agree upon careful consideration.

    • Talk about cultural appropriation! When they drive all of us toxically masculine guys out of the town square, we should just take our stuff (as you noted above) with us when we go. Gonna miss us when we are gone.

  29. Keebler Orc says

    How about a link to the APA’s press release/policy paper/etc.?

  30. Interestingly, in every other area of life, parents and society fail to properly socialize children, except in this gender stuff where the brainwashing is apparently total and perfect. Every society tries mightily to get young people to finish school and not commit crimes: they fail. Historically, society tried to make sure everyone stayed in the church (no longer but you see my point). Society tried hard to not have out of wedlock births, and failed. Yet the socialization to make boys masculine is not merely perfect but quite universal worldwide. It truly is amazing. And it is even more amazing because they have hidden the training manuals so well and the committee meetings where this masculinity strategy was defined were never announced and I never went to one.
    Life is a mystery.

  31. R Henry says

    When APA asserts Bruce Jenner is a woman, can anyone be surprised?

  32. ccscientist says

    toxic femininity has been mentioned to be the “mean girls” but there is another: the helpless female. I have seen women quite capable of working act helpless so dad or brother will support them, women who act helpless about everything so the husband (or even the kids) will do all the work. This aspect of the female has now come to dominate the Left because it was encouraged by intersectionality philosophy: now being helpless and scared is used as a weapon on campus constantly. It is a female thing.

  33. Cornfed says

    There’s a saying about ideas so crazy only an academic could believe them. This is one of them.

    Today’s gender studies profs think they’ve figured out something that’s escaped the notice of the human race for the last 10,000 years. The biology contradicts them, common sense contradicts them, but no matter. They noticed what everyone else missed. They must be really smart!

  34. Demian says

    It was my impression that articles on Quillete were mostly well written and we’re engaging with the opposing ideas in thought provoking ways. This hasn’t been true for many articles in recent months.
    Sarcasm is fun, but here it seems just like pandering to the audience that already agreed with the author. There isn’t a single quote from APA guidelines. Just author’s witty zings.
    It also seemed to me last year that comments on this site were mostly interesting and contained many similar but also opposing ideas. Now it’s just trolls and cirklejerk of a people inside thought-bubble as disgisdisg as the one on the left that got me interested in Quillete in the first place.
    Even if author is right about every single thing he said, therest nothing in the text to convince me unless I already agreed with the ideas prior to reading. Therefore itsi worthless in my opinion.

    • “Remind me to invite Demian to my next party, he has such a wonderful sense of humor”, said no one. Ever. You are looking for scholarly footnotes in a humorous column? The assumption is that you read the earlier, more serious APA piece (which lacked footnotes or other links to research and substantiation, if I recall correctly) and were ready for someone to pull together the many positions which should, in my estimation, be subjected to appropriate derision. I will never forget you, Demian, and your contribution to the lexicon, “Itsi worthless”.

    • You said it. Quillete must re-establish it’s initial approach or those of us who came to Quillette seeking relief from partisan vitriol will have to find an alternative to the alternative.

    • hunter says

      Damian,
      Good luck with the results of your humorectomy.
      I hope you can make it.

    • Suzanne says

      Perhaps you missed the “trigger warning” heading/classification shown prominently about this story. It said SATIRE. I don’t know anyone who reads satire hoping to be provided foot notes and links.

  35. I think people need to frame this issue more carefully and deliberately. I have tried to discuss generally with my very liberal friends and they simply totally disagree declaring me hyperbolic. I could not really figure out why but now i think i do. The discussion does not penetrate adult mins suggesting adults behavior can be so easily manipulated. But we who are alarmed are not discussing the real issue. The ability to manipulate young minds. That it is actually truly possible and even likely that one can convince a child that there is no difference between genders and everyone needs to behave exactly the same. There are several well documented studies that people can take on roles never before imagined until put in a position to exploit. In this case it is about people in power of young mold-able that their nature instincts are wrong and they need to adhere to the nurturing ones being pushed upon them. So the real question to these liberals is do you think if a boy is being told day after day for years that parts of their behaviour are unacceptable and need to stop, do they believe it can be successful? They no doubt believe so otherwise why do it and if so then do they believe there is zero counter outcome that they are not accounting for?

