Die Vereinigung der amerikanischen Psychologen hat einige Richtlinien zur Behandlung von Jungs und Männern aufgestellt, die einem teilweise schnell sehr bekannt vorkommen:
Psychologists strive to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms.
Psychologists strive to recognize that boys and men integrate multiple aspects to their social identities across the lifespan
Psychologists understand the impact of power, privilege, and sexism on the development of boys and men and on their relationships with others.
Psychologists strive to develop a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence the interpersonal relationships of boys and men.
Psychologists strive to encourage positive father involvement and healthy family relationships.
Psychologists strive to support educational efforts that are responsive to the needs of boys and men.
Psychologists strive to reduce the high rates of problems boys and men face and act out in their lives such as aggression, violence, substance abuse, and suicide.
Psychologists strive to help boys and men engage in health-related behaviors.
Psychologists strive to build and promote gender-sensitive psychological services
Psychologists understand and strive to change institutional, cultural, and systemic problems that affect boys and men through advocacy, prevention, and education.
Einige dieser Richtlinien, die dann dort noch näher ausgeführt werden, klingen ganz gut, andere haben zu erheblicher Kritik geführt, gerade die erste und die dritte Richtlinie:
Bei der ersten Richtlinie geht man anscheinend von einer rein sozialen Konstruktion der „Männlichkeiten“ aus, obwohl genug Belege existieren, die die biologische Seite belegen.
In der dritten Richtlinie wird recht direkt das Privilegienmodel übernommen:
Although privilege has not applied to all boys and men in equal measure, in the aggregate, males experience a greater degree of social and economic power than girls and women in a patriarchal society (Flood & Pease, 2005). However, men who benefit from their social power are also confined by system-level policies and practices as well as individual-level psychological resources necessary to maintain male privilege (Mankowski & Maton, 2010). Thus, male privilege often comes with a cost in the form of adherence to sexist ideologies designed to maintain male power that also restrict men’s ability to function adaptively (Liu, 2005). Sexism exists as a byproduct, reinforcer, and justification of male privilege. Although the majority of young men may not identify with explicit sexist beliefs (McDermott & Schwartz, 2013), for some men, sexism may become deeply engrained in their construction of masculinity (O’Neil, 2015). For instance, most boys are taught from an early age that they will suffer negative consequences for violating masculine role norms (Reigeluth & Addis, 2016). The impact of such sexism extends from boyhood into adulthood, sometimes influencing critical identity-formative processes such as career choices (Fouad, Whiston, & Feldwisch, 2016) and thus contributing to gender imbalances in female- or male-dominated professions. Growing up in a patriarchal society may also contribute to important public health concerns such as gender-based violence. Indeed, early socialization experiences in childhood, such as being repeatedly shamed for expressing vulnerable emotions, can have lasting influence into adulthood in ways that shape their intimate relationships (Pollack, 1995). For example, several controlled experiments have found that adult men who endorse sexist male role norms are likely to aggress against male and female participants who vio- 10 APA | Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men late those norms (e.g., Parrott, Zeichner, & Hoover, 2006; Reidy, Shirk, Sloan, & Zeichner, 2009). Men who rigidly adhere to sexist, patriarchal masculine norms also tend to endorse and commit higher levels of intimate partner and sexual violence toward women (Kilmartin & McDermott, 2015). Feminist scholars have argued that some men use violence and control in relationships as a way of maintaining sexist beliefs and dominance over women (e.g., the Duluth Model; Pence & Paymar, 1993). Researchers in the psychology of men and masculinity have identified that insecurities stemming from early childhood experiences (such as attachment insecurities) are linked to adherence to traditional masculinity ideology (Schwartz, Waldo, & Higgins, 2004). Research also suggests that insecurely attached men not only rigidly adhere to sexist gender role ideology, but that they may act on those schemas in ways that promote or justify intimate partner violence (Mahalik, Aldarondo, GilbertGokhale, & Shore, 2005; McDermott & Lopez, 2013)
Kritik findet man reichlich. Beispielsweise diesen Artikel mit dem Titel „Die APA erklärt Männern und Jungen den Krieg“
One does not have to have read the entire 30,000 word document to appreciate its thrust: “traditional masculinity” is bad for society as well as to boys and men themselves. Stoicism, competitiveness and risk-taking, the qualities we consider desirable when they result in firefighting, search-and-rescue operations, self-sacrifice for women and children (see under Titanic) and combat in the defence of the nation, are, the APA believes, “psychologically harmful.”
In a section called “masculine ideology,” the APA says: “Masculine ideology is a set of descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive … cognitions about boys and men (academic citations added). Although there are differences in masculinity ideologies, there is a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology.” This statement seems to have been composed by someone who has to bite her or his tongue in order not to describe manly men as “deplorables.”
Let’s unpack this a bit. By “anti-femininity,” the APA means homophobia, but homophobia as a systematic attitude was not so much a feature of traditional masculinity as of traditional society. Women in a previous era were as likely to mock homosexuals as men. “Violence” was never a yardstick for masculinity in our culture, although physicality is.
