Home > Issues > Biology & Social Sciences > The Incompetence and Unprofessionalism of the American Psychological Association

The Black Ribbon Campaign

Empowering Men:

fighting feminist lies

The Incompetence and Unprofessionalism of the American Psychological Association

Peter Zohrab 2019

Home Page Articles about Issues 1000 links
alt.mens-rights FAQ Sex, Lies & Feminism Quotations
Male-Friendly Lawyers, Psychologists & Paralegals Email us ! Site-map

 

Incompetence

Unprofessionalism

Conclusion

 

 

Incompetence

 

As I say in my article, "The Irrationality of Abnormal and Therapeutic Psychology", there is so much wrong with the theory and practice of Abnormal and Therapeutic Psychology (as well as Forensic Psychology) that it is difficult to list it all. Have you ever heard of a Psychiatrist or Clinical Psychologist actually curing anyone? Although the profession treats patients in a much kinder way than people did when they simply locked them away, little actual progress has taken place as regards understanding or curing mental "disorders".

Rosenhan ("On being sane in insane places," Science, 179, 250-258, 1973) reports on two experiments that support the view that the mental health professions cannot reliably tell the sane from the insane. In the first experiment, eight (supposedly) sane people got themselves admitted to various psychiatric hospitals by complaining that they had been hearing voices, of the same sex as themselves, which said "empty", "hollow" and "thud". Apart from that single symptom, there was nothing seriously pathological in any other aspect of their histories or behaviour. After succeeding in gaining admission, these pseudopatients did not behave abnormally and ceased complaining of any abnormal symptoms. Despite this, none of the staff ever detected the fact that these pseudopatients (most of whom were diagnosed as having schizophrenia) were actually sane -- although many of the patients did realise that they were sane! Rosenhan states that "the evidence is strong that, once labeled schizophrenic, the pseudopatient was stuck with that label."

After these findings had become known, the reverse experiment was carried out: the staff at one research and teaching hospital, who doubted that they would be capable of committing the same mistakes as occurred in the first experiment, were told that one or more pseudopatients would attempt to gain admission into their hospital within the next three months, and the staff were asked to rate each patient's likelihood of being a pseudopatient. A total of 193 patients were rated by the staff during that period, and, despite the fact that no pseudopatient from the experimental group actually did attempt to gain admission, "forty-one patients were alleged, with high confidence, to be pseudopatients by at least one member of the staff. Twenty-three were considered suspect by at least one psychiatrist. Nineteen were suspected by one psychiatrist and one other staff member." (Rosenhan, 1973, p. 252).

Rosenhan (1973) reports, with approval, the view that "(p)sychiatric diagnoses ... are in the minds of the observers and are not valid summaries of characteristics displayed by the observed."

 

 

Unprofessionalism

 

So, being unable competently to do what they are professionally supposed to do, the American Psychological Association and many of its members have turned to politics, which is an area where they may indeed be able to effect change (although I hope not)! The Female Supremacists of the American Psychological Association (APA) now feel powerful enough to launch a full-scale onslaught on men and boys, i.e. their Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men . The eminent Psychologist, Jordan Peterson, has written about this: "It’s ideology vs. science in psychology’s war on boys and men" (and, by the way, fellow Psychologist, Bettina Arndt, has called out Jordan Peterson for not being forthright enough: "Jordan Peterson & Bad Women").

The tone and content of the Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Girls and Women are not parallel with those of the Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men, as they should be, if they were produced by a professional organisation. They are radically different from each other, because of the political matrix which overlays them. The following lists of the Guidelines for girls and women and those for boys and men provide a quick overview for the purposes of comparison, from which a clear picture emerges.

 

Guideline No.

Girls & Women (edited headings)

Boys & Men (edited headings)

1

Effects of socialization, stereotyping and unique life events

Recognizing that masculinities are constructed on the basis of social, cultural and contextual norms

2

Information about oppression, privilege and identity development

Recognizing that clients integrate multiple aspects to their social identities throughout life

3

Impact of bias and discrimination

Understanding the impact of power, privilege and sexism on client development and relationships

4

Using gender sensitive and culturally sensitive affirming practices

Understanding the factors that influence client interpersonal relationships

5

Recognizing how the practitioner's own socialization, attitudes and knowledge about gender may affect their practice

Encouraging positive father involvement and healthy family relationships

6

Using effective interventions and approaches for treating girls and women

Supporting educational efforts that are responsive to client needs

7

Promoting initiative, empowerment, and expanded alternatives and choices for girls and women.

Reducing client problems involving aggression, violence, substance abuse and suicide

8

Providing appropriate, unbiased assessments and diagnoses

Helping clients behave healthily

9

Considering client problems in their sociopolitical context

Building and promoting gender-sensitive psychological services

10

Learning about and using mental health, education and community resources for clients

Understanding and changing institutional, cultural and systemic problems affecting clients

11

Understanding and working to change institutional and systemic biases

N/A

 

Guidelines (for females) 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 all emerge from an ideological mindset which sees girls and women as oppressed, in a way that is relevant to their psychological treatment. In addition, Guideline 10 is about referring clients to female-only community resources, which also implies that they are, or can be oppressed. By contrast, no Guidelines imply that boys or men are oppressed, and Guideline 3 emerges from an ideological mindset which sees boys and men as powerful, privileged and sexist. Guideline 1 amounts to a demand that traditional masculinity be dismantled. Guideline 5 amounts to making demands on fathers to act in certain ways. Guideline 7 emerges from an ideological mindset which sees boys and men as aggressive and violent.

In other words, these Guidelines take Feminism for granted and are biased against boys and men. What is worse is that they require Psychologists to be Feminist and biased against boys and men. There is a mass of material available which disproves most or all aspects of Feminism, such as my book, Sex, Lies & Feminism.

It is instructive to compare Guideline 9 for girls and women, "Considering client problems in their sociopolitical context" with Guideline 10 for boys and men, "Understanding and changing institutional, cultural and systemic problems affecting clients". These are almost equivalent to each other -- except that the girls' and women's one uses the pseudo-scientific term "sociopolitical context" (referring to Feminist theory), whereas the boys' and men's one uses plain English and also advocates doing something to change the situation (which two of the girls' and women's Guidelines also do). If you read the detail for Guideline 10 for boys and men, you will see that some of their "institutional, cultural and systemic problems" are in fact the result of Feminism's systematic restructuring of Society to promote females' interests and negate males' interests. So, while the APA's dominant Feminists are implementing an anti-male policy, there is a small minority able to sneak in a tiny bit of pro-male activism into the very last Guideline!

 

 

Conclusion

With the decline of religion in many countries, which has brought about a decline in the custom of asking religious leaders for advice and guidance, the perceived need for secular "gurus" has grown. However, if Abnormal and Therapeutic Psychology and Forensic Psychology are the answer, it must have been a very silly question! These branches of Psychology are a figment of the imagination of colleges and universities, which have always been very imaginative institutions -- having brought us Alchemy, Phrenology, Theology, and so on. We don't have Abnormal and Therapeutic Psychology and Forensic Psychology because they have proved their worth; we have them because we feel we need something to fill that particular void.

We must find something else! Men should boycott them as much as possible!!

 

 

-- Hamill, Jasper (2019): "Men are more disadvantaged than women in the UK, US and most of Europe, scientists claim." Metro, 4 Jan 2019.

 

See also:

 

 

FAQ

Webmaster

Peter Douglas Zohrab

Latest Update

10 February 2019

Top