Symposium

Men and Masculinities

2019, Vol. 22(5) 905-908
ª The Author(s) 2019
Mitigating the Harms Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
of Masculinity: DOI: 10.1177/1097184X19874855
journals.sagepub.com/home/jmm

A Symposium
on the APA Guidelines
for Psychological Practice
with Boys and Men

Kristen Barber1, Tristan Bridges2,

and Joseph Derrick Nelson3

In August of 2018, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a new

report entitled, APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men
(2018). These Guidelines summarize the extensive scholarship documenting dilem-
mas associated with masculinity that harm boys’ and men’s lives. They discuss
many elements of what is labeled “traditional” masculinity, which requires boys
and men to suppress certain feelings and emotions (e.g., sadness and loneliness),
limiting their psychosocial development and shaping their behaviors, relationships,
and identities. In other words, subscribing to ideologies of conventional or
“hegemonic” (i.e., currently and situationally valorized) masculinity (Connell
1995) comes with psychological and interpersonal costs. These constraints can lead
to boys’ and men’s lack of empathy for girls and women, as well as for gay and
“effeminate” boys, and for LGBTQþ individuals. At the same time, they operate
within a culture where “himpathy” leads people to identify with even poorly

1
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA
2
University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
3
Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Tristan Bridges, Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9430, USA.
Email: tbridges@soc.ucsb.edu
906 Men and Masculinities 22(5)

behaved white boys and men (Manne 2018). The Guidelines explain, however, that
even as men face “costs” of masculinity (see Messner 1997), the expectations of, and
privileges associated with, masculinity mean that boys and men are less likely to
seek support or treatment for mental health struggles. Ignoring mental health needs
indeed becomes an enactment of masculinity itself. As the authors of the report
summarize, “compelling evidence exists supporting the need for guidelines for
psychologists who provide services to boys and men” (2018, 4). They outline ten
separate guidelines for psychologists helping boys and men to seek happiness as well
as to establish more intimate and egalitarian relationships.
The Guidelines begin by urging clinical psychologists to understand masculi-
nities as socially and culturally constructed (Guideline 1), and as constructions that
look different over the life-course (Guideline 2). They encourage practitioners to
recognize how power and privileges associated with masculinity are structured by
broader systems of inequality as well as how this inequality deeply harms boys and
men and their relationships (Guidelines 3 and 4). They encourage “positive” (i.e.,
active) involvement from fathers (Guideline 5), and support the role of educational
and healthcare institutions in expanding boys’ understanding of their intellectual
capacities and occupational potentials (Guideline 6). However, what constitutes
“positive” and “healthy” are at times unclear or, in the case of fathering, implicitly
presumed to mean present rather than a reimagining of fatherhood beyond providing
and playing. The Guidelines also acknowledge and suggest that psychologists work
to reduce risk-taking behavior, address trauma that results in boys and men harming
themselves and others (Guideline 7), and encourage behaviors that nurture their
mental and physical health (Guideline 8). Finally, the report urges that psychologists
strive to uphold and support “gender-sensitive psychological services” (Guideline
9), and encourages engaging in “advocacy, prevention, and education” regarding the
ways gender inequality impacts boys and men (Guideline 10).
When the Guidelines were released, two types of media attention quickly
emerged—support and outrage. These reactions reflect the increasing political
polarization in the U.S. and around the world. In the New York Times, Jacey Fortin
(2019) was supportive of the report, yet described the Guidelines as “written in
academic language” and therefore “not built to go viral.” But they did go viral,
despite being written for clinical practitioners. Conservative media outlets uniformly
positioned the report as an attack on boys and men. In the National Review, David
French (2019) described the Guidelines as an “assault on traditional masculinity,”
framing them as “harmful to the millions of young men who seek to be physically
and mentally tough, to rise to challenges, and demonstrate leadership under pressure.
The assault on traditional masculinity is an assault on their very natures.” The ideas
that men should be “tough,” and that their dominance and leadership is part of some
natural order, perpetuate the agenda of the men’s rights movement, which is rooted
in the fear that white men in particular are being left behind in feminist pursuits of
gender equality.
Barber et al. 907

