Reddit View
February 4, 2019

Not exactly news, but a fresh perspective:



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”?

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.

Read the full article here.

Post Information
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 205
Comments 83
Date 04 February 2019 05:26 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Original Link
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
testosteronethe red pillfeminist

[–]contraterrene52 points53 points  (4 children) | Copy

Jack Donavan is a goddamn beast.

Physically, intellectually and morally. Has no fear whatsoever of offending everyone with cold hard reality.

[–]Hugh_Munghous19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy

The freedom and power of being self-employed.

[–]ay0135230 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Ok, now this is epic

[–]GetMeLaidAlot-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I agree with him for the most part on a majority of things, but when it came to his interpretation of Nietzsche's concept of Master and Slave morality, I found it to be a very childish interpretation. I found my view on him to be slightly derisive after I watched his presentation at the 21 Studio's convention.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]TRP Vanguardnicethingyoucanthave41 points42 points  (51 children) | Copy

One way that the hard sciences become compromised is by omission - by forcing out good people because of thought crimes, and by pressuring those who are left to avoid certain topics.

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime34 points35 points  (49 children) | Copy

Exhibit A: Charles Murray-The Bell Curve.

He's practically become a landmine for stating that on average blacks have a slightly lower IQ than whites, while whites have a slightly lower IQ than Asians.

His findings were viewed as an attempt to promote racism. Few in his field defended him, and even fewer are willing to work or associate themselves with him in any way.

Studies regarding Gender will follow suit. Seems we're heading more towards a society with selective use of information to build a fabricated narrative.

[–]5Imperator_Red23 points24 points  (38 children) | Copy

on average blacks have a slightly lower IQ than whites

It's not slight, it's massive. American blacks have an average of IQ of 85 and Africans have an average IQ of 70. So one and two standard deviations, respectively.

An IQ below 70 is considered mentally retarded.** So 50% of Africans are mentally retarded by western standards.

** Mentally retarded is usually re-written as "extremely low" now, probably because they don't feel comfortable with people saying that Africa is, literally, half retarded.

[–]BeornPlush6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy

While I have no problem believing that different populations will score differently on anything including IQ, 70 and 85 are bloody drastic. Source on that?

[–]5Imperator_Red0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

It's everywhere. Look it up yourself. No one denies the actual score differences. The debate centers around whether IQ is a valid measure of intelligence and whether the test is culturally biased.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

They also went to South Africa, at their universities and IQ tested South African Blacks against South African Whites, who spent their whole lives being raised in the South African culture. The point still stood, on a unbiased, adjusted for culture IQ test, the native South African blacks at the collegiate level, scored 30% lower on IQ than their white counterparts. The test didn't even use words. It was all trending patterns of shapes and positions. Tangrams etc. The debate's over. The verdict is in. It's all denialism now.

[–]Proto_Sigma0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The Bell Curve by Charles Murray is a definitive source since it compiles a lot of research and data analysis. Look at the index and citations of that book and see the veracity of the stats for yourself.

[–]1New_Guard5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy

While I might quibble with the idea of "culturally biased" IQ tests massively holding back different ethnic groups of native-born Americans in their scores, I'm sure that concept is totally legit in Africa when you're trying to use the same IQ test on tribal villagers or dirt poor big city immigrants who grew up in tribal villages. I'm all for dispassionate investigation of data, but I'm also for clearly and reasonably accounting for as many confounding factors as possible. Beyond any cultural bias in the test itself, IQ is also highly correlated with growing up poor, which US blacks are the most likely to do, and US Asians are the least likely to do.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

It doesn't work like that. The IQ tests don't even use words/language. It's all sequential pattern recognition.

IQ is the measure by which a human is able to analyze a trending pattern, identify the trend, and predict what the next shape / output is going to be based upon the evidence provided. There's nothing culturally biased about taking way longer than everyone else to figure out that a square block won't fit into the circle hole.

The poverty excuse is old hat. I grew up in one of the worst, most poverty stricken, neighborhoods of the Bay Area in the 90s with rampant gang violence all around me. I attended 13 diffferent elementary schools before I was in the 6th grade living from hotel room to hotel room with a coke addict mother. I have an IQ of 138. It has nothing to do with poverty. You're looking at it backwards. People in poverty stricken areas are there because they are LOW IQ, not because poverty springs up out of nowhere and lowers their IQ for them.

Stupid ass idea.

