The Daily Signal - #372: What Woke Scientists Don’t Get About Masculinity

Episode Date: January 10, 2019

Traditional masculinity is “harmful” -- but don’t take it from us. That’s the new verdict of the American Psychological Association. We discuss the APA’s new guidelines on counseling for men and boys, as well as the ideological shift behind it. Plus: President Trump’s policy in Syria seems to be in flux. Las month, he announced U.S. troops would be withdrawing, but now the timeline seems longer. Heritage Foundation Middle East expert Jim Phillips unpacks what Trump’s goals in Syria are, and how they can best be achieved. We also cover these stories:--President Trump is visiting the border today.--Trump tweeted that FEMA would stop sending money to California until the state improves its forest fire prevention practices.--Fifty-one percent of Democrats now call themselves liberals.--The first lady of California would like to be known as the "first partner".The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Thursday, January 10th. I'm Kate Trinko. And I'm Daniel Davis. Well, President Trump's policy in Syria seems to be evolving. Last month, he announced U.S. troops would be withdrawing, but now the timeline seems a bit longer. Today, we'll sit down with Heritage Middle East expert Jim Phillips to unpack what Trump's goals in Syria are and how best they can be achieved. Plus, traditional masculinity is harmful, but don't take it from me. That's the new verdict from the American Psychological Association.

We'll discuss the EPA's new guidelines on counseling for men and boys, as well as the ideological shift behind it. But first, we'll cover some of the top headlines. President Trump was noticeably silent during his Tuesday primetime address about declaring the border situation a national emergency. But when talking to reporters Wednesday, he made it clear that the idea remained on the table. What's your current thinking on a national emergency? Why didn't you announce it last night? Because I think we might work a deal, and if we don't, I may go that route. I have the absolute right to do national emergency if I want.

What's your threshold for when you might make that? My threshold will be if I can't make a deal with people that are unreasonable. Trump will visit the border today in Texas and see for himself the situation. On Wednesday, after meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, President Trump tweeted, just left a meeting with Chuck and Nancy, a total waste of time. I asked what is going to happen in 30 days if I quickly open things up. Are you going to approve border security, which includes a wall or steel barrier?

Nancy said, no. I said, bye-bye, nothing else works. So can't wait to see how Trump and congressional leaders work this out. Well, President Trump is giving tough love to California. He announced on Wednesday that FEMA would stop sending money. to California until the state improves its forest fire prevention practices. He said poor forest management was to blame for recent massive fires in California, which destroyed thousands of homes and killed 88 residents.

But local officials have put more blame for the fires on climate change. More Americans see themselves as conservatives rather than liberals, according to a new Gallup poll, which found that 35% of Americans identify as conservative, while 26% percent of Americans, do as liberal. Another 35% see themselves as moderates. However, there is one noticeable trend. 51% of Democrats call themselves liberals, and that's the first time, per Gallup, a majority of Democrats have adopted that label. Given how the party is veering left, it makes sense. Well, after years of seeming to deny it, Planned Parenthood has openly admitted that abortion is at the heart of its mission. The recent BuzzFeed article claimed that Planned Parenthood's new president

Liena Wynne was putting renewed emphasis on non-abortion services. But Wynne took to Twitter to set the record straight. Quote, our core mission is providing, protecting, and expanding access to abortion and reproductive health care, end quote. Well, that admission came as somewhat of a shock, not because it's not true, but because for years Planned Parenthood seemed to draw attention away from abortion as the heart of what it does. The company's last president, Cecil Richards, frequently said, cited that dubious 3% statistic saying abortion was only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does.

Well, that number has long been debunked as misleading, even by the Washington Post, and now it seems Planned Parenthood is admitting the obvious. Well, there will be no First Lady in California. Governor Gavin Newsom's wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, prefers a different term, First Partner. According to the Los Angeles Times, quote, she sees it as more inclusive, end quote. Sebel Newsom is a filmmaker whose works, surprise, surprise, have focused on issues of gender.

