If three members of the communist party peer-reviewed an analysis of capitalism, written by another member of the communist party, would you consider that analysis to be “scientific” or “objective”?

The American Psychological Association recently announced that “traditional masculinity” — or as I prefer to call it, masculinity — is psychologically “harmful.” 

They claim that this designation is based on 40 years of peer-reviewed “research,” but in fact it is based on 40 years of people with the same philosophical and political bias repeating and affirming their beliefs back and forth to each other in a closed circle in which dissent is routinely dismissed or punished. 

There’s no reason why one would expect a group of communists to produce an unbiased analysis of capitalism, and there’s no reason that one would expect a group dominated by women and avowed feminist activists and intellectuals to produce an unbiased analysis of masculinity. Their agenda is open, and Ryon McDermott, who helped develop these guidelines, proclaimed in the announcement that his goal was to “change the world” by “changing men.” 

That’s crucial. The objective of the APA isn’t to help men better navigate the challenges of being what they are, but to change them completely. 

The APA’s membership is 58% female, and upwards of 75% of the graduate students in psychology are female. While men hold many of the industry’s highest honors and highest paying jobs, there is clearly a massive feminine bias in the profession’s growing base. 

Ronald F. Levant, the co-editor of the report and former president of the APA, is himself a feminist activist, having edited several books on “new masculinities” which steer men into the service of the feminist agenda. 

This field of “masculinities” was pioneered by a transsexual, Raewyn “Bob” Connell — a guy who hated men and hated being a man so much that he decided to become a woman. Bob and the APA report both distinguish “traditional masculinity” — characterized in their words by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — from the “masculinities” of males who have “more flexible gender attitudes.” 

As I wrote in The Way of Men, when you strip away the ever-shifting details of culture and separate masculinity from morality, the basic features of masculinity remain essentially the same. They are directly related to biological differences between men and women, and the evolutionary roles of men and women. 

Men are on average physically stronger than women — there’s nothing cultural about that fact — and men who were stronger than other men have always and everywhere been regarded as being more masculine. Men are on average less risk averse than women — and decreased risk aversion is a known effect of higher testosterone. Men have always and everywhere been expected to show less fear and display more courage. This also makes a lot of sense in the big picture, because nature gambles with men. Men are more expendable — because sperm is a lot more plentiful than eggs, and one industrious man can impregnate thousands of women. (See also: Genghis Khan) Men have always competed with each other, not merely for women, but for the esteem of male honor groups. Being esteemed by the right group of men often makes a man more desirable to women — an aspect of human social dynamics often missed by evolutionary psychologists who are maybe a bit too used to observing patterns of competition and display in less socially complex animals. 

If you review the greatest and earliest works of human literature, from the Epic of Gilgamesh to the Greek tragedies and myths and poems the same familiar distinctions between masculine and feminine characteristics are there. If you look at Chinese concepts of Yin and Yang and the differentiation between the sexes in myth and culture and art from around the world, if you read about alchemy and Jungian psychology, the same themes emerge. There is polarity of gender defined by the biological and behavioral extremes of difference between the sexes. 

The approach of “masculinities” studies is to emasculate men and empower women by undermining that masculine/feminine polarity to the extent that no hierarchy of masculine — no scale of what is more or less masculine behavior or physicality — is conceivable to males and females indoctrinated with this ideology. From this dubious and unconvincing perspective, there is no “more” or “less” masculine behavior. Anyone who calls anything they do “masculine” must be accepted as having “one of many masculinities” — from a woman on testosterone with a short haircut who seeks status and affirmation by claiming to be the first man to give birth,  to a mincing drag queen who claims that his “masculinity” is hierarchically equal to the masculinity of a combat veteran. There are strange and rare exceptions —like transsexual combat veterans — but the tendency to redefine words and general rules by the exceptions and outliers is itself a feminine-empathic characteristic.  The eternal polarities of masculine and feminine don’t need to be redefined by outliers and anomalies unless you live in constant fear of hurting someone’s feelings or failing to sufficiently affirm their delusions. The masculine mind is comfortable with treating exceptions as exceptions, because men are solar in nature and appreciate order. The feminine urge wants everything to be equal and the same as it hugs the world back into an amniotic void of comfort and darkness. 

It is easiest to assess the bias of the APA when comparing its positions on “transsexuality” or “gender dysphoria” to its guidelines on “traditional” masculinity. The APA wants to help you if you want to cut your balls off, or let a woman keep them in her purse, but if you want to keep your balls and act like you have a pair, they consider it a “problem” that needs to be corrected.

On two levels, they’re correct.

If your goal is to create society of 50% gray, genderless, skinny-fat slave worms to promote a some chimerical fantasy of “social equality,” then, yes, “traditional” masculinity is a problem. Men who want to be men are “in the way.” And feminist radicals have always known it. They’ve been infiltrating and subverting any and all male honor groups and stigmatizing masculinity and male heterosexuality to that end for decades. Their agenda isn’t hidden and never has been. For a thorough examination of the stock feminist positions on masculinity, read my free book No Man’s Land. There’s nothing stated in the announcement by the APA that feminists haven’t been pushing since the 1970s. It’s all the same, right down to the awkwardly out-of-touch reference to John Wayne that quickly reveals someone who is either repeating dogma by rote or a geriatric Boomer who still hasn’t worked out those “greatest generation” daddy issues. 

