Post: #1

"studies have shown" so it must be true ...

I shouldn't be surprised by anything anymore, but this one left me speechless for a minute.

Quote:MEN'S HEALTH
Playboys and misogynists more likely to have mental health problems: study

NEW YORK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Men who behave like promiscuous playboys or feel powerful over women are more likely to have mental health problems than men with less sexist attitudes, according to a study released on Monday.

The analysis found links between sexist behavior and mental health issues such as depression and substance abuse, said the study which appeared in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association.

"Some of these sexist masculine norms, like being a playboy and power over women, aren't just a social injustice but they are also potentially bad for your mental health," said Joel Wong, an associate professor of counseling psychology at Indiana University Bloomington and lead author of the study.

Its release comes on the heels of the election to the U.S. presidency of Donald Trump, whose comments about women that emerged during the election campaign were condemned by many as sexist and misogynist.

The research synthesized results of more than 70 U.S.-based studies involving more than 19,000 men over 11 years.

This involved looking at 11 norms generally considered by experts to reflect society's expectations of traditional masculinity including a desire to win, risk-taking and pursuit of status, Wong said.

The traits, or norms, most closely linked to mental health problems were playboy behavior, or sexual promiscuity, power over women and self-reliance, he said.

"Men who have trouble asking for directions when they're lost, that's a classic example of self-reliance," Wong said.

Also, men who exhibited those attitudes were also less likely to seek mental health treatment, the study said.

The researchers said there was one dimension for which they were unable to find any significant effects.

"Primacy of work was not significantly associated with any of the mental health-related outcomes," said Wong in a statement.

"Perhaps this is a reflection of the complexity of work and its implications for well-being. An excessive focus on work can be harmful to one's health and interpersonal relationships, but work is also a source of meaning for many individuals."

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/11/21...study.html

Honestly I think my favorite part is "self-reliance". Self-reliance is bad for your mental health.

The whole education system needs an enema.

Post: #2

Quote:"Men who have trouble asking for directions when they're lost, that's a classic example of self-reliance," Wong said.

We have no trouble asking for directions here. We're just not lost when we do it.


This entire article is attacking traditional masculinity. The author points to anyone who has traditional values as holding sexist/misogynist views while also ignoring the implications behind those views.

Interesting enough, as the author condemns traditional masculinity it's also noted how these men have no trouble getting sex. It's constantly echoed in the article how these supposedly mental men are living the playboy lifestyle. For men who are living such destructive lifestyles, as the author believes, there's no shortage of women who want to fuck their brains out.

The icing on this dry, bitter cake is the author proceeds to take digs at Donald Trump. Although not mentioned directly, it's clear the author is saying Trump holds these sexist/misogynist aka traditionalist views, therefore he's also mentally deficient in some capacity. Because taking risks and having a winning attitude are detrimental to the human character. So much so, they do terrible things like leading to success or becoming president-elect to the United States of America.

This article strikes me as someone who's had consistent trouble with his love life. He goes to a bar or club and is consistently shot down. Then he sits and mopes and watches as the guy with game walks up to a girl and hooks her. He sits there confused and wonders, "What does this asshole have that I don't? I treat women nice and I respect them, but then this douchey misogynist gets the girl? Fuck that guy."

He's always at the edge of the truth, but his entire life has taught him to turn away from it. I might be wrong, but it's no secret the modern man has been taught to become completely soft and unfuckable to the other half of the world's population.

I seriously hope he can get his shit together, but until then he'll continue to be the average frustrated chump.

Post: #3

Yup. Because these days, identifying as a genderqueer half starchild half foxkin life partner of a fictional waifu isn't considered a mental illness.

But hitting the bottle from time to time and getting depressed about this gay earth is diagnosable.

Wh...what's this?

Post: #4

EDIT: This is a EE article

I really wish they would post a link to the article in the news.

Here is the article:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/release...000176.pdf

Here is our expert on masculinity:


Here are the things he considers mental health issues:

Quote:Depression
Psychological distress/stress
Substance use
Body image problems
Negative social functioning
Other psychological problems

Fair enough. I believe it because facing adversity is tough. We know this better than anyone. But this one right here:

Quote:Negative social functioning

Could it be that this meta-analysis is of articles which use biased choices of definitions for words like social functioning? While I have not looked in detail at the 70+ articles he analyzes, one could easily imagine "having an average relationship length of <1 week" could be marked as negative social functioning.

Something is fishy here. Where are all the playboys with negative social functioning?

Post: #5

Putting aside the intent of this study and the reporting on it, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the links drawn.

Quote:The analysis found links between sexist behavior and mental health issues such as depression and substance abuse

We know from numerous other studies that living in an unnatural environment is linked to similar mental problems in females - that unnatural environment being the world of men. Women simply aren't cut out for competing in the same environments in which men thrive, and are happier doing what women do - keeping a home, raising a family etc.

