stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression....
How unintelligent these contributors are of the new guidelines or perhaps evil??? They have taken and skewed the very definition of these traits.
1) Stoicism is by definition from the website Daily Stoic: "The philosophy asserts that virtue (such as wisdom) is happiness and judgment should be based on behavior, rather than words. That we don’t control and cannot rely on external events, only ourselves and our responses.
Stoicism has just a few central teachings. It sets out to remind us of how unpredictable the world can be. How brief our moment of life is. How to be steadfast, and strong, and in control of yourself. And finally, that the source of our dissatisfaction lies in our impulsive dependency on our reflexive senses rather than logic.
Stoicism doesn’t concern itself with complicated theories about the world, but with helping us overcome destructive emotions and act on what can be acted upon. It’s built for action, not endless debate."
Its about cultivating the correct emotional mindset to take on what life throws at you. More or less, don't cry over spilled milk, because it doesn't clean up the mess. Stoicism doesn't mean you can't be emotional, you just need to be appropriately emotional. If that makes sense?
2) Competitiveness is what drives perfection. The drive to do better and to win. If done ethically it makes processes and products evolve and become efficient. Its drive and determination. Its the raising of the bar. Just because we don't always win we learn from our mistakes and learn to get back on the horse. Also, we don't always compete with someone else. Sometimes the competition and struggle is within ourselves to be better than we were.
3) Dominance unchecked and without ethics is wrong. In life there has to be a chief. With no one to see and grasp the goal, to cultivate others to that goal things don't get done. Dominance done correctly should be paired with compassion and well-being for others. Parents should be dominate to their children, managers to their employees, clergy to their parishioners, teachers to their students etc.
Dominance over someone for the sake of gaining power over them for the only purpose to possess power to achieve personal gain or reward is wrong. And there are many examples of evil dominance to mention, such as rape, extortion and robbery etc.
But the APA doesn't differentiate between good dominance or bad dominance. They condemn it in general, like it all stems from and results in something negative.
4) Aggression by definition is kind of hard to tack down specifically. If you look at several different dictionaries you get slightly different meanings....some are very negative like having hateful feelings toward someone which results in unprovoked violent behavior to them. Or, in another way, to be confrontational or forceful.
Again we need to define it by it's intent. Aggression causing violence toward a people or a person due to a difference in race, creed or economic background, sexual orientation etc. is wrong. Being forceful at an athletic en-devour which falls within good sportsmanship or standing up for someone who is being preyed upon and having to use force are also aggression.
From what it sounds like is that bad behavior is being clumped together with all masculine traits. These guys are demonizing masculine biology. It still comes down to masculinity with respect, good intent, ethics and morals. Guide our boys and men to the correct path so they don't fall into the negative connotations of these words. Let men be men....
It is kind of funny when you can find news stories all the time of women who bully, rape, rob, kill and do all of the same things men get themselves into trouble with....so I am not sure why femininity isn't being discussed in the same way?