[–]1New_Guard1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Typically, general IQ tests have numerous parts. Pattern recognition is one of the parts. They also test verbal and mathematical ability, which are usually higher in people who've attended (good) school (for longer). Obviously, the verbal skills part has a cultural component - being able to read the threat implications spoken by your gang member neighbors was a vital skill for you, but it's likely that an IQ test would be assessing more formal definitional and usage verbal skills. There are also assessments of logical ability and classification skills. Depending on what examples are being used in those questions, there can be cultural factors that impact the mental models a person uses to answer the questions.

As far as IQ vs. SES, there's little doubt the causality goes both directions. Growing up poor has an impact in making your IQ lower that its max potential. And having a low IQ is strongly correlated with making less money in your lifetime.

I'm not denying any data on races having different IQs. Nor am I trying to apologize it all away with cultural bias. I'm saying that actually doing legitimate science is complicated, and that probably, the racial differences in IQ are real, but are not as extreme as they are reported in the Bell Curve due to confounding factors. Pointing to a couple of studies that confirm your perspective isn't really a smart approach, given that most scientific studies are wrong.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

General IQ tests, yes. The IQ tests adjusted for cultural bias (i.e. non-standard IQ tests) are generally reduced to pattern recognition and Tangram shape reproduction/synthesis. They're adjusted as such, precisely for the reasons described above.

Technically, all IQ tests should be administered with the adjusted-for-bias approach when you really think about it, because intelligence is not a measure of knowledge; rather, it is a measure of how quickly one is able to accrue knowledge so when they delve into matters of formalized subject matter (language, mathematics) rather than measuring an individual's ability to identify and synthesize, they're merely comparing accrued knowledge to some sort of standard of what an individual is expected to know by X time; rather than exposing them to fresh learning opportunities and assessing how quickly they integrate that into understanding.

Surely, this is an area where we can meet agreement. Unfortunately, I doubt we will see much more insight on this matter moving forward, because the Bell Curve findings hint at an unsavory truth that the Ostriches don't want to hear.

[–]DamiensLust0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

The study that found a 15-point difference in IQ between African Americans and white Americans is from 2000 and its methodology has received a lot of criticism and the results have failed to be replicated. There is a difference in IQ between black and white Americans, but most studies find it to be in the region of 5 points, not 15. The average IQ of black Africans dramatically increases within a very short space of time when the country being tested achieves a degree of relative prosperity. For example, in the space of 15 years the average IQ score in Kenya went up by 25 points. Since the huge increase and the short time-frame discount genetics as the driving factor that means that there must be other environmental and cultural factors that were driving the score down and then up. The extremely high performance of first-generation African immigrants would also suggest that the hypothesis that half of Africa is literally mentally retarded is dubious at best.

Of course, there is a large genetic basis for IQ, and a rational, level-headed & non-biased reading of the data will reveal that there's IQ gaps between races, but you're overstating to what degree. It's significant, but not "massive". Unfortunately, even addressing it without trying to force the conclusion that "there is absolutely no difference of any kind between any group of people" is enough for any scientist to become a pariah these days, so research is very limited. To study it using an up to date data set you'd have to co-opt the data from another study and then attempt to control for confounders after the fact which immediately makes any conclusion less valid since it would be practically impossible to get the funding for a study and literally impossible to get the results published.

[–]GuitarHero072 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

I believe that IQ is heavily affected by stimulation of the mind. Let’s do a simple thought experiment: two identical twins are separated at birth.

One twin’s parents immediately start reading to him and give him cognitively stimulating toys in early infancy. He goes to elite schools, surrounded by high achieving pupils. His parents strongly encourage him to work hard in school. From birth he is fed an optimal diet and he is physically active. Not going to college is simply not an option for him and he goes on to major in physics.

The other twin’s parents are less concerned with his educational attainment. He goes to a school full of underachieving students. He doesn’t really care about doing well in school because most of his peers don’t and his parents don’t care either. He eats a lot of junk food and also does a lot of drinking and starts smoking at age 14. He doesn’t go to college and instead gets a repetitive, boring job.

If we were to give these two twins an IQ test at age 25, would their IQs be close to identical?

[–]DamiensLust0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

I agree, environmental factors play a part in IQ, as in many traits. However, many, many studies like adoption studies and studies of twins raised apart have shown that the environment has a comparatively small effect on IQ compared to genetics, barring extreme environmental effects such as malnutrition or lead exposure.

