Are They Nuts?

[Fort Bragg]

Being a normal man is a mental illness.  Dressing up as a girl and having your buddies butt fuck you is apparently normal.  Welcome to 21st century academics.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/american-...harassment

[Martin Eisenstadt]

Being a normal man is a mental illness.  Dressing up as a girl and having your buddies butt fuck you is apparently normal.  Welcome to 21st century academics.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/american-...harassment

Perverts actually comprise a very miniscule percentage of the population.  See, e.g.:

Franke-Ruta, G. (2012, May 31).  Americans have no idea how few gay people there are. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...re/257753/

LaBarbera, P. (2014). The ’10 percent gay’ myth is dead–just 1.6 percent of U.S. adults identify as gay or lesbian, and .7 percent as bisexual, major federal survey finds.  Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. Retrieved from http://americansfortruth.com/2014/07/24/...vey-finds/

Yet this tiny group of deviants is trying to "overhaul" normal culture.  The article below describes their goals and tactics.  Once you read this you will see how activities such as described in the article you cited follow their self-decribed "salami tactics":

The Overhauling of Straight America
by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill

[This “must read” article, originally published in Guide magazine, November 1987 is the blueprint for the now global homosexual propaganda campaign to replace marriage-based society with a culture of sexual anarchy. A 1999 book based on this outline, titled After the Ball, has become the “bible” of homosexual propagandists. However, only this article states the “gay” goals and tactics with such alarming frankness. Following are relevant excerpts from the article. The complete article is readily available on the Internet.]

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights.  To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full “appreciation” or “understanding” of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing.

But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America. And any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things.

[1] TALK ABOUT GAYS AND GAYNESS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE

The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one's fellows doing it or accepting it. One may be offended by its novelty at first--many, in times past, were momentarily scandalized by “streaking,”' eating goldfish, and premarital sex. But as long as Joe Six-pack feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on. The skeptic may still shake his head and think “people arc crazy these days,” but over time his objections are likely to become more reflective, more philosophical, less emotional.

The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality.

Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as “respectable” gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere

....The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed....

So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream.  Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films (though often this has been done to achieve comedic and ridiculous affects). On the whole the impact has been encouraging...

...While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other.

When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency.  Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology.  Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed “secular humanism”). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.

[2] PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our "gay pride" publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image.  And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia-“They are all around us!”--on the other.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization.  ...It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note -- North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: “As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!”

Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, “they are not like us.” ...In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector."

[3] GIVE PROTECTORS A JUST CAUSE

A media campaign that casts gays as society's victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme...

It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle.

[4] MAKE GAYS LOOK GOOD

In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know--this trick is so old it creaks...

[5] MAKE THE VICTIMIZERS LOOK BAD

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace--it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the “fags” they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.

A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching.

[6] SOLICIT FUNDS: THE BUCK STOPS HERE

Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented expenditures for months or even years--an unprecedented fundraising drive…

[7] GETTING ON THE AIR, OR, YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE

Without access to TV, radio, and the mainstream press, there will be no campaign. This is a tricky problem, became many impresarios of the media simply refuse to accept what they call “issueadvertising” -- persuasive advertising can provoke a storm of resentment from the public and from sponsors, which is bad for business. The courts have confirmed the broadcaster's right to refuse any “issue advertising” he dislikes…

Because most straightforward appeals are impossible, the National Gay Task Force has had to cultivate quiet backroom liaisons with broadcast companies and newsrooms in order to make sure that issues important to the gay community receive some coverage; but such an arrangement is hardly ideal, of course, because it means that the gay community's image is controlled by the latest news event instead of by careful design--and recently most of the news about gays has been negative....

VISUAL STAGE 1: YOU REALLY OUGHTTA BE IN PICTURES

As for television and radio, a more elaborate plan may be needed to break the ice. For openers, naturally, we must continue to encourage the appearance of favorable gay characters in films and TV shows. Daytime talk shows also remain a useful avenue for exposure. But to speed things up we might consider a bold stratagem to gain media attention. The scheme we have in mind would require careful preparations, yet it would save expense even while it elevated the visibility and stature of the gay movement overnight…

Through such a political campaign, the mainstream would get over the initial shock of seeing gay ads, and the acceptability of such ads would be fortified by the most creditable context possible; and all this would be accomplished before non-electoral advertising was attempted by the gay community. During the campaign all hell would break loose, but if we behaved courageously and respectable our drive would gain legitimacy in and case and might even become a cause celebre. If all went as planned, the somewhat desensitized public and the major networks themselves would be 'readied for the next step of our program.

