Author Topic: Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health  (Read 990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
 Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health
Posted By Elizabeth Harrington On January 18, 2019 @ 5:00 am 

Taxpayers helped finance research used by the American Psychological Association to label traditional masculinity harmful.

The APA's "First-Ever Guidelines for Practice with Men and Boys" received input from dozens of psychoanalysts who believe masculinity is a social construct, are passionate about social justice, and think there is a danger in a role model like John Wayne.

Several contributors to the guidelines have received federal funding from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Education, totaling more than $4.4 million.

The guidelines not only suggest "traditional masculinity" limits the "psychological development" of men and harms their mental and physical health, but that it is "critical to acknowledge" gender as a "non-binary construct."

 

URL to article: https://freebeacon.com/issues/taxpayers-funded-shrinks-who-deem-masculinity-harmful-to-health/

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,191
Re: Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2019, 07:08:04 pm »
This is the old blank slate/tabula rasa theory of human intelligence/nature rearing its ugly head again. That theory was regnant in the sixties when I was growing up. It has been thoroughly discredited for many decades.
Many of these leftist shrinks believe society creates male and female mental capacities/desires.
The fact is males on average are naturally  more cruder, rougher, and foolhardy than females. No amount of social engineering can change that. 
But leftists never give up their destructive plans without a fight. And they must be fought.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 60,555
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2019, 03:31:26 am »
This is the old blank slate/tabula rasa theory of human intelligence/nature rearing its ugly head again. That theory was regnant in the sixties when I was growing up. It has been thoroughly discredited for many decades.
Many of these leftist shrinks believe society creates male and female mental capacities/desires.
The fact is males on average are naturally  more cruder, rougher, and foolhardy than females. No amount of social engineering can change that. 
But leftists never give up their destructive plans without a fight. And they must be fought.
The nature vs nurture issue has been around since the days when Mark Twain penned Puddin'head Wilson and before
.
The bugaboo is that they can't say homosexuals were "born that way" without acknowledging that traditionally masculine men (and feminine women) are, too.

They have painted themselves into a logical corner.

If these behaviours (masculinity/femininity--traditional gender roles) are simply learned/adopted, then teaching the rainbow crowd to be different could be a way to reset what (rightfully, and until recently, clinically) is seen as deviancy.

Trying to redefine a significant (majority) part of the population as "abnormal" runs afoul of statistical analysis.  :shrug:
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 03:32:18 am by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline To-Whose-Benefit?

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,613
  • Gender: Male
    • Wulf Anson Author
Re: Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2019, 04:32:55 am »
The nature vs nurture issue has been around since the days when Mark Twain penned Puddin'head Wilson and before
.
The bugaboo is that they can't say homosexuals were "born that way" without acknowledging that traditionally masculine men (and feminine women) are, too.

They have painted themselves into a logical corner.

If these behaviours (masculinity/femininity--traditional gender roles) are simply learned/adopted, then teaching the rainbow crowd to be different could be a way to reset what (rightfully, and until recently, clinically) is seen as deviancy.

Trying to redefine a significant (majority) part of the population as "abnormal" runs afoul of statistical analysis.  :shrug:


Normal/Abnormal?

IF, and that's a big if, you have the time to examine the bias built into trial and investigation design, . . . . .

http://jayjoseph.net/publications
My 'Viking Hunter' High Adventure Alternate History Series is FREE, ALL 3 volumes, at most ebook retailers including Ibooks, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, and more.

In Vol 2 the weapons come out in a winner take all war on two fronts.

Vol 3 opens with the rigged murder trial of the villain in a Viking Court under Viking law to set the stage for the hero's own murder trial.

http://wulfanson.blogspot.com

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 60,555
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2019, 06:24:55 am »

Normal/Abnormal?

IF, and that's a big if, you have the time to examine the bias built into trial and investigation design, . . . . .

http://jayjoseph.net/publications
Thanks for that link, it promises some interesting reading. I have seen bias before, while conducting a study of the studies that found compelling reason to enact motorcycle helmet laws, but which often had glaring errors in their conclusions, or cited conclusions of other studies where the data did not support the conclusion.