In this symposium on the APA Guidelines, we move beyond fears over the
potential feminization of boys and men to share perspectives from some of the
scholars whose research and advocacy inform the Guidelines, and whose counseling
services and teaching will be shaped by the APA’s stance on masculinity. We invited
a diverse collection of psychologists to address the Guidelines, in relation to their
own research and clinical practice. In doing so, they help us to better understand just
how groundbreaking this report is, as well as how the Guidelines can be further
expanded to apply to more sexually, racially, and gender diverse sets of boys and
men.
This symposium consists of five separate contributions. Judy Chu and Carol
Gilligan highlight human development and psychology as relational and/or
relationship-driven, and encourage psychologists to understand how boys’ and
men’s development is hindered by the expectations of emotional suppression,
“control,” and stoicism. Michael Reichert and Amanda Keddie build on this rela-
tional framework by documenting the ways risk and harm have been built into
American models of boyhood, and how learning environments can implement
“productive pedagogies” to effectively ameliorate these dangers. Daphne Watkins
summarizes some of her own research with Black men, focusing on how the Guide-
lines are a promising route to new horizons for Black men’s mental health. Douglas
Knutson and Chloë Goldbach delineate some of the ways “affirmative therapy” can
inform practitioners’ use and implementation of the Guidelines for transgender and
nonbinary individuals, with a focus on supporting clients’ diverse gender identities
and experiences. Lastly, Niobe Way documents the costs of suppressing emotional
and relational needs among boys. She shows how boys lose closeness with other
boys by adolescence and explicates the attendant consequences. Way calls for a
reimagining of boyhood and masculinity toward a healthier world for everyone,
a call the new APA Guidelines support.
Although each of the contributions in this symposium focus on key settings, life
stages, and populations, they all consider the well-supported finding that psycholo-
gical harm is associated with conventional masculine norms. And while not exhaus-
tive, these foci reflect some of the diverse issues the Guidelines address, as well as
groups and structures that deserve more consideration. Conversations between aca-
demics, activists, practitioners, and clients need to continue, including, for instance,
how these Guidelines can further address the gendered pressures and trauma of
immigration and poverty for boys and men.
While many critics situate the American Psychological Association’s release of
these new guidelines as pathologizing masculinity, the essays in this symposium
illuminate the inaccuracy of this perception. The Guidelines are the product of a vast
body of scholarship over multiple decades that has consistently documented nega-
tive mental health, relationship, and behavioral outcomes associated with subscrib-
ing to hegemonic ideals of masculinity. Researchers have shown that collections of
behaviors associated with risk-taking, violence, self-harm, and emotional suppres-
sion are central elements of boys’ and men’s gender socialization. Attempts to
908 Men and Masculinities 22(5)

approximate culturally “manly” identities and ideals not only hurt boys’ and men’s
physical and psychological health, but hurt various gendered others too, resulting in
interpersonal, violent dominance, as well as in the enduring valorization of white,
heterosexual, and cis masculinity. The Guidelines are thus necessary for better and
more research-informed psychological practice, helpful in tackling taken-for-
granted inequalities, and, frankly, long overdue.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

References
APA (American Psychological Association). 2018. APA Guidelines for Psychological Prac-
tice with Boys and Men. http://www.apa.org/about/policy/psychological-practice-boys-
men-guidelines.pdf
Connell, R. 1995. Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Fortin, J. 2019. “Traditional Masculinity Can Hurt Boys, Say New A.P.A. Guidelines.” The
New York Times, January 10.
French, D. 2019. “The APA Can’t Spin Its Way Out of Its Attack on ‘Traditional
Masculinity’” National Review, January 9.
Manne, K. 2018. Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. New York: Oxford University Press.
Messner, M. A. 1997. The Politics of Masculinity: Men in Movements. Lanham, MD: Alta
Mira Press.