VISUAL STAGE 2: PEEKABOO ADVERTISING

At this point the gay community has its foot in the door, and it is time to ask the networks to accept gay sponsorship of certain ads and shows. Timing is critical: The request must be made immediately after our national political ads disappear. Failing that, we should request sponsorship the next time one of the networks struts its broad-mindedness by televising a film or show with gay characters or themes. If they wish to look consistent instead of hypocritical, we'll have them on the spot. But the networks would still be forced to say No unless we made their resistance look patently unreasonable, and possibly illegal. We'd do just that by proposing "gay ads" patterned exactly after those currently sponsored by the Mormons and others. As usual, viewers would be treated to squeak-clean skits on the importance of family harmony and understanding --this time the narrator would end by saying, “This message was brought to you by --the National Gay Task Force.” All very quiet and subdued.  Remember: exposure is everything, and the medium is the message...

VISUAL STAGE 3: ROLL OUT THE BIG GUNS

By this point, our salami tactics will have carved out, slice by slice, a large portion of access to the mainstream media. So what then? It would finally be time to bring gay ads out of the closet...

The Time Is Now

We have sketched out here a blueprint for transforming the social values of straight America. At the core of our program is a media campaign to change the way the average citizens view homosexuality....And, let us repeat, time may be running out. The AIDS epidemic is sparking anger and fear in the heartland of straight America. As the virus leaks out of homosexual circles and into the rest of society, we need have no illusions about who is receiving the blame. The ten years ahead may decide for the next forty whether gays claim their liberty and equality or are driven back, once again, as America's caste of detested untouchables. It's more than a quip: speak now or forever hold your peace.

[Harrison J Bounel]

[Fort Bragg]

New ideas for Gililette ads since playing on stereotypes is not offensive:
Women - please don't bitch and complain.
Black people - please don't steal.
Muslims - please don't blow up shit.

[Armando Ramos]

APA’s ‘Masculinity’ Guidelines Now Facing Title IX Challenge

By Toni Airaksinen January 17, 2019


Harvard University entrance, photo via Wikimedia Commons, author Giggel.

The American Psychological Association (APA) is now implicated in a Title IX complaint after the organization released guidelines alleging that "traditional masculinity" is  "psychologically harmful" to young men and boys.

The guidelines, in summary, urge psychologists to "recognize that masculinities are constructed," exhort them to "understand the impact of power, privilege and sexism on the development of boys," and generally view masculinity as negative for mental health.

The APA is the largest accrediting body of psychology programs in the United States. It oversees accreditation for at least 406 doctoral programs in the field, and has roughly 117,000 active members.

So, while the guidelines may seem like a drop in the bucket of the culture wars, they’re likely to have a significant influence on psychology departments, the training of future and current psychologists, and the practice of psychology throughout the nation.

This worries Kursat Pekgoz, a Ph.D. student, and retired lawyer John Davis. Together, they filed a Title IX complaint against Harvard University on Thursday, arguing that a Title IX violation exists by way of Harvard’s relationship to the APA.

According to the complaint, all Harvard psychologists are informed by APA code, Harvard’s program in clinical psychology is accredited by the APA, and Harvard also partners with the organization to offer "continuing education" classes.

"By using APA’s guidelines [which were released in August], Harvard University creates a set of different standards of behavior/sanctions/treatment for men and women. This is a violation of Title IX," the complaint argues.

Further, the complaint argues that by "using APA’s guidelines, Harvard University has adopted biased training materials which rely upon sex stereotypes" and that in doing so, the school "discourages men from seeking counseling services."

"No reasonable male person would seek counseling at a clinic where his sex is considered to be a form of mental illness, or a driving factor for mental illness," the complaint adds.

Pekgoz said he chose Harvard as his test case due to the APA’s consistent relationship with the school. Not only does the APA oversee Harvard’s graduate program in psychology, but some Harvard faculty members also work with the APA, and the APA has awarded thousands of dollars in research grants to Harvard students over the past few years.