There is, in peer review literature, a logical family tree behind virtually any research which draws upon the results of other research, and within a couple of generations, conclusions may be based not so much of firsthand research, but a compilation of other research and a very small (and often narrow) sampling to validate conclusions toward which the writer was already inclined. Such bias may be present in the sampling process, rendering the result even more the product of sampling bias and intellectual inertia, rather than clean research.

We see this not just in the Climate field, particularly, but many other areas of investigation have become contaminated by such intellectual practice; possibly the product of the need/desire to reinforce (or the reluctance to go against) prior conclusions, either to expedite the award of a degree or grant, or facilitate the peer review process and become published in a publish-or-perish environment, which may have inherent bias of its own.

The less the ordinary layperson understands the particular field of endeavour, the less the results can be challenged with simple common-sense observations. Specialized nomenclature, often a specialized shorthand for more complex processes understood by those familiar with the field, can also be used to obscure simpler concepts and to cloud the understanding of the layman. That also becomes a screen for the intellectually unscrupulous to use for concealment of less scientific and more agenda driven research. The more rare or secluded the phenomenon under study, the less likely the layman is to challenge the results, simply from a lack of exposure to the phenomenon or its causative factors.

Certainly, we live in a time when science is seen not so much as that field which explains that which exists, as the justification for intrusive, oppressive, and often arbitrary regulation. That regulation not without the corrupting influence of diverting resources to the benefit of specific individuals or corporations, which may, in turn, underwrite research which is not unbiased, but which will bring them a profit. The harmony inherent in the sirens songs of wealth and power is strong motivation, motivation which may dominate over the inherent curiosity which has been the driving force in all science not directly related to military applications.

Unfortunately, what is best for some may come at an incredible cost to others, and without the fundamental moral constraints of scrupulous honesty and integrity, the use of flawed findings in order to establish anything from treatment to policy will yield less than optimal, and at times disastrous results.

In the past century, Lysenkoism, where public policy was set in a rigidly controlled environment using flawed science, cost tens of thousands of lives (perhaps low by an order of magnitude) in the Soviet Union, and that is just one example.

In this instance, attacking the very cultural norms which contribute to the safety and security of this Nation is a grievous error. It is from the same font of "toxic masculinity" (to get back on topic), that those heroes who keep our nation relatively safe, in the military, fighting fires, enforcing the law, along with those who have, by the sweat of their brow, built much of the infrastructure and done those often dirty jobs which make life go far more smoothly for those who keep more regular hours, sleep in warm beds, and never get dirt beneath their fingernails, who are often honorable in their approach to life, who have been traditionally supportive of and non violent towards the 'fair sex', who have formed the backbone of our culture with their chivalry.

Once again, those who would tear down our culture would only weaken our cohesiveness as a nation, as a people, as a culture amalgamated from the contributions of people of widely varied backgrounds who still generally share a common concept of "manhood", often one which does not approve of the "toxic" aspects of the misogynists, which can avoid being crude without being overly genteel. From a national standpoint, which would you rather defend against--a few sh*tkicking good ol' boys, or an army of "pajama types"?

The appearance of weakness can invite conflict, and that runs the gamut from individuals to nations. Let enough people give the impression that American men are pu$$ie$, and the rest of us will be forced to prove otherwise, some where, somehow, some time.

I will be boycotting Gillette and their subsidiaries. No skin off any part of me.

Quote
Although more than half of company profits are still derived from shaving equipment—the area in which the company started—Gillette has also attained the top spots worldwide in writing instruments (Paper Mate, Parker, and Waterman brands) and correction products (Liquid Paper), toothbrushes and other oral care products (Oral-B), and alkaline batteries (Duracell products, which generate almost one-fourth of company profits).
source
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,593
Re: Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2019, 07:14:40 am »
.
Trying to redefine a significant (majority) part of the population as "abnormal" runs afoul of statistical analysis.  :shrug:

@Smokin Joe
Aw heck Joe... I'll go further than that...

