So the bottom line is that the APA blew it with their guidelines and then blew it again by failing to realize that the guidelines would be controversial.
The guidelines themselves are built on the framework of academic "masculinities" studies which is in itself built on intersectionality theory. The problem with these frameworks is that they assume that the expression of masculinity is by necessity harmful to the performer, his environment including the people in it, and the world at large.
Moreover, intersectionality theory looks askance at the idea that men can be systematically abused at all since men are always more priviliged than women in terms of gender. Intersectionality theory has been used to deny men resources, since the theory says resources should be allocated primarily toward the less privileged.
In this case, since men are always more priviliged, it means in the APA guidelines that men are responsible for their own psychological crisis. If men could just give up their privilege and be more emotionally similar to women, that would fix their problems.
The guidelines therefore fall into the common psychologist's trap of assuming that, emotionally, men are just "broken women."
The guidelines are also consistently hostile towards "traditional masculinity," identifying it with specific harms such as misogyny, homophobia, sexual predation, homicide, and suicide. This was a huge talking point on right-wing media for a few months, which seems to have caught the APA entirely off-guard and led to the politicization of psychology as a discipline.
Look. I'm no fan of traditional masculinity taken to extremes, but the guidelines don't mention extremism. I also don't think blaming men for their current crisis is helpful.
Like I said before, there are some good parts. The APA calls for more mental health resources specifically for men and boys, which puts them outside of mainstream thinking right there, for which they should be commended. But that's only a couple of paragraphs within the whole document.
I find these guidelines to suffer heavily from too much academic opinion and not enough input from working psychologists - to say nothing of actual male patients. These guidelines were met with head nods from university academics, advocates, and journalists who rarely use the term "masculinity" without putting the word "toxic" in front of it. At the same time, I don't know of any male survivors who've actually read the guidelines who think they are positive or useful. At best, they should be a starting point for further discussion - which of course they are not, being official guidelines.
A lost opportunity.