But the environment we live in now as men in the west is no more unnatural for us - where women are just as, if not more capable at everything than we are. Where our most instinctive and natural impulses are supposed to be denied, and to live by them is to invite ruin and ostracism.

While men are generally more resilient, we are not immune to the efefcts of such a toxic environment. While I can keep my chin up 99% of the time and keep on keeping on, I know I still have my down days where I'm just fucking sick of all the subtle (and not-so-subtle) ideological bullshit I have to endure. I can definitely see these conditions leading to depression and substance abuse in a not-insignificant proportion of men.

We can probably assume that the reporting of the study is framed in such a way as to draw a link in the mind of half-hearted, disinterested readers of playboy lifestyle = insane, but whether the study was conducted that way is debatable. We can probably also assume that where studies show the sky-rocketing rates of mental illness in females, the narrative is that it's societies fault and we all need to pull out all the stops to fix it for them. But in this case, the narrative will be that men brought it on themselves by not getting with the program - it is the current year after all.

Post: #6

(11-21-2016 07:04 PM)storm Wrote:  

The face just says it all, doesn't it?

Faces like this scare me more than those of hardened life-long convicts.

I saw a young guy who had a similarly effeminate look in my office today. He was with his wife who easily weighed twice as much as him. His mannerisms were so overly polite and saccharine that it took all my willpower to not slap him in the face a couple times, shake him by the shoulders and shout "MAN THE FUCK UP!". I felt dirty afterwards, like I needed a testosterone bath to clean off his wretched weakness and the stain of pity and anger that it left me with.

In Robert Graves' novel set in the Roman Empire called I, Claudius (great read by the way), he wrote that the Emperor Augustus refused to allow any ugly, deformed, or sickly people into his presence because he couldn't stand the sight of them. If I ever get around to founding the Holy Seingalt Empire, or move to Rooshland or Trumplandia, I will motion that we ban the presence of men with faces like this. It really is toxic to the soul and they are invariably scheming some sort of mischief.

Post: #7

Modern life is not to blame, though I used to think so. Living in stone age times with the constant threat of starvation, animal attack,infant mortality, tribal women dying in childbirth, death by disease or parasite and "drop of the hat" tribal warfare or intertribal infighting to the death was not a recipe for sound mental heath "because it's what we're adapted to."

The mental health field is largely populated by pussy pharma-fags who seem to have this bizarre idea that nobody should ever be unhappy, evvvveeeeerrrrrr. And it sure helps if they make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year pushing that nonsense.

Being down on life is a natural thing. It exists to correct our shitty choices that brought us there and makes us work hard to avoid bad situations in the future. It's a self enforced consequence that provides for our long term survival. Sure, some people are down there too long (often because they refuse to correct their choices) and those people need serious help, but any man, woman or dog can now get diagnosed with depression just by walking into a doctors surgery and saying "I'm sad a lot of the time".

It's rubbish. Feeling shitty every now and then is normal, even for playboys and mountain men.

Post: #8

^
You are such a quality poster, I wish I could rep you twice.

Post: #9

Amusingly, when you look at the study, even the author has to grudgingly concede that behaviours associated with masculinity "may" be "beneficial":

Quote:Aligning with Mahalik et al.’s postulation that conformity to masculine norms has both benefits and costs, research on the CMNI has identified complex and differential associations with mental health-related outcomes. For example, overall conformity to masculine norms as well as conformity to the specific masculine norms of self-reliance, emotional control, violence, dominance, risk-taking, and power over women were inversely associated with attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help in a predominantly White American male college sample (Mahalik et al., 2003). On the other hand, conformity to masculine norms may also be beneficial, as evidenced by a negative association between adherence to the masculine norm of winning and substance use in a mainly White American male college sample (Levant et al., 2011) and between conformity to the masculine norm of emotional control and alcohol use among Asian American male college students (Liu & Iwamoto, 2007).

If you're masculine you're less likely to abuse drugs. In Asians, if you're masculine, you're less likely to be drinking.

Note the model they're working from, though: the assumption is that the masculine norm of behaviour includes violence and power over women in particular. This is an insane idea, given women are perfectly capable of violence and power over men as well; nobody calls that the feminine norm of behaviour.

Even the dickhead doing the survey recognises that it's a stupid model:

Quote:In making sense of this mixed body of evidence, Wong, Owen, and Shea (2012) proposed two conceptual perspectives that explain how conformity to masculine norms might be differentially related to other outcomes. The variable-centered perspective, hereafter known as the predictor-centered perspective2, proposes that the relationship between men’s conformity to masculine norms and other outcomes varies as a function of the types of masculine norms— conformity to some masculine norms may be maladaptive, whereas conformity to other norms are adaptive. To illustrate, Mahalik et al. (2005) posited that men who conform to the masculine norms of self-reliance and emotional control might have difficulty with interpersonal relationships, whereas conformity to the masculine norms of primacy work, pursuit of status, and winning might endow men with a sense of identity and purpose derived from work.