  36. Marshall Gill says

    I taught my son about the HMS Birkenhead when he was a small child. THIS is how you are supposed to act! I told him, and have repeated many times since. Toxic?!

  37. Lar Georgan says

    “She still seems so happy and fulfilled. Maybe I should ask her to take some gender studies classes.”
    Pure. Gold.

  38. XCellKen says

    If you were a pro wrestling fan in the late 90s, APA stood for Acolyte Protection Agency.

    And my preferred style of beer is DAPA .

  39. For a psychologist you sure are cynical and bitter. Sounds to me like someone got the winter blues and decided to take it out on everyone politically. Go somewhere warm so you aren’t such a dick. And I mean you really should choose your words more carefully. The level of sarcasm you spew is worse than a 14 year old on their first period.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @Nope

      “The level of sarcasm you spew is worse than a 14 year old on their first period.”

      I don’t think this phrase needs to be gender neutral.

  40. I agree with the point this piece is making but the sarcastic approach does not belong on Quillet…

    You can find such glib approaches to serious topics on both far Left and far Right publications… Not needed here!

    • a bee ee? says

      Au contraire. Sarcasm makes this as hard-hitting as it is. If he played it straight it would have been quite boring.

  41. Diogenes says

    Profound thanks for the intellectual catharsis, but there is no ridicule deep enough to give the APA what it deserves for the long-lasting damage it has done. This comes close, though. Now we need a generation of truthful research and tough scholarship to bring this ship round right and and save the lives and mental health of a future generation.

  42. Erica from The West Village says

    Sadly, we’ve had this debate before back when Alan Alda was coming off his high as Hawkeye Pierce in M*A*S*H.

    Perhaps it was the guilt he felt acting like a lecherous doctor, but he was working overtime to get men to get in touch with their feminine side and for awhile there..the women were really trying to promote him as the leading man in America..wimpiness and all.

    It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.

    Alan Alda is still a wimp…is only admired by women who wouldn’t know what to do with a real man…and the rest of the world understands that 300 million years of hierarchical order and structure in Nature is what it is…and you can’t deny it.

  43. APA’s new Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men is a blueprint for changing the behaviour of men. Ryon McDermott, PhD, who helped draft the men’s guidelines has been quoted as saying, “If we can change men, we can change the world.”

    Change the world – therein is the reason for this document. It’s part of the United Nations Agenda 2030 goals to change the world to a one world socialist government. In a precise of the Agenda, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld), Item 26 includes the statement “We are committed to the prevention and treatment of non-communicable diseases, including behavioural, developmental and neurological disorders, which constitute a major challenge for sustainable development.”

    Marx in his Communist Manifesto identified the need to eliminate the traditional family so that his communist vision could function. The traditional family, patriarchy, promotes inheritance of power, privilege and wealth. Ergo, leftist thinking people must eliminate patriarchy in accordance with Marx to achieve Agenda 2030. It’s an overtly promoted activity.

    So to eliminate patriarchy, men and boys must change. To bring this about masculinity and patriarchy must be pathologized as a behavioural, developmental and neurological disorder, which is what every feminist and leftist is expected to chant at increasingly shrill levels in MSM, educational, academic and public venues. The pathology has been encapsulated in the meme “Toxic Masculinity”.

    This is a serious attack on people who wish to preserve patriarchy, liberty and freedom, which are the values that created our wonderful western civilisation. Have you noticed that over the past five decades, influenced by leftist activism, western civilisation is declining and straining to stay in existence?

    Masculinity is toxic to leftist ambitions. I suggest that toxic masculinity be embraced and worn as a badge of honour. Go buy a toxic masculinity T-shirt now and wear it with pride. Your sense of fun will really get up their leftist noses and you’ll be robbing them of one of their most recent and prized weapons. Remember, if they change men, they’ll change the world. Do you really want that?