[–]GuitarHero070 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

But did these studies control for vast differences in socioeconomic status? Most twins and siblings who are adopted into separate families will still end up in similar socioeconomic situations. At least it won’t be a massive disparity. It’s highly unlikely for one sibling to go to Belair while the other ends up in the ghetto. There are many restrictions on who can adopt children.

There is a massive gulf between wealthy countries and poor African countries. A poor kid in America might go to a crappy school. A poor kid in Africa doesn’t even learn how to read or write. He might not even get adequate calories.

I’m not disputing that genetics play a significant role in IQ...maybe even the largest role. But I would also argue that massive disparities in people’s environmental factors can play a big factor.

I don’t think that there is enough evidence to conclude at this time that Africa’s poverty is mainly due to lower IQ. I would say that there are many other factors at play.

[–]DamiensLust0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

None of the studies can set out to control for socioeconomic status as it would be immoral to set up the perfect study wherein one twin is intentionally sent to a shitter household, but the studies that have come closest by looking at adoption records and eliminating other variables and finding children closely matched in pre-adoption testing who then went on to households with very significant differences in affluence & class have found that the environment only played a very small role in later IQ. Twins adopted into two different households in different socioeconomic stratas are many times more likely to share the IQ of their twin then of the children of their adoptive parents. The data is pretty clear on this. You can google it for more information as I know it doesn't seem intuitive or if you are genuinely interested then read "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker which elucidates it very comprehensively and better than I ever could.

I never said that Africa's poverty is mainly due to lower IQ and I don't believe that to be the case. I used the example of the mean IQ score in Kenya going up by an incredible 25 points in just 15 years to demonstrate that certain very specific and extreme examples of the environment - namely malnutrition - can have a very large effect on IQ, but that outside of a handful of dramatic factors like that the environment plays a still present but small role in later IQ.

I am personally undecided about the whole race-IQ debate. I suspect that the answer probably lies somewhere in between the leftist "everyone is completely identical and any differences are because of the environment and oppression" perspective and the far-right "IQ is 100% genetic and the other races are simply biologically inferior" viewpoint, but I really don't know. It seems to me that the majority of people who have studied it have had some kind of agenda and that the issue is so charged with political, social & emotional ramifications that its almost impossible to find an unbiased purely scientific perspective on the issue.

[–]GuitarHero070 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I think we are mostly in agreement. I didn’t mean to say you claimed that Africa is poor due to the lower IQs of its inhabitants. The are however some in this thread who have basically said just that.

Race and IQ is an area that isn’t going to have a tremendous amount of quality research any time soon. It’s too controversial for most academics to wade into so we’re not going to see a whole lot of funding invested into this area of research.

I agree that the truth probably lies somewhere between the extremes. I think it’s entirety possible that median IQs can be different between different racial/ethnic fact I’d be surprised if they weren’t. But there is also a tremendous amount of variation within different human populations. Certainly genetics plays a role in this variation but I also suspect that environmental, nutritional, economic, social, cultural and political factors have a major role.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Affirmative action. Equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. Politically forced quota candidates.

Its not only blacks but all ethnic groups in all professions that have to undergo this disservice. Minorities are being held behind by the political blunder of brute forcing multi racial and cultural diversity through giving first preference based on race and cultural background, and ignoring merit. They pass up on more suitably qualified and experienced people to satisfy a political quota.

In south africa, to be chosen over a more qualified candidate for a position in anything all you have to do is prove that you were previously disadvantaged and/or not white.

Including women In mens NFL sports, what do you think the standard of the NFL will be in ten years time? Trans gendered men who identify as women winning world championship titles in womens sports competitions while having almost no experience in said sports, what do you think the standard of female sports will be in ten years time? Lowering the bar to the military special forces exam to get a female quota candidate to pass, and when she fails anyway they still pass her because of political pressure, what do you think the standard of the military will be in ten years time? I infer the answer to all three questions is absolute degeneracy and perversion of fair competition.

If people of so called minority groups acquire their qualifications by having the bar lowered to make it easier for them to pass then there is no point in fighting for equal rights, because that handicap means your achievements are undeserved, that you are simply quota professionals and that in a situation where you compete without political influence you will lose spectacularly.