There are no “new” findings here — merely feminist partisans designing “studies” which are “peer-reviewed” by other feminist partisans — and a lot of data points cherry-picked to support the anti-masculine and anti-male philosophy dreamed up by a bunch of spoiled, sheltered and utterly petulant university students way back in the summer of love.

The extent to which these people are either brazen or completely blinded by bias is evident in their laughable “discoveries.”  The APA informs us that “Research led by Omar Yousaf, PhD, found that men who bought into traditional notions of masculinity were more negative about seeking mental health services than those with more flexible gender attitudes.” A research grant is hardly required to figure out  that men are wary about seeking help from people who openly despise them and all of their values. The perception that psychologists will generally take a woman’s perspective on any issue is not new. And certainly this will now become a self-fulfilling prophecy and it will be backed up triumphantly with more “evidence.” Why would any masculine man trust these people with a simple questionnaire, much less let them mess around with his head? I certainly wouldn’t. There’s absolutely no reason to believe these partisans have any interest in helping men to do anything but conform to their agenda. 

In the context of a culture ruled by these loud and chinless “social justice warriors,” as I wrote recently in A More Complete Beast, a man who wants to be more masculine instead of going with the genderless flow is actually going have a rough time. By choosing a masculine path in a world that not only fails to demand it, but — as evidenced by these guidelines themselves —actively denounces that path, he’s setting himself up for hardship and ostracism from many otherwise desirable social circles. He’s taking up a sort of proud paganism in a Christian world, and may be subject to all sorts of inquisitions and torments. So, in the sense that living a masculine life in an emasculated world is going to get you into trouble sometimes, yeah, I guess you could say that it’s “unhealthy” or “problematic.” Choosing to live a masculine life is not the path of least resistance, but then it never has been. 

I no longer find it necessary to comment every time some feminist blogger or columnist or actor makes some outrageous statement about “toxic masculinity.” I don’t follow the news.  “The daily outrage” is dishonest and pornographic to the extent that it is also generally absurd. And it’s all social gossip about people who I don’t want to know. 

However, I have seen many men dismiss these guidelines with a laugh, and in this particular case, I believe it is important to acknowledge how harmful these guidelines will actually be for men. Because of the assumed authority of this group and the positions of power over men’s lives that many of its partisan members hold, this isn’t one of those announcements to laugh off. 

To begin with, these guidelines will be cited as being authoritative by “mainstream” feminist writers and people who aren’t woke enough to recognize the agenda and bias at work here. Guidelines and statements made by a major organization like the APA are given an undeserved weight of truth and accuracy by normal rubes. And for this reason, these guidelines pathologizing masculinity will also be used as rationales for passing anti-male laws, funding anti-male programs, and funding programs to further indoctrinate young men into spineless and testicle-free feminist servitude. 

What’s more, members of the APA and professionals who follow their guidelines will use them to recommend the drugging, punishment and exclusion of male students who exhibit masculine behaviors or attitudes. These guidelines will be used by “expert” witnesses and psychological evaluators and counselors and parole officers working in the legal system. Men will go to jail and stay there longer because of these guidelines. They will probably also be used to separate men from their children during divorces. In many states, laws are in place or have been proposed to prevent men from owning or purchasing guns if someone — often almost anyone and with very little evidence — suggests that they might be mentally “troubled” in some way. I think it’s fair to say that 95% of the male members of the NRA “suffer” from some form of “traditional” masculinity. Any guesses on the percentage of the majority female, majority progressive APA that is anti-2nd Amendment? 

One of the worst problems I see among pro-masculinity advocates is the tendency to take the stated mission of these professional organizations at face value and assume that they are arguing in good faith. They call on these organizations to “listen to reason” or take other viewpoints into consideration. 

Fellas, you’re not going to change the APA. It’s not that they haven’t heard what you have to say before — it’s that they are ideologically opposed to everything you stand for and absolutely do not care if you agree with them. The McDermotts of the world don’t want to work with you or hear what you have to say. They want to change you. 

These organizations will continue to advocate for the stigmatization and abuse of men and boys who do not conform to their worldview. They are politically and ideologically biased, and they believe that what they are doing is good and right. 

If you disagree with them, the only worthwhile strategy for dealing with them is to discredit and undermine them by exposing that bias and ideology. Show the people what the wizard behind the curtain is all about. We no longer live in a homogenous society where we can expect these large accrediting organizations or the media to serve “the greater good.” I frankly doubt if that was ever anything but a pleasant fiction. 

The solution is to support outlets and institutions that are biased in the favor of an ideology that you can support. Or better yet, build them. 

All of the power of the APA or an “institution” like the NYT comes from the popular assumption that they are conducting some kind of “science” or reporting “objectively.” They’re not. Call them out for what they are: cheerleaders for a different team. 

They disagree with you and that’s OK. Don’t ask beg them to change. Disagree harder. 

When it comes to discussions of human nature, objectivity is a lie. Ideology is normal. Bias is the rule. People have different ideas about what is good and right. Dispense with this laughable children’s story that says “we’re all in this together.” We are all stuck on this planet, sure, but everyone is not on your team.

They never have been, and they never will be.

The way forward is to encourage competing companies and organizations to come out with counterstatements and to take opposing positions. There is a market here that is being underserved, insulted and alienated. The solution is not to threaten Gillette or the APA with some sort of boycott. They’ve already picked their side. Seek out and empower competing entities that don’t despise men.