this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
20 points (64.7% liked)

Men's Liberation

1860 readers
13 users here now

This community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people, but it is also a place to talk about men’s issues with a particular focus on intersectionality.

Rules

Everybody is welcome, but this is primarily a space for men and masc people

Non-masculine perspectives are incredibly important in making sure that the lived experiences of others are present in discussions on masculinity, but please remember that this is a space to discuss issues pertaining to men and masc individuals. Be kind, open-minded, and take care that you aren't talking over men expressing their own lived experiences.


Be productive

Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize feminism or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed.

Keep the following guidelines in mind when posting:

  • Build upon the OP
  • Discuss concepts rather than semantics
  • No low effort comments
  • No personal attacks


Assume good faith

Do not call other submitters' personal experiences into question.


No bigotry

Slurs, hate speech, and negative stereotyping towards marginalized groups will not be tolerated.


No brigading

Do not participate if you have been linked to this discussion from elsewhere. Similarly, links to elsewhere on the threadiverse must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues.

Recommended Reading
Related Communities

!feminism@beehaw.org
!askmen@lemmy.world
!mensmentalhealth@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Kokomheart@lemmy.ca
spaduf
Veraticus@lib.lgbt
20
Why does traditional masculinity have such longevity, even among younger boys? (theconversation.com)
submitted 3 months ago by spaduf to c/mensliberation@lemmy.ca
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Science is not perfect, especially in a field like psychology.

No kidding.

Your argument to prove the efficacy of this is basically "Trust in the decades of Psychological Research". To which I have to say....

My Psychology teacher from High School warned me that Psychology started as a Freudian Pseudo-science, turned into a Phrenology pseudo-science to help make Japanese people look dumber for WW2 propaganda purposes, and then had a bunch of poorly done experiments in the 1950s-1980s for various political games.

Anyone who has studied anything about psychology and its history as a subject is, and should be, 100% skeptical of everything. Including long-standing (decades or even century long) traditions like... IQ Tests or Freudian Psychosexuality.

It’s just science.

Psychology has a huge incident rate into pseudo-science / fake topics. I'm sure there's legitimate discoveries in here but I'm also sure that a huge amount of this field is bullshit.

But maybe I'm just a closted mother-lover in my subconcious who is suppressing my feelings of anger towards my father. My Asian skull is smaller than white people skulls so I can't think quite as well as some of you out there. Let along deal with issues of statistical auto-correlation or other such issues that occur in more modern studies.

Its not the science that's bad per se, its the politics that always get in the way. Psychology has a huge number of bad actors in it. And when the ultimate discussion point is "Look at these people... AGGRESSIVELY answering these word-game puzzles with more aggressive words. This proves that they're more aggressive".... I'm rolling my eyes into the back of my head so hard that I'm honestly throwing this entire piece away. Its not science by my standards.

But if its science by your standards, that's... fine I guess.

I get that we don't want to return to the 1970s where we get children to push a button to shock animals, and then determine the length-of-time or frequency of this to use as a proxy as "aggression". And I understand the need and struggle of modern psychologies to try to come up with modern tests that are humane and effective.

But I have severe concerns that this test isn't testing anything at all, aside from the biases of the tester.

[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago

Right, it wasn't that long ago that they left dogs in electrocution cages over the weekend to study PTSD. By not long ago I mean they tried to do it again recently but were shot down by their particular ethics board.