So in other words "a guy who uses some of these masculine norms is crazy, but a guy who uses some of these masculine norms -- in particular, work, winning, and status -- is adaptive and good for men's mental health."

Well, fucking duh! You really think someone who attends to so-called "masculine norms" that include violence is going to show up as mentally well? The issue with this stupid finding is not the correlation, it's the definition and inclusion of maladaptive behaviours as supposedly being part and parcel of masculine norms.

The study goes on to sum up a massive number of issues with interpreting the results of the "masculine index", so to speak, which, if you dip into it, illustrates the entire problem with social "science": like no other brand of science, it is subject to painting a bullseye around an arrow you've already shot, and even these fuckers can't tell which is the best way to analyse it.

It's also interesting -- and omitted in the PR material around the study -- that risk-taking behaviour, another "masculine norm", was clearly associated with positive mental health. And also negative mental health. They cheerily explain away this "contradictory result", but when you have to start explaining problems like that, it's a fair call your model is fucked.

They also acknowledge, at the end, that in essence all their work is shit.

Quote:Despite the contributions of our findings, we acknowledge several
limitations in our study. First, our meta-analyses focused only
on conformity to masculine norms and mental health-related outcomes
and do not generalize to other masculinity constructs and
outcomes such as health behavior (e.g., physical exercise).

That is, lifting weights -- another traditional masculine norm -- helps your mental health, but we will not in a million years admit that because it's traditional masculine behaviour.

Quote:Second, because our meta-analyses consisted only of studies written in
English, it is possible that we might have excluded studies written in non-English languages.

That is, their analyses are only covering the fucked-up position of men in the United States.

Quote:Third, the studies in our meta-analyses were based on correlational data; none of them involved the experimental manipulation of variables that would enable researchers to draw causal conclusions about the contingent effects of masculinities on mental health-related outcomes (see Addis et al., 2010, for similar criticisms).

That is, it's plain old shitty correlative material, which is par for the course in social science since if they actually had to start finding causes most psychologists would be out of work the next day.

Quote:Additionally, given the paucity of longitudinal studies in the psychology of men and masculinities (Wong & Horn, 2016), we could not test whether ESs differed as a function of the temporal sequence of conformity to masculine
norms and mental health-related outcomes.

The study acknowledges the results are loaded up with surveying young men, and doesn't look at how "masculine norm" behaviour works for a guy over his entire lifespan. This is a serious problem given the adult temporal lobe -- ie the decisionmaking part of the brain -- doesn't stop growing until the age of 25, which might well explain why you're seeing a bunch of uncertain, fucked-up mental health outcomes.

Lastly, where does this "masculine norms" list come from? The original guy who conceptualised it was James R. Mahalik.



More or less as expected.

His CV? Right here: https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/sch...ikCV10.pdf

Note the distinct lack of actual work as a psychologist, meeting real, breathing bodies, outside university. That is, he's been an academic his entire life.

And lastly, and quite hilariously, Mahalik has even come up with a "feminine norms" index: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...005-3709-7

Guess what norms are on that list? I quote: Nice in Relationships, Thinness, Modesty, Domestic, Care for Children, Romantic Relationship, Sexual Fidelity, and Invest in Appearance. Unsurprisingly, he concludes -- in that article above -- that eating disorders are heavily associated with behaving according to these norms.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #10

(11-21-2016 08:43 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Modern life is not to blame, though I used to think so. Living in stone age times with the constant threat of starvation, animal attack,infant mortality, tribal women dying in childbirth, death by disease or parasite and "drop of the hat" tribal warfare or intertribal infighting to the death was not a recipe for sound mental heath "because it's what we're adapted to."

The mental health field is largely populated by pussy pharma-fags who seem to have this bizarre idea that nobody should ever be unhappy, evvvveeeeerrrrrr. And it sure helps if they make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year pushing that nonsense.

Being down on life is a natural thing. It exists to correct our shitty choices that brought us there and makes us work hard to avoid bad situations in the future. It's a self enforced consequence that provides for our long term survival. Sure, some people are down there too long (often because they refuse to correct their choices) and those people need serious help, but any man, woman or dog can now get diagnosed with depression just by walking into a doctors surgery and saying "I'm sad a lot of the time".

It's rubbish. Feeling shitty every now and then is normal, even for playboys and mountain men.

Muscle is gained only through progressive overstress. Overstress involves the pain response, since muscles build by microtears in the tissue which the body then heals, resulting in an increase in size of muscle. Thus the saying no pain, no gain.

Cardiovascular health is acquired principally via conditioning -- that is, limited stressing -- of the heart to 80% of its maximum rate.

