3 ms·

Ok -- if masculinity is irrelevant, which is what I am claiming and what you say the APA guidance also claims, then why do they spend so much time on it? They d

Ok -- if masculinity is irrelevant, which is what I am claiming and what you say the APA guidance also claims, then why do they spend so much time on it? They don't dismiss it, just speak to different types of masculinity. What is the intended interpretation of your sources? It seems like you just put some random links up. They don't seem to link the creation of toxic masculinity to any movement.

krapp 7y ago
>Ok -- if masculinity is irrelevant, which is what I am claiming and what you say the APA guidance also claims, then why do they spend so much time on it? They don't dismiss it, just speak to different types of masculinity. They don't claim that it's irrelevant, nor do I, so we disagree there, and we also disagree that the space given to it is out of proportion to its relevance. They merely don't consider it pathological, and most of the guidelines don't appear to be about masculinity per se, at all. > It seems like you just put some random links up. They don't seem to link the creation of toxic masculinity to any movement. From Wikipedia: "The term toxic masculinity originated in the mythopoetic men's movement of the 1980s and 1990s.[1]" [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/02/toxic-masculinity-history/583411/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/02/toxic-mas... From the Atlantic: "Despite the term’s recent popularity among feminists, toxic masculinity did not originate with the women’s movement. It was coined in the mythopoetic men’s movement of the 1980s and ’90s, motivated in part as a reaction to second-wave feminism." From the book of man: "The phrase can be traced back to a guy called, brilliantly, Shepherd Bliss, who was one of the leaders of the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement activist which sprang up in the 80s, and aimed to remythologise men: essentially remove the limited archetypes like “warrior and king” and end biological determinism and hierarchical thinking. Bliss wrote about a return to preindustrial cooperative masculinity, all raising barns and making fires, rather than competitive technological masculinity." The goodmen project page doesn't make the links the others do, but it does describe the concept as existing as far back as the Victorian era. One can make a reasonable inference from there.

krapp 7y ago

>Ok -- if masculinity is irrelevant, which is what I am claiming and what you say the APA guidance also claims, then why do they spend so much time on it? They don't dismiss it, just speak to different types of masculinity. They don't claim that it's irrelevant, nor do I, so we disagree there, and we also disagree that the space given to it is out of proportion to its relevance. They merely don't consider it pathological, and most of the guidelines don't appear to be about masculinity per se, at all. > It seems like you just put some random links up. They don't seem to link the creation of toxic masculinity to any movement. From Wikipedia: "The term toxic masculinity originated in the mythopoetic men's movement of the 1980s and 1990s.[1]" [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/02/toxic-masculinity-history/583411/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/02/toxic-mas... From the Atlantic: "Despite the term’s recent popularity among feminists, toxic masculinity did not originate with the women’s movement. It was coined in the mythopoetic men’s movement of the 1980s and ’90s, motivated in part as a reaction to second-wave feminism." From the book of man: "The phrase can be traced back to a guy called, brilliantly, Shepherd Bliss, who was one of the leaders of the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement activist which sprang up in the 80s, and aimed to remythologise men: essentially remove the limited archetypes like “warrior and king” and end biological determinism and hierarchical thinking. Bliss wrote about a return to preindustrial cooperative masculinity, all raising barns and making fires, rather than competitive technological masculinity." The goodmen project page doesn't make the links the others do, but it does describe the concept as existing as far back as the Victorian era. One can make a reasonable inference from there.