    • Max Wilson – I agree wholeheartedly. One additional minor note I would submit is that there have been NO SUCCESSFUL MATRIARCHIES in the last 5000 years. And that it is precisely because we have a patriarchically structured society that we are as culturally and technologically developed as we are. The call by feminists and SJWs to “destroy the patriarchy” is tantamount to the call for the destruction of Western civilization. We are in the midst of purposely training our own children to destroy our own civilization and NO ONE is bothering to do anything about it. So I suggest a second options in T-shirts which reads, “I support the patriarchy”.

  44. Michael says

    Most twin studies, those where they have been separated at a year or less, show they turn out much the same as each other. Often the same jobs, professions, some are almost identical in their spouses names, children’s names, clothing preferences. Yes biology definitely has no part in anything.

    • Nakatomi Plaza says

      If they grow up in the same society, wouldn’t you expect them to conform to that society’s standards? You need some citations to back up your bullshit, and you need studies that control for the influence of social norms.

      • Morgan Foster says

        @Nakatomi Plaza

        This is the comment section, and citations are entirely optional when expressing a personal opinion in an internet comment section.

        As it happens, the twin-studies mentioned by Michael are sufficiently well known to the general public that citations are hardly necessary for an understanding of what Michael is talking about.

        But if you feel like challenging his recollection or his understanding of the studies, there’s nothing to prevent you from throwing up some citations to support your own personal opinion.

        I must say, though, it has been my observation that many people who use citations to support their disagreement with another person are, all too often, using citations that are either irrelevant to the point being made by the original poster, or they haven’t been read all the way through by the person using them.

  45. a bee ee? says

    “A fight ensued and I successfully submitted him just before a couple of police officers arrived.”

    Submitted?? Subdued, perhaps.

  46. James says

    Nicely done. I appreciate good satire; there is no defense against being laughed-at.

    I have often used that approach, but nowadays I am taking a decidedly different tack: I get right back in their face and tell them that they are idiots. Forcefully, aggressively, decisively. I’m getting to be an old guy, but I’m still sizeable and in decent shape. For the longest time, the right has taken the position of: let them rant and rave; we are above it all. GW Bush the perfect example. It sounds good, but there’s a downside: they get to say and do whatever they want with impunity, and having abused us for so long, they begin to believe that’s what we deserve. That, of course, is why they are in constant meltdown mode vis à vis President Trump, who gives it right back.

    Consider shifting your approach a little. You might have to take an ass-whippin’ occasionally, but you might get to give a few, too.

  47. Tersitus says

    I’d call for a Million Man March, but I’m afraid we wouldn’t measure up.

  48. Victor Victoria says

    I am a psychologist, and I detest APA precisely because of their bureaucratic leftism. They pretend that this stuff is in some way scientific, but that is an obvious lie. It is political indoctrination. I am not going to give them another penny and I will speak out against them whenever I can.

    • Victor: ditto; I left the APA several years ago. They have nothing to say to me.

  49. Pingback: The Right would rather men died than admit any flaws in masculinity | Camestros Felapton

  50. Pingback: Recomendaciones | intelib

  51. Paul Neubauer says

    “But now I understand the master plan. If we can push men to be more like women and women to be more like men, they can converge into being interchangeable units who are much easier to manipulate in the service of creating a progressive social utopia.”

    That is exactly the goal of Feminism. Few people get that.

  52. Bill Hallman says

    Excellent article. Well written and full of truth.

  53. Conservative female psychologist says

    Thank you, Clay! When I see what the modern feminists and the APA are doing to men, I want to turn in my woman card and am glad that I no longer pay dues to the APA. When I finished my PhD and entered the job market a couple of years ago, I had to choose my words carefully so as not to ‘out’ myself as a conservative. Now that I’m standing at the front of the classroom, I dare to present both sides of these issues. So far, I’m not on the radar of the gender police, but it’s probably just a matter of time before one of my students turns me in. I wonder about the day when these women decide they want to procreate and cannot find any males who are man enough to accommodate them.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @Conservative female psychologist

      And when they do procreate, what will they do to their sons?