The liver, via years of abuse, can process toxicities of alcohol that would kill another person.

A bone, if broken but set correctly, will grow back together stronger than it was before it was broken.

The body is an organism designed to adapt to change and adapt to progressively greater stress, physical and mental. All of these body parts swim in the same soup of hormones and fluids that the brain does. Yet psychologists think the brain -- which, as The Brain That Changes Itself shows us, is a phenomenally adaptable organ in itself -- is magical and special and cannot, should not, be taught to cope with stress of any kind, that stress must be avoided at all costs. This is like saying the best way to deal with an overweight guy who won't get off his bed is to buy him more pillows so his back will be more comfortable.

"In a crisis, you don't rise to the occasion, you fall to the level of your training." Military training involves conditioning of the mind to respond to and deal with the stress of battle. When PTSD cases happen, they are invariably due to some event of extreme or continuing high stress during the soldier's career, not the basic training. (This does not demonstrate Basic's inefficiency, one might add. Even bodybuilders, conditioned for large weights, will hurt themselves sometimes. Henry Rollins speaks vividly about one such experience in his essay The Iron. Although there's no shortage of liars or people who had PTSD from their early lives who claim it did.) The mind can be trained to deal with stress just as the body can. Men are naturally built to handle more stress -- right down to our brain's structure, there are less direct connections between the left and right hemispheres -- because that is how we evolved.

Psychology chooses not to educate people on training to deal with life's stresses in a functional way. They do so for the same reasons that the food industry chooses not to do anything about the obesity epidemic.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #11

(11-21-2016 08:43 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Being down on life is a natural thing. It exists to correct our shitty choices that brought us there and makes us work hard to avoid bad situations in the future. It's a self enforced consequence that provides for our long term survival. Sure, some people are down there too long (often because they refuse to correct their choices) and those people need serious help, but any man, woman or dog can now get diagnosed with depression just by walking into a doctors surgery and saying "I'm sad a lot of the time".

It's rubbish. Feeling shitty every now and then is normal, even for playboys and mountain men.

Exactly. If you can draw a direct line between your emotions and real life criteria that influenced them (after the fact when you can analyze calmly) then it isn't the result of some chemical imbalance. (That doesn't mean you should let emotions dominate your actions, especially over a significant time.) When someone fucks you over, you should be angry.

Our globalist masters want us to be calm, happy, and accepting of our fate. It makes sense, from their point of view, if you assume being completely amoral or worse. A lot of what we hear is no different than that old saying that goes something like "if rape is inevitable, just lay back and enjoy it".

Post: #12

(11-21-2016 09:23 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  That is, their analyses are only covering the fucked-up position of men in the United States.

(11-21-2016 09:23 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  The study acknowledges the results are loaded up with surveying young men, and doesn't look at how "masculine norm" behaviour works for a guy over his entire lifespan. This is a serious problem given the adult temporal lobe -- ie the decisionmaking part of the brain -- doesn't stop growing until the age of 25, which might well explain why you're seeing a bunch of uncertain, fucked-up mental health outcomes.

Also, to be at all scientific, you would need to analyze "do masculine tendencies correlate with negative outcomes in all societies, or only heavily feminist societies?" You are only seeing the latter in modern U.S.

Post: #13

(11-21-2016 09:23 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  And lastly, and quite hilariously, Mahalik has even come up with a "feminine norms" index: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...005-3709-7

Guess what norms are on that list? I quote: Nice in Relationships, Thinness, Modesty, Domestic, Care for Children, Romantic Relationship, Sexual Fidelity, and Invest in Appearance. Unsurprisingly, he concludes -- in that article above -- that eating disorders are heavily associated with behaving according to these norms.

Basically our current culture/politics of hostility to traditional gender roles is probably a stress on the psychology of anyone who prefers traditional gender roles, regardless of sex. (AKA probably about 85+% of men and 75+% of women.) A lot of people just don't even realize it, especially women. Rationale for modern standards is all about avoiding stress on that smaller % of people who prefer the feminist society, and ignores the negative impact on the vast majority.

Post: #14

Hah no wonder I scored so high on The Dark Triad test...

Post: #15

(11-22-2016 10:36 AM)ThrustMaster Wrote:  Hah no wonder I scored so high on The Dark Triad test...

Psychos unite!

Post: #16

Quote:"Some of these sexist masculine norms, like being a playboy and power over women, aren't just a social injustice but they are also potentially bad for your mental health," said Joel Wong, an associate professor of counseling psychology at Indiana University Bloomington and lead author of the study."

The professor is very appropriately named.

Post: #17

Batman and Joker agree with this study

Post: #18

Haters gunna hate.

There are flaws and opportunities for improvement in all people.

Demonising someone who doesn't share your world/social/political view is kindergarten stuff