I thought that it would be a good idea to do an analysis on misandristic therapists. Unlike typical feminists on social media, these people use their authority as therapists to misrepresent and antagonise men, especially vulnerable men seeking help.

I will always be a mental health advocate, however sans pop psychology or the misuse of clinical language. Earlier this week, a licensed therapist posted onto this subreddit with an article titled: I’m embarrassed that I need emotional connection to have sex. At face value the article might appeal to a subset of men who might feel pressured to assume a hyper masculine role. However, it certainly does not represent all men. That said, I scrolled through this therapist's Substack account. It contains the usual drivel pertaining to how men should split up chores with women and also complaining about patriarchy. He also obfuscates the role of feminism and/or misandry has played in terms of the male loneliness epidemic (its multifaceted however feminism/misandry is one of many key factors); instead claims that it is primarily the result of capitalism, thus trivialising men's issues.

In particular I will be focusing on this article titled The cure for male loneliness is feminism. Seriously.

Mohler says "J[oin] a political organization like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)".

Already he is inserting his own political bias by specifying that men ought to join a political organisation. This recommendation can result in an ethical dilemma because what if his audience or clients have political views different to him or are apolitical? Would he (as a therapist) be more judgemental towards clients without the same views as him? All of this shows me gross incompetence as a therapist or from someone claiming to help men.

"We’ve been told that anything outside of going to work or optimizing ourselves by lifting weights....and pounding creatine isn’t worth much. That caring for others isn’t a “productive” or “efficient” use of our time...That we’re not supposed to do it because women are naturally, biologically designed for it and we’re not (which is untrue). That if we do it, we’re less valuable, like a woman, less of a man".

Men do care, it might not be the way that society tells them to or they pitch in when helping out, with household chores, looking after living dependents and providing emotional support. However people tend not to take them seriously. For example how people compare stay at home or part-time employed mothers compared to fathers doing the same household chores. One is praised, the other, it's treated like an expectation or not even acknowledged. Women staying at home are doing "unpaid labour", whereas the stay at home fathers are expected to chip in. No commentary on unpaid labour there.

Men are expected to provide emotional support to their partners, however when the tables are turned and they need a shoulder to cry on; it's framed as "emotional labour".

Sure, mention men who are stuck in their traditional masculine roles, however that is not reflective of all men and Mohler presents a caricature of men. Furthermore, traditional masculine roles were the norm decades ago. It is no longer a social norm as it stands in this current decade. Reductive and outdated advice is not helpful for most men, let alone men who are severely mentally ill or might be suffering from tragic events in their lives.

"I read feminists like Silvia Federici, bell hooks, and Nancy Fraser. I learned that men devalue and exploit care work because capitalism as an economic system devalues and exploits care work".

I am not familiar with the work of Federici nor Fraser, from a basic google search, it seems like Federici was part of the second wave feminists who first made the claims about"unpaid labour" in terms of women performing household duties. These theories have now been revived by feminists and the online left. Fraser seems to mainly focus on identity politics.

I am familiar with the likes of bell hooks and I read at least 2 of her books. This post highlights my sentiment exactly on hooks "You should read Bell Hooks" a semi-rant about the experience of talking to feminists. hooks is someone who makes unsubstantiated claims about men, is both a racist and a misandrist. She constantly demonises African American men.

For someone who claims that he's a socialist (and recommends that men should volunteer for DSA), the author clearly doesn't understand that hooks was not a Marxist and was a landlady for some time, she only focused on intersectional theory and cherry picked ideas from the theory in order to suit her own narrative. This post highlights the issue with hooks in further detail The troubling racist analysis of black masculinity by Bell Hooks, and how her patriarchal model of society is inferior to Marxism in basically every way

Final remarks

Men don't need intersectional bourgie feminism in their lives that is a hateful ideology and undermines men's very real issues. Men don't need to be preached about what political party they should support. What they do need is practical solutions to their problems that a therapist ought to guide them through. Not ideological nonsense.

This author never acknowledges the high suicide rates and worse mental health outcomes that men face, compared to women. In summary, the entirety of the article is arrogant, makes it all about women and is dismissive towards men.

Feminism treats men like adversaries, a threat or are privileged by default. Personally, I think that there is no real benefit for men to be feminists. That said, therapists such as Mohler are actively harming their clients that they claim to be helping. Given the current state of the APA guidelines, it's no surprise that there is overabundance of anti-male sentiment and bias against men, meaning that they often need to go through a dozen therapists in order to see a decent one. In some cases they never get to see a decent therapist, thus give up on therapy or develop a mistrust in the healthcare system.

I hope in the future that we see less of this, that there is greater pushback against ideologues destroying the manner in which APA guidelines are provided for therapists to follow. I think that therapists like Mohler should be scrutinised and named and shamed publicly. Only then will things change.