Kursat Pekgoz is a Ph.D. student at the University of Southern California. Five other universities are currently under investigation due to complaints Pekgoz filed. Photo courtesy of Pekgoz.

Pekgoz also points out that the APA has no similar guidance for "femininity."

Though the APA did release women-centric guidelines in 2007, those simply noted that women are more likely to face certain mental health issues, such as eating disorders and OCD, and suggested differing types of care.

"These double standards will mean that in practice, APA-informed counselors will treat all boys as potentially violent and insane, while imposing no such assumptions on girls," said Pekgoz in an interview Wednesday night.

The complaint was filed to the D.C. Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Education. Pekgoz and Davis hope that the APA will repeal or alter the new guidelines to ensure they don’t single out masculinity, but if they don’t, Pekgoz proposes that Harvard sever all ties with the group. (It’s unclear how feasible that option is, and it seems highly unlikely.)

But regardless: "Young men will be harmed," Pekgoz warned.

Harvard University and the APA did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication. This article will be updated if and when a response is received.

[Winston Smith]

Taxpayers Funded Shrinks Who Deem Masculinity Harmful to Health
Professors involved in crafting guidelines received $4.4 million from taxpayers


John Wayne / Getty Images

BY: Elizabeth Harrington  
January 18, 2019 5:00 am

Taxpayers helped finance research used by the American Psychological Association to label traditional masculinity harmful.

The APA's "First-Ever Guidelines for Practice with Men and Boys" received input from dozens of psychoanalysts who believe masculinity is a social construct, are passionate about social justice, and think there is a danger in a role model like John Wayne.

Several contributors to the guidelines have received federal funding from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Education, totaling more than $4.4 million.

The guidelines not only suggest "traditional masculinity" limits the "psychological development" of men and harms their mental and physical health, but that it is "critical to acknowledge" gender as a "non-binary construct."

"Male privilege tends to be invisible to men, yet they can become aware of it through a variety of means, such as education and personal experience," according to the APA. "Indeed, awareness of privilege and the harmful impacts of beliefs and behaviors that maintain patriarchal power have been shown to reduce sexist attitudes in men and have been linked to participation in social justice activities."

The guidelines reflect the beliefs of the psychoanalysts who crafted them.

For instance, underlying research for "Guideline 3: Psychologists understand the impact of power, privilege, and sexism on the development of boys and men and on their relationships with others," includes the work of Michael E. Addis, a professor at Clark University.

The National Institute of Mental Health is currently funding Addis's work focusing on "links between the social learning and social construction of masculinity."

He received $570,928 from the NIH between 2005 and 2008 to study why men are significantly less likely to "seek mental health services."

The research used the "gender-based social psychological model," which argues "adherence to traditionally masculine norms and beliefs" prevent men from going to therapy.

The goal of the taxpayer-funded grant was to create an intervention to targeting men's "self-stigma, perceptions of non-normativeness, masculinity beliefs, and other barriers."

Addis also received $494,764 for a study on "panic control therapy" in the early 2000s, which helped fund the paper, "Men, Masculinity, and the Contexts of Help Seeking."

The paper, cowritten by Addis and James R. Mahalik, another contributor to the APA guidelines, explores the "social construction of masculinities."

Addis and Mahalik argued, "internalizing the ideological position that men should be tough, competitive, and emotionally inexpressive can have detrimental effects on a man's physical and mental health."

The article concludes that "social constructionist and feminist perspectives on masculinity" can be helpful to explain what influences men to seek help.

Addis's colleague at Clark University, Denise Hines, has also received taxpayer funding. Hines has received several grants from the NIH to study the mental health of men and "intimate violence," including $20,021 in 2002; $392,954 in 2007; and $466,692.

Hines and Addis argue in a paper that traditional masculinity causes men to eat "less fiber and fruit," have anger issues, and abuse alcohol.

"Overall, men's notion of and adherence to traditional masculinity is antithetical to health benefits and behaviors," they wrote.

Another contributor, Wizdom Powell of the University of North Carolina, received $825,049 from the NIH for ongoing research on "Neighborhoods, Daily Stress, Affect Regulation, and Black Male Substance Use."

Powell works to solve the "gender paradox" that "men, despite having more social power than women, are more likely to experience pre-mature death than women." She also is "shaping how the intersection of race, masculinity, health beliefs and behavior are understood and addressed by psychologists and health professionals."

