WomensStuff

The APA defines traditional masculinity as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population.

That is a definition from an academic journal you are clearly taking out of context. It is not an actual study, experiment, or metric.

Nothing in your link confirms the AMOUNT of men being raised in poor conditions.

It is simply about "large segments" of men being exposed to negative portrayals of masculinity.

Specifically this exposure is defined as what's seen in social media, films, television, ads, podcasts etc.

It is NOT, in any way:

• Specifying this exposure as being a major part of men's families.
• Specifiying this exposure as being a major part of men's upbringing.
• Specifiying that men are only affected negatively by this exposure.

These are all ASUMPTIONS you are making.

This article quotes ZERO studies reaching these conclusions.

You are treating the amount of "traditional masculinity" exposure in social media, as if it is a ready part of the majority of young men's upbringing that's already affecting them negatively.

As a logical comparison, if this article was defining "traditional masculinity" as something like a billboard with Joe Rogan advertising McDonald's, you are coming to the conclusion that the majority of young mens families are shoving Big Macs into their mouth.

That's not what this article is saying at all.

You are even avoiding the clarifying statements in this link to reach the wrong conclusion. From your link:

...What the APA report seeks to address is male suffering, of which experts say there is no shortage..." We often talk about gender in terms of women ... getting the short end of the stick. ... Well, masculinity isn't easy either," Jennifer Carlson, a sociology professor at the University of Arizona... "It isn't easy to be a man in the United States. Demands put on men — whether it's to be the protector, to be the provider, to respond to situations in certain ways, to prove yourself as a man — end up being not just outwardly destructive but also inwardly destructive."

So, literally, traditional masculinity is bad, and it's destroying men. NOT traditional masculinity is being forced onto the majority of young men. It is just a big part of current media, and that's affecting men poorly.

Also from your article:

The APA guidelines stress that psychologists must confront their own biases about masculinity, and encourages them to: Promote healthy intimate relationships among boys and men. Address issues of male privilege and power. Promote healthy father involvement. Strive to understand the factors that lead to male aggression and violence.

That is certainly what I've been striving to look for in this thread. The encouragement this article provides in searching for such an answer is absoule proof that it has not been provided yet, especially from this article.

You have made incredible leaps of logic not at all supported by the link you provided.

You've moved the goalposts.

I have not, in anyway, moved the goalposts.

I used basic logic, specifically the process of elimination to point towards a clear result:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_of_elimination

Process of elimination is a logical method to identify an entity of interest among several ones by excluding all other entities.

I did this, specifically, to avoid the pedantic argument it looked like you wanted to start, and now are very clearly continuing.

She's not expressing anger, she is expressing distress...

Specifically, this is pedantic.

You aren't allowing for the individual interpretation of her behavior in this video to be anything but distress. Based entirely on your own observation that it is distress. I, and a bunch of others could very easily interpret her behaviour differently.

Which is all pedantic, because it doesn't matter.

"Distress" is just as much of a negative-stress response as anger.

https://dictionary.apa.org/distress

... a negative stress response, often involving negative affect and physiological reactivity: a type of stress that results from being overwhelmed by demands, losses, or perceived threats.

Quite literally, you are trying to argue that distress and anger are different emotions, despite both of them coming from the same place.

You are basically saying that Pepsi isn't cola flavored because the can it comes in doesn't look like Coke.

It's still cola. You are just trying to redefine what that is.

So, even if this person is feeling distress in this video, it doesn't really prove she's managing negative stress well. It just proves, only to you, that she isn't "angry."

Which makes you appear right, but does absolutley nothing to further this conversation.

Which is why you then chose to avoid all the questions I asked as if they didn't matter. Specifically:

Whats the difference between men who are violent and men who aren't?

ALL men are exposed to testosterone. SOME men cause more violence.

ALL does NOT = SOME.

But you very much seem to not understand this when you insist:

It would only require [men] to be more prone to [violence] relative to women, which they are, objectively.

If they ALL have TESTOSTERONE. They would ALL be violent. They aren't. You even acknowledge this by saying "more prone" to violence relative to women. What you don't acknowledge is that:

Not ALL men are violent. OBJECTIVELY. Do you agree?

Unless you want to admit to being bigoted. The answer is no.

You've already twisted facts to favor a world view that you've only assumed to exist. In addition to the pedantic nature of your critique, I don't feel this conversation is worth continuing unless I know I'm talking to someone who rationally wants to stay on topic more than get on a Soap box for attention.

Not ALL men are violent. OBJECTIVELY. Do you agree?