Well, up next we'll talk to Jim Phillips about the situation in Syria. Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratching your head? Then subscribe to Scotus 101, a podcast breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court. While President Trump's Syria policy seems to be somewhat in flux these days, his announcement last month that he would withdraw U.S. troops came as a shock to really the nation and to allies, but also to some administration officials. But now, several weeks later, some of the details are coming out about his withdrawal plan, and it's a bit more tenuous, shall we say, than what one might have expected initially. Joining us now back on the podcast, to unpack the issue of Syria is Jim Phillips. He's a senior research fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation.

Thanks for being back on, Jim. Well, thanks for inviting me. So, Jim, we know about the president's initial announcement last month that took us all by surprise. But can you fill in for some of the details that have come out more recently? What is the president's withdrawal actually coming to look like? Well, the president's advisors, including National Security Council advisor, John Bolton, have substantially walked back the initial December 19th announcement that President Trump made in tweet when he said that we will now be withdrawing from Syria.

And it's clear that we're still withdrawing, but the end date of that withdrawal is up in the air because the administration is putting conditions on that withdrawal. And I think that's perfectly compatible with its own criticism of what the Obama administration mistakenly done in Iraq when it just arbitrarily set a timeline for withdrawal. And I think by walking it back and putting conditions, John Bolton and other advisors are trying to ensure that the U.S. primary goal in Syria, which is the defeat of ISIS, is definitely achieved and that ISIS will not rise again. Now, John Bolton, of course, recently delivered a speech in Israel, which got Turkey very upset,

namely when Bolton was stating some of the conditions that would be necessary for the U.S. withdrawal. How big a player is Turkey? And is there any chance for the Turkey and U.S. to come to a court on this issue of what to do about the Kurds in Syria? Well, I certainly hope that the U.S. and Turkey, which is a NATO ally, can, get on the same page when it comes to Syria because up till now, Turkey really has been working at cross points with the U.S., primarily because it sees Syrian Kurds as the chief threat to Turkish

security even greater than ISIS. And unfortunately, the U.S. has chosen Syria's Kurds to lead the anti-IS campaign because many of the Arab rebel groups proved to be unreliable. The Kurds are the best fighters, but also has led to tension with Turkey. And for that reason, when John Bolton gave a speech in Israel, when he was on the way to Turkey earlier this week, he attached a condition that the U.S. would not totally withdraw until. there were some measures that could protect the security of its allies, the Syrian Democratic forces, which is a primarily Syrian Kurdish rebel group, which has been the cutting edge

and the fight against ISIS. So some of those terms that you mentioned, the conditions, I mean, it really takes the edge off the withdrawal. Just broadly speaking, what needs to happen? Do we, was it, I mean, I guess regardless of whether or not it was right to just announce the withdrawal. Do you think that we need to be in Syria for the time being for the next few years? How long do you think it should take?

I think we need to be there until ISIS's coffin is nailed shut. And we've seen what happened in Iraq after the Obama administration left Iraq in 2011. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which later developed into ISIS, quickly grew back. like a cancerous growth. And I think, unfortunately, that could also happen in Syria unless there are preparations made to replace the roughly 2,000 U.S. troops with other troops. They could be Turkish, perhaps British or French. We do know that there are an estimated 1,000 French special forces in eastern Syria

and an unknown number of British. perhaps they could beef up their forces because it's clear, at least to me, that the Turkish armed forces have their hands full already because they're fighting a Kurdish rebellion in Eastern Turkey, and they don't have any troops in reserve that they could use in Eastern Syria. So I don't think Turkish troops per se can replace U.S. troops, but a combination of of Turkish troops supported by U.S. air power and perhaps British, French, maybe some other nations may be willing to step forward, then they could not only drive the nail, the final nails into ISIS coffin, but also could prevent Iran from becoming the dominant

player in Eastern Syria. So a little bit more big picture here. was, you know, quite a rigorous prim policy debate, let's say, over Christmas when people were discussing the withdrawal and you got into the usual discussion of neocons versus isolationists, all that fun stuff. But, you know, what it came down to is, you know, you just brought up the example of Afghanistan. Obviously, the U.S. has been in there for, I guess, now we're getting close to 18 years. How, you know, is there any way to ensure that these terrorist groups don't come back in places like Afghanistan and Syria? Or are we sort of, you know, is there

