Has the field of psychology failed men?

[Ok08Y567gA]

I'm not sure I agree with all of what you're saying here. I still think emotional labor can be just as valuable for men as it is for women. There are men that learn to do it and benefit from it, and I think its ultimately a human capacity/set of skills, not something innate based on gende

Well, you can remark on what you disagree with. I'm not saying it can't be valuable, but it can't be pursued or approached in the same manner for men and women, because of differing emotional incentives in developing social bonds between the two. I think being social is generally something human beings do, but I think gender is a social contest, a game played between members of the same sex to differentiate one another to attract mates, so socializing for men and women can't be endeavored entirely for the same reasons since across evolutionary history we were trying to attract members of the opposite sex predominately. Thus, as emotional labor can be based upon a certain set of general human capacities, it won't be most effectively implemented or widely adopted to the same degree by men if it does not appeal to their emotional incentives and motivations.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

As for nursing being coded as feminine causing more women to become nurses? I think so yeah. It is a bit more complex than that since it was one of the few professions open to women in the past (along with teaching) I think.

Nurses and Teacher were mostly male initially. I don't think a single cause is present in what we're discussing but many intertwining and related factors, I agree with your later statement that nursing and teaching being some of the initial fields open to women like psychology has more to do with the ponderance of women in each profession historically, yet I don't think this is why the trends persist in modernity. Though, I agree psychologists being predominately female does cause many to perceive it as a female field and this creates a selection bias that leads to more women being psychologist than not, but I wouldn't put all onus on this. Yet, at the time of Freud, Adler, Jung, Piaget, and Maslow this would have been seen as absurd as most major psychologist and initial pioneers in the field were men. It's still the case that for depth psychologists and psychoanalyst men and women are nearly evenly represented slightly skewed towards men. However, women are more represented in Biology, Pharmacology, and Medicine generally and I do not think any of this can be explained by being purely female coded fields as I don't think most people know that the life sciences in general are dominated by women.

 

[aeon]

Well, I think less attention is given to the psychological reality that men tend to form bonds differently than women on average.

After being gender socialized, they sure do.

Men consistently report to have strong relation and connection to other men, women, and even animals that they endure some shared struggle and project with.

Yet, if we ask the men and women who engage and have relationships with the initially-polled group of men—on average, their assessment tends to be something other than having strong relation and connection. There’s a disconnect there.

Men also report to relate more to men they actively compete against rather than explicitly socialize with.

Of course, because those men have been socialized to do just that as part of their gender role.

Are nurses disproportionately female, because inserting needles gets coded as feminine?

No, but the history of the profession changing from one of men, to one largely of women, is interesting.

New Female brains process and exude with their emotions more than male brains.

As products of socialization, I entirely agree with you.

As newborns, before socialization, the latest science suggests otherwise.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

After being gender socialized, they sure do.

I think genders will socialize themselves through contest and cooperation; I don't think this socialization of gender is totally pushed upon by parents and institutions and is a matter of history insofar as human beings have been socializing one another in gender contest for all of our evolutionary history.

Of course, because those men have been socialized to do just that as part of their gender role.

I don't think contest is something that is unique to men, but something human beings generally do to gain advantages in resource acquisition like most mammals and I don't think we need to be socialized to have a desire to want to come out on top or to get something we prize. Chimpanzees are not socialized under cultural norms like people and they display very similar tendencies to human boys and males in terms of social contest. I don't think it's a simple linear equation as in contest comes from socialization towards a masculine gender role, but that gender roles come from contests within the activity of socialization. Empirical science wouldn't have anything to say about this yet, because it's yet to test this hypothesis or move towards this paradigm of thought.

Now, what I would say is that men and women compete in different ways and more specifically in contest that directly place status on the line men report to relate more to those men they most actively compete over status with. I don't think human males care about social status because they are socialized to. I think the status games may change in how they represent themselves, but that human males will always compete in status games whether the game is one of competence, virtue, warfare, athletics, art, or even empathy; the game itself doesn't really matter, because this isn't something we do because we're socialized, but because we're social animals.

 

[just me]

After being gender socialized, they sure do.



Yet, if we ask the men and women who engage and have relationships with the initially-polled group of men—on average, their assessment tends to be something other than having strong relation and connection. There’s a disconnect there.



Of course, because those men have been socialized to do just that as part of their gender role.



No, but the history of the profession changing from one of men, to one largely of women, is interesting.



As products of socialization, I entirely agree with you.

As newborns, before socialization, the latest science suggests otherwise.

Cheers,
Ian

While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element, and is considered left-wing. copied Wikipedia

Now I understand where we differ so much. CEO of two different corporations built from experience, I always dared to be different than a worker alone. I do not believe in Socialism at all. I do not believe in gender assessment.
I told people what to do by working with them, not from a podium. Took a many a tool from someone's hands to teach them the best way known. We did not insinuate they were wrong. One of my mentors would answer every question with a pencil and paper on his pad he always carried. We never learned from computers. We never used calculators at school.

