 What's up men? I've got some thoughts for you younger guys today about these recent messages that have come out from the American Psychological Association about masculinity. And if you're not familiar with what I'm talking about there's two pieces to this story. There was number one a set of clinical guidelines that the APA put out for clinicians to use in working with men and boys. And then there was an introductory story that came out in their magazine just talking about these guidelines. And while they stopped short of calling masculinity a mental disorder, they didn't stop short by much. The message is very clear that if you possess any kind of traditionally masculine traits that you're a danger to yourself and others. And in the introductory article there was this line that has gotten a lot of play that I think sums up pretty nicely where the APA is coming from. Traditional masculinity marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression is on the whole harmful. Now on both the guidelines and the introductory article they refer to these things as traits. And that's kind of sloppy language but it's fair. You can think of traits as clusters of behavior that help you move through the world. And it's fair to say that these traits are more commonly expressed in men than women that there are other traits that are more commonly expressed in women than in men. So all that's fine. But to say that traits on the whole are harmful is just about the stupidest thing I've heard all year. But it's only January so the APA still has time to outdo itself. Let's look at a trait for example like compassion. I'm sure the APA would say that something like compassion is a good trait to have but it's good to have if it's done correctly. If you do compassion incorrectly you put yourself at risk for being taken advantage of and you also risk weakening other people by creating resentment and entitlement in them. It's a very common problem. And so compassion may be a wonderful trait to possess but it has to be done correctly. You can apply that same analysis to all four of these traits that the APA has called harmful. So start with stoicism. Stoicism is nothing more than the ability to contain your emotions and act in a productive manner. And this is something that anyone who's over the age of two should be striving to develop and refine. Now if you've been in the workforce for any period of time you've probably worked with the guy who bitches and complains about every little thing but doesn't bring a lot of solutions to the table. That's a guy who hasn't mastered stoicism yet. He hasn't learned how to contain his emotions and turn it into actions. And he's a detriment to himself and he's a detriment to the team. On the other extreme is the guy who has a problem that he should bring to the team but he won't do it because he's proud or he thinks he's going to be in trouble or whatever his reason. And I know because I used to be that guy. He's a detriment to the team for a different reason because he's not bringing an alertness to the team that he should be bringing. And the same thing can apply to marriages and just interpersonal relationships. There's a line that a man has to find between suppressing his emotions and expressing real problems that need to be solved. So look at the next one, competitiveness. This is nothing more than the drive to outperform somebody else or outperform yourself. This is not on the whole harmful. Now everyone who participated in writing these guidelines at the APA probably has a nice smartphone and a nice computer and they drive around in a nice car and live in a nice house and they live in a society that allows them to say whatever stupid thing they want to say. None of these things would exist without people competing with each other. It's the ability to look at yourself and try to outperform the next person and come up with a better idea, better mousetrap, a better way of doing things. That's what's created this wonderful society that we live in. To call it harmful is stupid. Now a person could be too competitive to the point where they're ruining their relationships and they're not succeeding because nobody wants to deal with them or a person could be not competitive at all to the point where they're just relegated to a minimum wage job for the rest of their life. But competitiveness done correctly is a huge asset to any man. Dominance is the next one they say is on the whole harmful. Guess what? We live in a hierarchical species, meaning that if you're not going to vie for dominance, then somebody else is going to be dominant over you. And sometimes you make those choices that you don't want to be the one in charge, but you can only make those decisions if you develop and you refine your sense of dominance. Dominance done incorrectly is abusive and nobody wants to be around that person or it's just absolutely submissive. And again, this is a hard person to deal with. Dominance done correctly is called leadership. And if you go to a bookstore, you're going to find shelves of books on leadership, which might as well have dominance in the title because that's really the theme is how to be dominant in a way that serves yourself and serves other people. And finally, let's look at aggression. Aggression is, again, not a destructive or harmful trait. It's just drive. It's the drive to solve a problem is to drive to defend somebody. It's the drive to create a better condition for yourself or somebody else. Aggression by itself is not a harmful thing. I argue that the absence of aggression is actually far more harmful because without aggression, you don't have the energy that you need to solve problems. The APA clearly wants you men to relinquish these traits. And why do they want you to do that? Well, I don't think it's to help you. I don't think they're acting in your interest. I think it's to help them. And the reason I think that is that when I read the guidelines, I come across sentences like this one. When working with boys and men, psychologists can address issues of privilege and power related to sexism in a developmentally appropriate way to help them obtain the knowledge, attitudes and skills to be effective allies and potentially live less restrictive lives. Now, that last phrase, less restrictive lies. I don't know what that means. That's gibberish to me, but I know what that first part means. It means that they want you to become their allies in the war of ideas and they want me to manipulate you into doing it. In a couple of sentences later, they even talk about the fact that if I can persuade you to give up your masculinity, you're more likely to go out and participate in social justice activities. I think this is all about getting you to participate in their agenda. And I find that to be absolutely repugnant behavior on behalf of the APA. That's just my opinion and my interpretation. Maybe you disagree and that's fine, but there will be things in your life that are worth fighting for and you won't be able to advocate effectively if you don't spend your entire lives developing and cultivating and refining these very traits that the APA is trying to shame you into relinquishing. So how do you cultivate these traits? Well, it's a lifetime of trial and error and successes and bloody noses and most importantly, surrounding yourself with other men who are trying to be the best versions of themselves that they can be. So you young guys, you're probably going to spend the rest of your lives hearing phrases like toxic masculinity or whatever term of emotion replaces this one down the road. Just know that that's worth ignoring. That somebody out there is putting an ugly label on virtuous traits and they're not doing it to help you. They're doing it for their own competitive reasons. Don't let them take the keys to your success. Go out there, be toxic, be the best versions of yourselves you can be. I'll talk to you soon.