looking at, is this a new reality where the U.S. or allies, as you mentioned in the case of Syria do need to stay in places for perhaps decades to ensure the terrorist groups don't research? Yeah. In Afghanistan, we have built up the Afghan army, which is able to resist the Taliban on the ground, but it needs continued U.S. air support and training and logistical support to do that. In Syria, where air power is much more devastating in the desert rather than than the mountains, the U.S. wouldn't need as many allied ground troops to prevent ISIS

from making a comeback on the ground, but it does need some reliable troops there. And, you know, ISIS is estimated to still have about 20 to 30,000 armed followers in split about equally between Syria and Iraq. I mean, they've been defeated territorial in a territorial sense in that they can't, they only hold, I think, one small section of the Middle Euphrates River Valley. and the U.S. and its Kurdish allies are continuing to tighten the news there. But if the U.S. suddenly left, if Britain and France left, if the coordination broke down between the Kurds and the U.S. and the Kurds were distracted by fighting Turkey, then I think it would just be a matter of time before ISIS grew back. So I think the U.S. has to get its political ducks in order to make arrangements for allied efforts against ISIS before it leaves.

Well, one of the other kind of lurking factors here is Iran, you know, always wanting to extend its influence into Syria in that direction. How do we keep Iran at bay, you know, when we're talking about Turkey and. And, you know, Saudi Arabia also in the picture, is there some kind of alliance there that needs to form in order to keep Iran at bay? Well, I think at least in Syria, there's a very strong alliance between the U.S. and Israel and Jordan, especially with Israel, which has launched more than 200 air strikes against Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Syria. as well as some of the Shiite militias that do Iran's dirty work there, Hasbala, the Lebanese, Islamist, extremist group, and other pro-Iranian Shiite militias from Iraq, from Afghanistan, and from Pakistanis recruited by Iran. So there's kind of an Iranian Foreign Legion in Syria. The Israelis have been chipping away at it militarily. The U.S. has been chipping away at Iran's economic strength through sanctions and diplomatic measures.

And the feeling is that the U.S. putting economic pressure on the regime, which feeds growing unrest inside Iran and Israel, which strikes back at Iran's efforts to ensure. entrench itself in Syria, that those are kind of two sides of the same coin in terms of containing and rolling back Iran. So would you have any advice for the administration as to what they should do in the next couple weeks as they move forward on this? Well, I think that we need to maintain maximum pressure against ISIS and hopefully negotiate or at least broker an agreement between Turkey and Syrian Kurds similar to the kind of tripartite understanding between Turkey, the U.S. and the Iraqi Kurds.

And the Iraqi Kurdish leaders in the Kurdistan Autonomous Province in northern Iraq have cooperated very closely with Turkey against the PKK, the Kurdistan Workers' movement, which is trying to carve out a Kurdish state in eastern Turkey. So the Iraqi Kurds are helping Turkey against the Turkish Kurds. So it's possible, not probable in the short run, but possible in the long run, that there could be some kind of Turkish cooperation with Syrian Kurds similar to the Iraqi Kurds. And it's going to be very difficult to negotiate, but if Turkey sees advantages, perhaps the U.S. could broker an agreement in which Turkey

comes into the northern Syria on the Syrian side of the border, and that way it could be sure protecting its own border security, then it might be more open to some kind of U.S. brokered agreement with the Syrian Kurds. Well, Syria is such an enigma, but Jim, thank you for coming in and unpacking it for us. Well, thank you. Are you looking for quick conservative policy solutions to current issues? Sign up for Heritage's weekly newsletter, The Agenda. Tuesday in the agenda, you will learn what issues Heritage scholars on Capitol Hill are working on,

what position conservatives are taking, and links to our in-depth research. The agenda also provides information on important events happening here at Heritage that you can watch online, as well as media interviews from our experts. Sign up for the agenda on heritage.org today. So the American Psychological Association, and what is apparently at first, is now putting out guidelines that should help those working with men and boys. In a write-up on their website, the organization Stephanie Pappas states, at first blush, this may seem unnecessary. For decades, psychology focused on men, particularly white men,

to the exclusion of all others, and men still dominate professionally and politically, end quote. She then adds, but something is amiss for men as well. Men commit 90% of homicides in the United States and represent 77% of homicide victims. They're the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women's.