It is not so amazing women are now working more than they used to: they simply must to afford socialism and its grasp on society as a whole. We, the people, were never emblazoned with such atrocities as today's gender-socialist types are trying to force us to accept. We, the people, include us all. We, the people, do not accept things for what they seem. We, the people, know what morals are. We know what ethics are. We know responsibility. We know sharing. We recognize the enemy as it is approaching. We seek to help others to think for themselves, not by whispering into their minds what to do. We use books written by men of long ago as our foundations to build upon.

Disclaimer: This is not intended to cause confrontation. This is not meant to attack any person for what they might think to be reclusive. This is to reveal what is true, not what some generation is parlayed with. Victims we are of nonsense. We must
rebel against what we feel is against us. Build a corporation without government funding. Do not allow greed and laziness to overcome your spirits. It takes a lot of one to make progress. Greed is an enemy to us all, as we sit giving back almost all we have to afford those not trying to benefit mankind.

 

[just me]

from dreamstime.com

My, how we socialize.

 

[just me]

Female brains process and exude with their emotions more than male brains.

Please defer from misquoting. Never said new.

Female brains process and exude with their emotions more than male brains.

 

[aeon]

This is not intended to cause confrontation.

I’m not sure what your intention was because you started talking about something entirely unrelated.

Socialization ≠ socialism.

Please defer from misquoting. Never said new.

When I selected your text, the word “New” from the server was inadvertently included.

Your choice to deem it accidental or intentional, or otherwise, is of course entirely up to you. In any event, it is also none of my business whatsoever.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

Once again, louder, for the people in back.

So right,
Ian

Not sure how to respond to this or what was implied.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

What makes human beings different is we compete for social status which is why humans will commit revolutions that change their social orders-(jars) and fleas do not.

 

[aeon]

Not sure how to respond to this or what was implied.

You were so on-point, it merited repeating to a wider audience.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Mindhoverer]

This seems like an amazing study. I had never thought about this logical and practical questioning before. However, don't you think that patriarchy, male psyche, and ego plays a huge factor in not consulting a therapist? Many men I know dismiss Psychological and mental problems and just label those who consult one as 'weak'. While there seems to be overwhelming representation of women, don't you think there's an imaginary wall in the male psyche that is stopping them from breaking it?

 

[Anemoia]

This seems like an amazing study. I had never thought about this logical and practical questioning before. However, don't you think that patriarchy, male psyche, and ego plays a huge factor in not consulting a therapist? Many men I know dismiss Psychological and mental problems and just label those who consult one as 'weak'. While there seems to be overwhelming representation of women, don't you think there's an imaginary wall in the male psyche that is stopping them from breaking it?

I don't think it can be regarded as 'imaginary' when it has genuine real-world consequences for them.

 

[aeon]

...don't you think that patriarchy, male psyche, and ego plays a huge factor in not consulting a therapist?

Certainly, they all play a part.

...don't you think there's an imaginary wall in the male psyche that is stopping them from breaking it?

Not imaginary. The combination of normative gender socialization and long-term evolutionary adaptations combine to create something very real, at least as it concerns any given member of the cohort.

Some are affected more, and some less, and that all serves purposes, which appear adaptive and/or maladaptive, depending.

Also, policing comes into play from all. One may wish to break said wall, but also realize doing so may come at great cost, both internal and external.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Wyote]

I don't think it can be regarded as 'imaginary' when it has genuine real-world consequences for them.

Yes agreed.
The problem is to some degree the notion that the male mind is being "problem solved" through the female lens.
Anger problems? Relationship troubles? Confusion navigating your environment?
Just think and act more like a lady.

 

[aeon]

Just think and act more like a lady.

Flip the poles, play other roles, and once again, poisoned be the souls.

That said, perhaps better color variety in clothing.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Wyote]

Flip the poles, play other roles, and once again, poisoned be the souls.

That said, perhaps better color variety in clothing.

Cheers,
Ian

Indeed.
I'm not saying there isn't good support out there, there definitely is these days but you do have to do a little work to find it, partly because men are far less likely to seek it out, which is an issue in itself.

Diversity of perspectives is also important so there's much to be gained from any avenue really.
Wear a robe once in a while, then see how a tux feels, later throw on some flannel, because WHY NOT.

 

[aeon]

Wear a robe once in a while

...and be a proper lich necromancer, as one does.

Look Upon His Pale Eye and Despair, Fools,
Ian

 

[Jexocuha]

Some thoughts to share and ponder on contemporary male psychology from the book, What Do Men Want, by Nina Power:

“In the absence of male guides or mentors a space is opened up for other kinds of manipulation. Only now this brainwashing comes less from individual men but rather from faceless systems whose rules and punishments stem not from care but from pathological bureaucracy and top-down control of the masses.” (p.142)

“… this double law – market values and sexual values that create widespread division and inequality – which leads to much of today’s resentment between the sexes particularly in heterosexual men who never or rarely have relationships or sexual encounters with women.” (p.118)

“Men and women were, as so often, being pitted against one another in the name of someone else making a profit.” (p.2)

“When we are told today that ‘men are bad’, we should pause to reflect – really? If they are, we should ask, what made them ‘bad’, and how do we change the situation? If our experience leads us to conclude this is not true, or at least that there are ‘bad’ and ‘good’ men, or that everyone is a mixture of good and bad, and we can all be better, we might further and critically ask: who wants us to think that men are bad? Why do they want us to think this?” (p.132)