Let em go out in the pasture and explain to a bull or a stallion about how 'toxic' they are... But let me know when... I want to sell tickets... There's where your statistical analysis meets the proverbial road...

There is an innate and instinctive difference between male and female that exists in every single sort of animal. As a rule, unless the female is with offspring, generally, it is the male that cannot be tamed, and will wreck you if he can. He will protect territory and that often includes females and offspring.

Likewise, as a rule, the female tends to be the nurturer... as a rule the female tends to prosper in captivity and learns to rely on it... Males, not so much.

To expect other than that same thing in the human animal is to go against instinct itself.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 60,555
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2019, 07:26:09 am »
@Smokin Joe
Aw heck Joe... I'll go further than that...

Let em go out in the pasture and explain to a bull or a stallion about how 'toxic' they are... But let me know when... I want to sell tickets... There's where your statistical analysis meets the proverbial road...

There is an innate and instinctive difference between male and female that exists in every single sort of animal. As a rule, unless the female is with offspring, generally, it is the male that cannot be tamed, and will wreck you if he can. He will protect territory and that often includes females and offspring.

Likewise, as a rule, the female tends to be the nurturer... as a rule the female tends to prosper in captivity and learns to rely on it... Males, not so much.

To expect other than that same thing in the human animal is to go against instinct itself.
Yep. And for the sake of rhetorical argument, almost all successful species follow the same or similar models.
The males are the protectors, (as are females with offspring), the females the nurturers.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline To-Whose-Benefit?

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,613
  • Gender: Male
    • Wulf Anson Author
Re: Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2019, 08:22:12 am »
"From a national standpoint, which would you rather defend against--a few sh*tkicking good ol' boys, or an army of "pajama types"?

It's gonna take me more than one reading here @Smokin Joe

Thank you for this terrific essay!
My 'Viking Hunter' High Adventure Alternate History Series is FREE, ALL 3 volumes, at most ebook retailers including Ibooks, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, and more.

In Vol 2 the weapons come out in a winner take all war on two fronts.

Vol 3 opens with the rigged murder trial of the villain in a Viking Court under Viking law to set the stage for the hero's own murder trial.

http://wulfanson.blogspot.com

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,191
Re: Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2019, 03:34:52 pm »
@Smokin Joe
Aw heck Joe... I'll go further than that...

Let em go out in the pasture and explain to a bull or a stallion about how 'toxic' they are... But let me know when... I want to sell tickets... There's where your statistical analysis meets the proverbial road...

There is an innate and instinctive difference between male and female that exists in every single sort of animal. As a rule, unless the female is with offspring, generally, it is the male that cannot be tamed, and will wreck you if he can. He will protect territory and that often includes females and offspring.

Likewise, as a rule, the female tends to be the nurturer... as a rule the female tends to prosper in captivity and learns to rely on it... Males, not so much.

To expect other than that same thing in the human animal is to go against instinct itself.
Correct. Leftists will be the first to loudly pronounce humans are just animals like all mammals.
But when someone then says there are innate differences in all animal species, INCLUDING HUMANS,  concerning physical properties and mental capacities, they shriek in horror and call you a racist.
It would be (gasp) utterly unscientific to claim that all humans and the sexes are exactly the same innately (except for sexual organs),  but that's what leftists do.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 45,593
Re: Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2019, 03:45:49 pm »
Correct. Leftists will be the first to loudly pronounce humans are just animals like all mammals.
But when someone then says there are innate differences in all animal species, INCLUDING HUMANS,  concerning physical properties and mental capacities, they shriek in horror and call you a racist.
It would be (gasp) utterly unscientific to claim that all humans and the sexes are exactly the same innately (except for sexual organs),  but that's what leftists do.

That's right - the claim just boggles me, and ought to boggle anyone that simply works with other animals... the evidence is plain as day.

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,881
  • Gender: Male
  • Dumbest member of the forum
Re: Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2019, 12:17:00 am »
"Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health"

I'll reckon that 66% of the male psychiatrists and 98% percent of the female psychiatrists believe exactly that way...