Boys are far more likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder than girls, and they face harsher punishments in school, especially boys of color. End quote. Well, this seems like good news. The psychologists are waking up to the fact that our men and boys are not okay, and it's not just girls who need special attention. But then the APA is worried about, you guessed it, traditional masculinity. Quote, the main thrust of the subsequent research is that traditional masculinity marked by

stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression is on the whole harmful. Men socialize in this way are less likely to engage in healthy behaviors. End quote. Daniel, you're a guy. So I'm just going to put you on the spot throughout this whole conversation. What do you think about how they get into traditional? As long as you don't get on to me for mansplaining. No, you're supposed to be unsplaining.

You're speaking for all men in a mansplaining way. Okay, what do you think? Is traditional masculinity as problematic as the APA suggests end this? So that last sentence there that you said, so men socialized in this way are likely to engage, or less likely to engage in healthy behaviors. I think that kind of exposes some of the assumption behind the APA's thinking here. And it's essentially that the problem is that the way we're thinking about masculinity.

It's the way guys experience this social pressure, this cultural expectation that they are to behave in a certain way because men are supposed to be so-and-so, and the APA doesn't think that's legitimate. They think that's a cultural thing that men do not need to have on them. And I would just say I think there's more to that than they do. I think there's more a lot of the burdens that men put on themselves are actually not just cultural expectations, although that's probably part of it. I think it's also, it comes from our nature.

You know, I think we should be honest that men and women have unique natures. They're not the same. And men might respond to things differently just because of the way they're built. So if they experience problems, they are less likely to talk about those problems. They're more likely to try to deal with it themselves. And so I think there's some truth in what they're saying, like men should be, made to feel like they can talk about their problems. But the problem is men don't often like to do that

because it makes them feel vulnerable. And men want to feel like they're in charge of themselves and that they're conducting themselves in a way that isn't, this would probably make the APA mad, but feminine even. Like, oh, I'm just going to let all my feelings just out on the table so that you guys can see them and I'm just going to, not that that's the way you're podcast, right? Well, hey, you know, maybe I'm exceptionally vulnerable.

Maybe I'm more, yeah, maybe I'm more woke than the APA things. Yeah, no, I think I thought one thing, well, I thought several things were interesting about this. But as I was actually reading it, you know, it sort of struck me that, you know, they talked about these terms, competitiveness, dominance and aggression. And it struck me that they're painting those things as such a negative. And obviously they can be a negative. But, you know, to go back to my college days, you know, Aristotle says all virtues are moderation if extreme aggression is bad. But low aggression might also be bad. I'm actually reading a book right now about the gold rush in California. And there's a lot of accounts of largely men who went over to California.

And, you know, they're climbing over mountains and they're doing these insane trucks in the cold where there's not food. These things that I would never, ever want to do, cannot imagine ever doing it. And yet, you know, you can see that these men were powered by these traits that are now being painted as just negative. And I think you could so easily flip this script and say that, you know, women, you know, to use one example, women tend to, I would argue, more naturally care about and be interested in other people. In moderation, that's great. At extremes, you get positions where someone is so empathetic. take care of themselves or their own, or that they gossip so much about everyone that they bring, you know, toxic social behavior to a circle. So I just think that it's so unfair that, you know,

it tends to be with men. We talk in this very like, oh, all of their unique traits are problematic way. But with women, I mean, gosh, we never hear how women are problematic inherently. Yeah, no, that's a great point. And, you know, with any, like you were saying, like strengths, I think with any, like male and female, they both have their unique strengths and weaknesses that they're prone to. And I think that's a double-sided coin. So for a man who, just to take this, you know, this stoicism that they talk about, the not talking about their problems or something, well, I can see that coming into plans some actually really helpful ways. Like if you're in battle or in war, you know, you've got to suck it up and like, you know, just deal with it. But if you're,

but there's a weakness there also, which is maybe you're a dad and you're not able to share your heart with your children or with your wife. And so, you know, I can see that being a weakness too, but I think, like you said, women have their own unique strengths and weaknesses that correspond to that. And, you know, I think there's a lot to agree with in the APA what they're trying to do and say like that men need, I think we can agree on the main goal, which is like, we need to make sure men are able to share what they're dealing with, at least have somebody in their lives who they can do. I mean, it's very important.