IQ a factor but a small one, IQ has little to do with it. In this day and age you take what you get. If you have the opportunity to gain an unfair political advantage in life then you take it. It is fundamentally wrong but nobody cares about what is right anymore, what they want is all that matters, this i understand and accept. That however will not change the fact that they have achieved first place in a race where the fastest runners have been fitted with penalty weights because no fair.

I am aware that reason or logic will not change any minds, im under no illusions trust me.

[–]AnAbsoluteSith0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Should I even bother trying given my genetic glass ceiling? (simpleton black man here)

[–]Proto_Sigma8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

IQ is an individual score and is not determined by group membership. Belgians may be taller than Africans on average but that doesn’t mean that an African individual couldn’t be 6’5. IQ and height are similar in this regard; you know how smart and how tall you are regardless of the average IQ or average height of your group. Likewise, you being an outlier doesn’t invalidate the existance of an average disparity.

[–]5Imperator_Red1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Go for it. Maybe you're on the high end of your bell curve. I really couldn't care less if you try or not though, to be honest.

[–]lotteryroll5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

Nope. That difference in IQ is universally well-accepted. Where Murray got in trouble was for suggesting that part of that difference may be genetic/hereditary rather than completely environmental.

[–]5Imperator_Red0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Yea I think that's what he was trying to say...

[–]lotteryroll1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

No, he was saying Murray got in trouble for pointing out IQ differences. That’s not true. Many people have observed IQ differences for a long time. It’s not controversial. People just assumed differences were due to wholly environmental factors (poverty, nutrition, education, etc.)

Murray actually got into trouble for suggesting that the basis for the difference may be partially hereditary, rather than fully environmental. That’s a hugely important distinction.

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

No, that was exactly what I was trying to say. His research lead him to conclude that differences in IQ where likely genetic and environmental. Had the research come out the other way, as in black people on average have higher IQ's than whites, it likely would have been celebrated.

The issue is you lose your career for stating findings one way, no one bats an eyelid for the other.

The sciences, for them to be trusted should not be subject to social pressures where only certain information is allowed to be released without prejudice. He wasn't trying to be racist, he wasn't trying to say all black people are stupid, or that we should treat them as such, he was simply presenting his scientific findings.

[–]LatchNessMonster0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I’m listening to Charles Murray on Sam Harris’ podcast. Fascinating stuff. Pretty coincidental that I read this while they talk about the book in my ear. He is very insistent that race is definitely part of the reason why there are disparities in IQ(which he swears has very real basis, despite cultural differences having an impact), but also that race isn’t the only factor, that environment also has its place in why there are differences. I encourage anyone interested in the subject of IQ to give it a listen.

[–]DamiensLust0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

The guy bought all that on himself. He was stupid and short-sighted to not have foreseen what would happen after he presented his results the way he did. I'm not saying he should have censored himself, but he definitely could have found a way to present those same findings but wrapping it in the appropriate conciliatory, ambiguous package so that it wouldn't have sparked such an enormous controversy. Since he chose not to do that and instead just presented his findings (and not in some academic research paper or a textbook for professionals but in a book that was made for the uninformed public also!) he bought all of the controversy and consequences on himself.

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

The sciences shouldn't be like that.

What topics will be next? Who gets to decide what the "right way" to present your work is? Who gets to decide what topics are okay? Where do the lines get drawn?

It's a slippery slope.

[–]DamiensLust0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I totally agree with you. It shouldn't be like that, but it is. If you act in a way concordant with your vision of how the world should work and discount how it actually is then you're foolish and deserve the repercussions.

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Agreed. However often some need to lose for other's to gain further down the line.

Case in point, feminism. It was sacrosanct to argue back for a period before guys like Milo, Ben Shapiro, Lauren Southern, Jordan Peterson started speaking out, resulting in death threats, hate mail, public shaming and consistent attempts at de-platforming.

However, they built a platform for others with similar perspectives to backlash.

[–]Avertus0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I have read some parts of that book. He doesn't appear to promote white supremacy a la "Blacks are dumb, therefore they're untermensch," but instead shows an empirical observation of the differences in educational attainment which are influenced and biased by culture. He even discusses how affirmative action has helped blacks attain professional education.

If say I made a census on the wealth differences amongst various populations, and find out that blacks and Hispanics are generally poorer than whites, would I be racist for making this assertion?