Dr. Michael Mobley, a contributor who was the chair of the APA's Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Concerns, led a $2.75 million project for the Department of Education.

Mobley's research interests include "multicultural counseling competencies, perfectionism, scale development, risks and protective factors mediating resilience among culturally diverse adolescents in community and school settings, and racial, ethnic, gay, and lesbian identity development models."

Taxpayer funding that went to psychologists involved in developing the APA guidelines totaled $4,471,565.

Other academics who contributed to the guidelines include University of Texas at Austin professor Aaron B. Rochlen, author of "‘Just one of the guys': A qualitative study of gay men's experiences in mixed sexual orientation men's groups," and William B. Elder, who studied the "sexual self-schemas and masculinity ideologies of 20 bisexual men."

Jonathan P. Schwartz, a contributor and president of the APA's Division 51, Psychology of Men and Masculinity, authored research on, "Rejecting the null: Social justice research means asking different questions" and "Exploring Men's Homophobia: Associations With Religious Fundamentalism and Gender Role Conflict Domains."

The latter study draws a direct line between "Religious Fundamentalism" and "Homophobia."

The "key architect" of the guidelines is Fredric Rabinowitz, a psychoanalyst at the University of Redlands, who is trying to steer men away from the "John Wayne version of strength."

"Men have been taught, especially in Western cultures to be strong, to not show a lot of vulnerability, to not be very emotionally expressive, and that that's the sort of John Wayne version of strength," Rabinowitz said in a video explaining his approach to psychotherapy with men. "And so I think that that has been passed down generation to generation. So the newer generation I think is being faced with demands from society, from women, to be more emotionally expressive."

Rabinowitz charges $140 to $180 per session.

Christopher Kilmartin, a stand-up comedian, also contributed to the guidelines.

Kilmartin advocated for men to "resist to the pressure" of masculinity on a podcast hosted by Mike Domitrz, the creator of taxpayer-funded "Can I Kiss You" training designed to tell soldiers when it is appropriate to kiss a girl.

"We need men to step up and fight sexism, just like we need heterosexual people to fight homophobia, we need rich people to work against economic inequality, we need cisgendered people to work against transphobia," Kilmartin said.

Other authors include Ronald F. Levant, a former president of the APA and creator of the "Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form" analysis that tells men how much toxic masculinity they have.

Levant believes the "higher the level of masculinity, the more the problems."

"Do you think men should be macho, or do you lean more to the metrosexual?" Levant's website asks.

The masculinity quiz asks men to what degree they agree or disagree with statements like "Homosexuals should never marry," "The President of the United States should always be a man," "Men should watch football games instead of soap operas," "Men should have home improvement skills," "Men should always like to have sex," and "When the going gets tough, men should get tough."

If a respondent does not believe in gay marriage, they will score high on the "Negativity towards Sexual Minorities scale."

Stephen Wester of the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who has studied gender as a construct for 20 years, contributed to the guidelines. Wester, who named his son after a Star Trek character, said he was drawn to study masculinity because he grew up in a "nontraditional environment."

"I have a very feminist, second generation feminist for a mother and a very traditional—sort of in the Robert Holden, Lee Marvin model—father. I have pictures of little me marching for equal rights back in the day," Wester said in an interview with his school. (He seems to be referring to William Holden, the actor.)

Another contributor, lore m. dickey, who does not capitalize his name, specializes in "transgender health; addiction; resilience," "multicultural counseling," and "professional interests in understanding the lived experiences of transgender and gender diverse people."

The authors of the guidelines say men should shun "traditional masculinity" and embrace "self-compassion" and "self-care."

Contributors Matt Englar-Carlson of California State University at Fullerton and Mark Stevens of California State University, Northridge, taught a workshop entitled, "Masculinity Revisited: Increasing Self-Compassion and Self-Care."

"Self-compassion can be a powerful inner resource that enables men to address the challenges of life while building a healthy relationship with themselves," they explain. "This workshop offers a safe and trusting environment to share personal stories with other men with a goal of developing more self-compassion and care."

The workshop taught men how to "explore with themselves and with others the nuances associated with their inner voice and self-care" and "practice some models of self-care including mindfulness meditation."