But I don't want to question the underlying impulse that drives men to do that because I think it's actually built into the way men are created. I mean, I believe that men are created for a certain way and women are created a different way and that that's good. So, I mean, I don't want to deny that. APA probably would. Yeah, I don't know where they are in that. But I think, yeah, I mean, I think in general it might be better if guys were more open to talking to their friends, family, and yes, sometimes therapists.

Yep. About, you know, issues and not seeing it as unmasculine to do so. That, you know, I mean, true strength is sometimes, you know, I sound like a reading card here, but admitting your weaknesses. But I also wanted to touch base on, you know, I did like that the APA is paying attention of this issue. Like, I think guys are in a crisis of sorts. And, you know, they brought up a lot of stats, including, you know, the suicide rate for men being so much higher than women. Part of that is due to the fact that, unfortunately, guys tend to be more successful because

of the methods they choose when they try to commit suicide than women. But I think it also, you know, we've seen stats about loneliness among men. You know, our culture has gone through so much upheaval in the past decades. So, yeah, Daniel, what do you think? Like, is there a crisis right now among men, or is that too strong a word? Or what is a situation like? I mean, there are definite problems that are worse now than I think they were 20, 30, 40, years ago.

And I think men need a sense of mission in life, a sense of driving purpose, and a sense that they're achieving something that is meaningful. And I think often today what we see is a lack of that. And it shows up in a lot of places, like drug crisis. I mean, guys, you know, turning to drugs for a sense of meaning, turn to gangs because, you know, that gives them a sense of, you know, camaraderie and sense of achievement in some sense. So yeah, I think a lot of what we see in our society problems with men could be described in one sense as a lack of meaning and achievement. I mean, men need that. So I think that's definitely an issue. Yeah, and I think it's interesting because, you know, I feel like as a girl, you know, there's always been so much, you know, validation. Like,

it's so great when you achieve things, girl power, you know, do well in school and like, oh, you got promoted. That's really great. And, you know, I've sort of, notice that it seems like with guys it's either more taken for granted or it's sort of like, oh, male privilege, who did you take that job from? And so I could see how that would sort of undermine any ability to have a sense of mission. Like if in some ways, I mean, obviously this is a bit of an extreme, but taken to that, it can certainly engender more shame than a desire to do well and exceed. Yeah. And I'd also say, and I say this as a single person, declining marriage rates are a problem for men, at least for men and women.

But marriage actually puts on men a lot of expectations that they need in order to, like it calls men up into something greater than they would be. So it's funny because last night I went to go see the movie Vice and we'll be writing something on that for the signal pretty soon. And, you know, it wasn't a very sympathetic portrayal of Dick. Cheney by any stretch, but there was a really interesting part where the movie starts, and he's kind of at a low point in life. He's got a wife and two kids, and he's basically an alcoholic. His wife just had to pick him up for the second time from prison after a DUI or a DWI or

something, and she gives him like an ultimatum, like, I'm gone unless you can get your act together and, you know, hold a job and be respectable. And so he says to her, I will never let you down again. and that begins his trek upward slowly through. So like that gives him a sense of determination. I think men, when like men don't want to lose their women, and like that can be really helpful to men. So I think the declining marriage rates can be a problem in that sense. Right.

And I think studies show that, you know, married men tend to make more, do better in their careers, presumably because, yeah, there's pressure. Like, oh, hey, this baby needs to be taken care of. Yeah, and I wonder, I mean, how do you encourage marriage rates? I think, like, you know, single women would just be like, well, if guys should get married, great, we agree. Why don't they ask? Fair enough.

And maybe that's a good place to leave it. All right. Well, thanks so much for listening to the Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or rating on iTunes to give us feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow. You've been listening to the Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visitdailySignal.com.