The others—achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, adventure, and risk-taking —are indeed masculine qualities, and they are not part of an “ideology,” they are inherent. They are the qualities that brought humankind from caves to the Silk Road to global exploration across dangerous seas and to the moon landing. But the monumental accomplishments that can be traced directly to these masculine traits are of no interest to the APA. The Guidelines spew forth all the predictable shibboleths of social-justice warriordom—intersectionality, oppression, privilege, patriarchy, etc. Under the rubrics of Identity Politics, “traditional masculinity” is inherently toxic to women and other fragile people.
Das finde ich ganz gut dargestellt. Es wird eben im Feminismus die positive Seite bestimmter männlicher Eigenschaften schlicht ausgeblendet und sich nur auf negative Aspekte konzentriert, die als „toxisch“ dargestellt werden. Positive Aspekte darf es nicht geben, weil Männlichkeit bzw Männer eben der Feind sind.
Sie weißt auf eine andere interessante Richtlinie hin:
For an interesting contrast and a kind of “control” to the APA’s guidelines for treating boys and men, we turn to the 2007 APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Girls and Women. Here we find no criticism whatsoever of femininity, traditional or otherwise, but we do learn about the many “stressors” in girls’ and women’s lives. These include: “interpersonal victimization and violence, unrealistic media images of girls and women, discrimination and oppression, devaluation, limited economic resources, role overload, relationship disruptions, and work iniquities. Violence against girls and women is often predicated in sexism, racism, classism, and homophobia.”
Hmm. Many of these stressors apply equally to boys and men. Intimate Partner Violence is largely bilateral (and rates are statistically elevated amongst lesbians.) Nobody is more subject to “devaluation” in our culture than white heterosexual men. Men also suffer from “limited economic resources.” Same for “relationship disruptions.” What does “unrealistic media images of girls and women” mean? In my reading of the media, men are often portrayed as stupid, incompetent and/or immature. Women are very often portrayed as smart, sexy, high-achieving and confident.
The general idea promoted in these Guidelines is that women are victims. We are told they are seven times more likely than boys to be depressed, and nine times more likely to experience eating disorders. Is that men’s fault? There is no literature to my knowledge that gives evidence of any such causal link, but the APA does actually make a stab at blaming men anyway, stating “The abuse and violence in our society (e.g., abuse, battering, rape) may contribute to the development of dysfunctional behavior such as eating disorders, depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior.” (Male suicide rates are much higher than women’s, but the Guidelines for boys and men do not suggest that women “may” contribute to them.)
So male violence “may” contribute to these female problems? Right. And you know what else “may” contribute? Climate change! Or the invention of Size 0! “May” is the ultimate weasel word when alleged experts don’t know the answer, and it does not belong in any document purporting to guide psychologists in their treatment of girls and women. In implying such a link, they are giving licence to impressionable psychologists to encourage their women patients to blame the men in their lives for disorders that can have numerous other influences, including a certain kind of perfectionism one finds more often in girls than boys (which boys and men did nothing to create), and negative relationships with mothers or female peers.
Da wäscht sie ihnen ganz gut den Kopf und legt dabei passend dar, dass man mit zweierlei Maßstab misst.
Psychologists treating individual boys and men for individual problems should not be basing their approach on unscientific collectivist theories. It is hardly surprising to learn that the psychology profession has become increasingly populated by women in recent years, and also trending younger, meaning more of its practitioners came into the profession after having been steeped for years in an increasingly more radically anti-science and pro-ideological academic environment.
The Guidelines note that men are less likely than women to seek therapy because “traditional masculinity” discourages men from opening up and seeking help, but ironically, any astute male who reads the Guidelines wouldn’t want to put himself in the hands of any psychologist who’s following them. Indeed, the APA has just managed to alienate the very people it thinks are most in need of its ministrations. Good one, APA!
Auch das ein durchaus berechtigter Hinweis: Welcher Mann mit Problemen möchte sich da in Behandlung begeben? Er kann nicht erwarten, dass er auf dieser Basis eine faire Behandlung erhält.
Und das weitere Problem:
The lack of academic rigour and the blatantly ideology-based bias of both these sets of guidelines would be risible if the APA, with an American membership of 117,500, most of them practicing psychologists, were not such an influential body. When the APA speaks, institutions like universities and the courts listen. Vulnerable patients of these psychologists will also listen. It is fair to say that millions of lives will be intimately affected by these guidelines. And not in a good way. Because they will be affected according to their gender rather than as individuals.
Psychologists are being advised that before they even begin to treat their patients as human beings, they should consider their male patients to be automatically in need of existential alteration, and consider their female patients to be automatically in need of sympathy and blame-shifting.
If improving mental health was their objective, both sets of Guidelines are worse than useless. On the other hand, if furthering misandry and infantilizing women was their objective, the APA has created an ideal blueprint for success.
Eine im ganzen lesenswerte Stellungnahme.