[–]3Yakatonker6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy

The "hard sciences" are just as much a shit show. Example being the Cholesterol hypothesis has literally blown out and it reveals the makers of statins, to be perpetuating a massive scientific fraud, including other institutions which are supposed to be against cardiovascular disease. Statins cause severe and adverse side effects in 20% of users, and as a baseline slowly murders people by disabling a critical baseline function of the body to utilize LDL.

The fraud reveals how blatantly easy it is to manipulate the public. How utterly illiterate the public is and how complicit the government is in willing to harm and kill people by peddling pseudo science. It reveals most importantly modern science is bought and paid for and there are competing interests with a profane incentive to harm the population, especially when considering the bankers have their own agendas...

In Canada they're now pushing veganism, a non nutritional diet which causes literal physical degeneration in people. In recent studies of North American children, they consume a diet composed of 50% carbs, highly processed foods which aught to be child abuse.

It literally has me wondering if the explosion in mental disorders is caused by the perpetuation of these incredibly harmful diets, as is seen in Somalians and other racial demographic groups coming to the west and getting "Western Disease". Especially the modern diet rich in carbs causes insulin spikes, causes inflammation which is seen as the mechanistic causes of Cardiovascular Disease.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Isn't there supposed to be an increase in birth defects in long term vegans?

[–]3Yakatonker2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

Yes it does! It known to make women infertile, because there is not enough soluble iron in a plant based diet, let alone a number of other critical nutrients.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy


[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Women have polluted science.

[–]DamiensLust0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

The agenda is definitely corrupting psychology, but its certainly not to the point of no return. Thankfully because of the huge advances in neuroscience, biopsychology is gaining more & more ground over the other less fact-orientated (and imo less prestigious, accurate & scientific) branches. Biological psychology has been amassing information, producing new theories, testing & evaluating them in experiments, interpreting brain scans, working on the connection between genes, the brain & behaviour and is taking off more & more, whereas the Freudian psychoanalysts & the other relics of a bygone era are left producing nothing of any value or substance and the disparity is becoming more & more clear. I think eventually the gap between the superior bio-psychology & the Jungian/Freudian/Rogers-esque psychology will be so huge that they will either branch off into two separate subjects, leaving bullshit-psych in the social sciences where it belongs, or it will eclipse them entirely and subsume them. Eventually psychology will be firmly grounded in science and then, like physics, biology & chemistry, it won't be left open to manipulation via an agenda.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]DamiensLust0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Psychology goes acknowledge the existence of male and female brain, one of the leading theories regarding autism is that it is a result of a "hyper-male" brain. Serious academics all acknowledge the self-evident truth of biological differences between the sexes, it is only the loud, shrill feminists are allowed to control the narrative as they make the most noise and cause the most disruption.

[–]BobbyPeru0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Soft science releases = fake news

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime25 points26 points  (4 children) | Copy

With the modern field of psychology receiving the same unquestionable godlike status of medicine, the results of this are far reaching. The APA endorsing restraint on masculinity is like medicine endorsing restraint on testosterone levels.

Society seeks guidance from these so called "professionals" the same way we entrust our doctors to have the public's best interest at heart(even though that can also be brought into question). The APA prescribes and society follows. Parent's raising their kids, school conduct, college conduct, workplace conduct will all fall victim to this guidelines ripple effect.

These "professionals" who have been entrusted to back their prescriptions on factual findings have been hijacked by a political campaign.

[–]killcat1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Do not be surprised if the APA document is used as the basis for putting boys on hormone blockers, to "treat toxic masculinity".

[–]TRParchivist0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Don't be surprised if its used to justify banning males from owning guns, because "masculinity, which inherently is toxic," is "inherently unstable and violent".

Think bigger.

[–]killcat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Ehh I live in country without much hand gum ownership, it really didn't occur to me.

[–]TRParchivist0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Anything inherently masculine will now become inherently "toxic", and medicated or prohibited accordingly.

[–]trpthrowcatch19 points20 points  (4 children) | Copy

This highlights my biggest problem with feminism. Overall they have some good ideas, but they just don't want to acknowledge the realities of gender differences. For example This paragraph:

The main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful. Men socialized in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors. For example, a 2011 study led by Kristen Springer, PhD, of Rutgers University, found that men with the strongest beliefs about masculinity were only half as likely as men with more moderate masculine beliefs to get preventive health care (Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 52, No. 2). And in 2007, researchers led by James Mahalik, PhD, of Boston College, found that the more men conformed to masculine norms, the more likely they were to consider as normal risky health behaviors such as heavy drinking, using tobacco and avoiding vegetables, and to engage in these risky behaviors themselves (Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 64, No. 11).