  54. michael farr says

    nicely written,
    consider, the long march through the institutions where the APA, the AMA and the various other acronymic structures get taken over by those who are prepared to engage in the work and make the time to be elected (usually) to run the organisation.
    I am a psychologist but do not belong to the Australian APS. So in the absence of my participation and activism i cannot complain that someone else has taken control.

  55. Mikhail Kramm says

    As Prof. Henrietta Higgins sang: “Why can’t a man, be more like a woman?”

  56. Wonderful article. I am a mental health professional and fighting this social justice scourge for 20 years. The inmates have taken oven fully. WE need a counter-revolution, obviously. But please do not virtue signal against the Alt-Right (Dissident Right). We are at the vanguard fighting for you.

  57. Sobre says

    In the spirit of the following:

    ‘The role of the police is best understood as a mechanism for the distribution of non-negotiable coercive force employed in accordance with the dictates of an intuitive grasp of situational exigencies.’
    Egon Bittner, The Functions of Police in Modern Society 1970.
    ‘What the fuck does that mean?’
    Sergeant, L.A.P.D. 1973.

    An as a paratrooper for six years and a cop for forty years I ask:
    Who are the APA fuckwits who came up with this most unscientific manifestation of puerile theory over concrete reality? Do we have names? Photographs?
    So, you are a woman walking down the street. It’s dark. 2 am. You pass across the entrance to an alley. A hand extends, grabs you, dragging you into the darkness. You manage to let out a scream before a hand covers your mouth; the other hand is . . .
    It so happens that the alley bisects two parallel streets; at one end is a member of the APA; at the other end is me.
    Now, who do you think is going to enter the alley, pull the arm off your attacker and beat him to death with the soggy end to rescue you? For ten more points, explain the reasons for your choice.

  58. Realworldman says

    The APA is clearly under the influence of the NWO crowd (and their research grants) and is allowing it’s agenda to dictate the quality of their intellectual output. Social engineering the working class in order to throttle the positive natural effects of testosterone, thereby rendering the masses complacent, quiet and obedient is afoot. Real men are not toxic but they can fight for truth, justice and freedom. That just cannot be tolerated. This propaganda is not a by- product of any normative social condition, but rather a very specific brand of mind control and social manipulation with a strict narrative and a massive underwriting by supranational organizations and the giant corporations under their control. There is nothing wrong with little boys. They do not need drugs. They just need love, guidance and firm discipline. Squelch their natural proclivities and you are castrating both their masculinity and their souls. Boys used to want to be heroes and leaders. Under this new vile system of forced gender neutrality, all they want is to live in their parents basement and play video games. They don’t even want to get married or have kids anymore. Why do you think this trend is occurring? It is insidious but real. And before anyone drags out the old “conspiracy” excuse, you had better check the chronology of PC culture, the anti-male movements (Me too), gaming, school shootings, and ADHD. Then compare this chronology to the social statistics on the performance of males in all areas of life, including declines in fertility and testosterone levels. Boys are failing everything in record numbers because they are not allowed to be themselves or maximize their natural gifts. Masculinity is not toxic, but it is under attack. This explains the meteoric rise of Jordan Peterson (I am not JP acolyte) and others like him, who are trying to throw a life preserver to the victims by pointing out the obvious and proposing the traditional cultural definition of manhood. Allowing the truth to be obfuscated behind the false application of conspiracy mongering is nothing but intentional sophistry and it must be stopped. If we cannot even discuss the facts of this world, then we are destined to be manipulated and victimized by those who can.
    Males and females are supposed to be different. It is our evolutionary history and our strength as a species. We can accept and love those among us who may be different from the norm, without sacrificing the essence of what it means to be human or what it means to be a real man. I apologize for my loquacity, I am sure it can be explained by an excess of “TOXESTERONE”

Comments are closed.