Quackery, snake oil and charlatans: The Psychologists Association’s war on men and boys

Barbara Kay has written several excellent articles on the American Psychologists Association’s new guidelines on treating boys and men.

In one of her articles entitled: “The American Psychological Association Goes to War Against Boys and Men,” Ms. Kay points out:

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.

I invite you to read Ms. Kay’s article in full. She has some brilliant insights into why Psychology, as a profession, has failed men and boys.

She also brilliantly points out that the failure of Psychologists to effectively treat men and boys is likely to be one of the principal reasons that men and boys do not seek help from (incompetent and man-hating) psychologists.

I have thoroughly reviewed the APA’s new guidelines for treating boys and men. It is beyond “junk science.” The APA guidelines on boys and men are the product of charlatans.

Most people outside the “profession” (I use the term loosely) of Psychologists don’t realize that Psychology is, and has never been, a science. Psychologists, when they are acting ethically and responsibly, will often turn to science for help, validation and professional improvement. When Psychologists are acting unethically and irresponsibly, they produce toxic attitudes and treatment methods that are designed to serve their own individual hate ideologies, against men, rather than serving the public interest.

I invite you to read the APA’s guidelines on treating men and boys. They are nothing but passive-aggressive strategies for denying men their birthrights, their choices, their sexual preferences and their biological identities.

It is beyond the scope of this article to review all of the 30,000 words. We can, however, take an exampleor two, of the APA’s open hatred of men, and, its advocacy for malpractice when treating boys and men.

Let’s take a close look at some of the APA’s snake oil.

In epidemiological studies, substance abuse and alcohol abuse were correlated with higher suicide rates among men (Pompilli et al., 2010). Many men use alcohol or other drugs as a trauma-related avoidance response to difficult emotional situations and uncomfortable affective states (Elder, Domino, Mata-Galán, & Kilmartin, 2017), and investigators have uncovered strong links between alcohol and suicide completion (Kaplan et al., 2013).

This paragraph seeks to blame men for using alcohol and drugs to “avoid response to difficult emotional situations.” This is beyond “junk science” and ignorance. This is “anti-science,” “psychobabble,” and misandry.

Science (as any competent professional should know) has shown us that men react to depression, biologically, in the exact opposite manner as women. The APA’s guidelines imply that men are at fault for their own clinical depression by concealing their feelings, and, trying to hide their feelings with substance abuse. Nothing could be further from the science on the subject.

Recent genetic research has shown us that men have certain biological DNA markers that respond in certain ways to men’s clinical depression. Those DNA markers not only make men more susceptible to being victims of substance abuse, but, are likely to actually compel men, biologically, to use alcohol or drugs.

“The brain transcriptional profile of MDD [Major Depressive Disorder] differs greatly by sex, with multiple transcriptional changes in opposite directions between men and women with MDD.” Marianne L. Seney, Zhiguang Huo, Kelly Cahill, Leon French, Rachel Puralewski, Joyce Zhang, Ryan W. Logan, George Tseng, David A. Lewis, Etienne Sibille“Opposite Molecular Signatures of Depression in Men and Women,” Journal of Biological Psychiatry, Volume 84, Issue 1, Pages 18–27, July 1, 2018.

Instead of consulting science, physicians and other reputable sources, the APA has relied, instead, on the demeaning tenets of political gender feminist ideologies.

This anti-science is exactly what Ms. Kay is referencing when she wrote: “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.”

Nurse Ratched (The prototype intersectional feminist from the 1970’s)

The APA’s guidelines go on to demean and disparage “traditional masculinity” (victim blaming) instead of addressing the problems men and boys face with a measure of compassion, science, or sincere effort to serve men and boys as a helping profession.

We haven’t seen this level of “professional” quackery since spurious medieval physicians practiced indiscriminate bloodletting and mercury poisoning.

Let’s take a closer look at the APA’s open hatred of men, boys and masculinity (adopted almost verbatim from radical gender feminist dogma).

GUIDELINE 3

Psychologists understand the impact of power, privilege, and sexism on the development of boys and men and on their relationships with others.

Rationale

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 main- tain 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. . . .

The idea behind this paragraph is to immediately prejudge all men as “privileged” oppressors of women (and other intersectional demograpics). This is straight out of the SCUM manifesto (SCUM = Society for Cutting up Men). One wonders when the APA will begin lobbying for male interment camps to effect their “guidelines” for “treating” men and boys.

This type of man-hating ideology now saturates our institutions.

Our institutions have become so corrupted by feminist dogma, and, gynocentrism, that we no longer have the ability to see men as autonomous human beings. Feminism and gynocentrism dictate that we demonize men at every opportunity in order to justify forcing men to adopt to feminist political ideologies.

Intersectional feminism has implemented fascist techniques, very successfully, and their corrupting sexism and misandry pervades the APA’s new “guidelines” for practicing with men and boys.

These intersectional feminist power components pervade the APA’s “guidelines” on practice for men and boys. These power components require demonizing men, instead of extending compassion and professionalism to the treatment of men and boys

It would be appropriate for men and women to begin legal challenges to the APA’s presence in our schools and universities, their access to government contracts and grants, and, enjoin their open misandry towards the men and boys over whose welfare they purport to administer.

Recommended Content

Skip to toolbar