Those two studies are important and those sorts of things should be taken into account. But then they get to how to actually solve these problems and it's very lacking.

First, clinicians must be aware of dominant masculine ideals, and cognizant of their own potential biases. Second, they must recognize the integrated nature of masculinity, and how factors ranging from spirituality to ability status to age and ethnicity interact. Mental health professionals must also understand how power, privilege and sexism work both by conferring benefits to men and by trapping them in narrow roles. They should consider how stoicism and a reluctance to admit vulnerability hamstring men in personal relationships, and they should combat these forces, in part, by encouraging fathers to engage more fully with their children.

Particularly that last sentence. Men don't have these negative traits just because society tells them to, they have them because that's what women find attractive. I'm sure being open and honest with your emotional vulnerabilities does lead to better health outcomes, but it also turns women off and will prevent that man from getting laid.

So these professionals don't need to be thinking about "power, privilege, and sexism" when helping men. They need to be thinking about how men can reduce these unhealthy behaviors while still being masculine and attractive.

I'm a big believer in science, but while they have a lot of studies showing these problems, it seems they don't have any showing solutions that actually work. They're simply prescribing action based on what they think will work.

[–]Selexus[🍰] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

And why, pray tell, do you believe that stoicism, aggression and competitiveness are problems to be solved?

[–]tempolaca3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

the more men conformed to masculine norms, the more likely they were to consider as normal risky health behaviors such as heavy drinking, using tobacco and avoiding vegetables

Fuck vegetables, and fuck the APA.

[–]1RPAlternate421 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

So what of women who don't like vegetables and that do smoke and drink.

I guess the APA hasnt solved that equation yet.

[–]5Imperator_Red2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Overall they have some good ideas,

Nope. It was always a disaster.

[–]Ivabighairy13 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

The APA has been trying to change pedophilia from a “Deviant” behavior to a “Normal” behavior since the 1990’s. That’s all I need to know about them.

[–]TRParchivist5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

Isn't Jack gay as a meatball? How does his perception of things affect straight men? (Since TRP is for the SEXUAL STRATEGY OF STRAIGHT MEN, after all.)

Just a question.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yes, very gay. As far as I've read (way of men, becoming a barbarian) he still has a good perspective on things, even if it's not directly related to fucking women.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Read way of men and report back what you conclude

[–]eclectro8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

And now you know why this subreddit is quarantined.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

Just one brick in this wall, but yeah we all kind of figured.

[–]AnAbsoluteSith1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It appears scholars don't agree with at as well and call out its thinly veiled feminist undertones

[–]recon_johnny1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

That was a good read. Don’t assume people act in good faith. They don’t. Bias is everything and is everywhere.

Now, what analogies can you make for this?

[–]RevolutionaryGround71 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The APA claims "traditional" Masculinity is harmful. The real harm is making a whole gender feel bad about themselves in a ill defined way just so that organisation can drum up more business.

Forget toxic masculinity, toxic psychologists are what is really problematic here.

[–]Nergaal0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

If you read the APA article the author seems to imply that the "harmful" part is what makes average life expectancy of males be below that of women. It is also the same thing that instinctively drives up mate selection by females.

In a world-peace society like today, IN THEORY that might be desirable. BUT as long as females will cuck their husbands and IS more-or-less societally acceptable to do so [i.e. anything but tradcon society will allow/encourage it], it is the suboptimal life choice. I.e., while some beta cucks will be happy and even have biological kids, many, perhaps most, won't. As long as the female imperative drives the mate selection the way TRP has show to, the APA "helpful" guideline will only indirectly lead to higher rates of male suicide [assuming unsuccessful reproduction being the likely cause of higher suicide rates in males]

[–]TheImpossible11 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The APA is yet another organization taken by Solanas worshippers.

[–]tempolaca-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Assuming men feel the same range of emotions as women is the same that assuming women have the same physical strength as men. We don't because we evolved that way.

We are just different. It's very difficult for grown men to cry or have strong emotions. You can get depressed, you can grieve, but men just don't cry often, even when they are alone. We just don't have that strong emotion, and likely all other emotions we have are much diminished, I bet even rage and ire are stronger in women. Accusing men of not having emotions is plain and simple discrimination and sexism.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter