Toxic Femininity

This article (which was removed from Medium) may have some flaws, but I think it raises some very interesting questions as to the effects the modern psychiatric industry has on American schoolboys. While the article is focused on school shooters, this passage suggests the problem is widespread:

In 1975 Autism was diagnosed in children at a rate of 1 in every 5,000. Today that number has soared to nearly 1 in 100. This has ignited a public controversy over the source or cause of what by every definition deserves to be called an public health epidemic. 75% of children diagnosed with Autism today are boys. There’s no need to go searching for a cause. Vaccines aren’t behind the explosion in Autism rates. Teachers and school psychologists are. School psychology today is a booming industry, one which the US Department of Labor identifies as having some of the best employment opportunities across the entire field of psychology. 75% of school psychologists are women, with an average age of 46. It is this same group of people most empowered to conduct psychological monitoring of children across the country, and over the last 30 years, they have come to classify a larger and larger percentage of young boys as having developmental issues, to the point where it’s not clear whether there is anything wrong with these children at all, or if school psychologists have simply written off a wider and wider range of behaviors which they find problematic or incomprehensible as constituting autism.

How many future school shooters are they creating by middle-aged female psychologists pigeon-holing young boys displaying ordinary boisterous behaviour as problem children, then pumping them full of mind-altering drugs? How many previous school shooters were already on these drugs at some point in their lives? Little wonder the subsequent “masculinity” sometimes turns out rather toxic.

(Via Ben Sixsmith)

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!

11 thoughts on “Toxic Femininity

  1. Psychologists are like climate scientists and pharmaceutical companies, drumming up business by extending definitions and reliance on dodgy data. I don’t think it’s toxic feminity that’s the problem(school psychologists like parttime gps are there because the hours suit women). The problem is far more profound.

    The social”sciences” can never cross the barriers of empiricism and reproducibility that the hard sciences must meet yet further education has pursued students and public funding to extend themselves in this direction with the full support of government, creating a class of fools who believe themselves educated yet argue with every logical fallacy warned against by Aristotle and Karl Popper. The extension of “autism” from truly unreachable children to normal boy behaviour is a failure of our culture to call bullshit when it sees it or to demand higher standards of proof.

  2. This isn’t news, but it does indeed bear repeating. What would be interesting to know more about is why it was removed from Medium and at whose behest. Then we get to know who finds this truth inconvenient, and we go on from there.

  3. “How many previous school shooters were already on these drugs at some point in their lives? ”
    Isi this a rhetorical question Tim?
    I’ll have a stab at answering it. All of them.
    If we can decode the travels, diet, medical history and lifestyle of a 6,000 year old corpse in the Alps we can produce toxicology reports on all shooters or suicide bombers. From bones and teeth we can even approximately date when the drug abuse began.
    Publishing such data could be a useful deterrent to prescribers, preachers, drug companies and even in some cases the perpetrators themselves.

  4. Am I the only one for whom even the archived version doesn’t load?

    James Harries – devil’s advocate: can we really figure out all that for 6,000 yr old Frenchmen? How would we know if we were wrong?

  5. Christine Hof Sommers wrote about this in her book War Against Boys – basically using girls as the behaviour benchmark. Good article here and if you don’t want to read it the embedded video explains it well.

    This isn’t new though. Mrs BiND taught in an infant school in the early ’90s where both the female head and female senior teacher didn’t have children, let alone boys, and both were highly critical of boys’ behaviour. Mrs BiND’s older sister had two well behaved girls, both she and her husband found it hard to cope with our son and their own grandsons.

    I suspect that if you plotted the % of female infant school teachers Vs ADHD diagnosis there’d be a very strong correlation.

  6. Matthew
    Yes, to an approximation.
    Recent drug abuse (up to several months) can be identified post mortem. Diet and drugs can be inferred from bone and tooth enamel. Every dose of antibiotics makes your teeth a bit more yellow.
    But look on the bright side, there weren’t any frenchmen around 6,000 years ago.

  7. As always — Blame the Lawyers!

    It is difficult for young kids to sit still for hours on end, especially young boys. Used to be there was Recess, when the boys could get out in the playground & run around. But sometimes the boys would get hurt, and lawyers would sue the school. So Recess went away. And drugging the boys for imaginary ADHD came in. The pursuit of “Safety” is causing more problems than it is solving.

  8. I agree with Tims assessment – it is toxic femininity that is causing this. Allow me to elucidate:

    A boy is brought up by his mother and if she is married to the father, if she is not happy, then due to no fault divorce, she can boot him out, get the family home and child support and alimony for as long as she can spin it out. If she is a “single mother” then she is effectively married to the state who will keep her in a manner that most men could not and can claim all sorts of other benefits. A bonus is if the child is diagnosed with ADHD, her benefits will increase and she is “entitled” to social worker help and assistance.

    As an aside, one of my friends was dating a single mother of three kids, one of which was a boy diagnosed with ADHD (lots of cash benefits for her) but my diagnosis was that he had never been disciplined or shown boundaries and was simply out of control. She couldn’t handle him and hence the diagnosis plus drugs.

    The child is handed over to kindergarten if the mother can’t be bothered to rear the child – staffed 100% by women, or if they avoid this, go to primary school which is again, almost invariably staffed by women. Male teachers are hounded out of the job and are considered paedophiles. Even in secondary schools, the proportion of male teachers is very low.

    So it is likely that the child, male or female, will reach adulthood at age 16 with zero male influence or interaction, only females bringing them up, educating them and influencing them. It is my belief that it tales a man to teach a boy to be a man, not a woman and females with fathers in their lives are much less promiscuous than their sisters brought up without a male as a figurehead or to set an example. What do you think the reaction would be if the situation was reversed and girls were only brought up by men? Answers on the back of a postcard to the usual address …

    Female behaviour is defined as the norm and male behaviour as aberrant which must be “cured” or suppressed. Schools are optimised for female students in the structure of lessons, homework and examinations (continuous assessment). Males, on the other hand are constantly ridiculed and told that they are suffering from toxic masculinity, they are all misogynists, rapists and oppressors. Is it any wonder that they conclude that they have no place in society and have nothing to lose? That is a dangerous situation. Add in “the chemical cosh” to treat their perfectly normal behaviour and boisterousness then you have the situation outlined in the linked article and our hosts blog entry.

    But it is all the fault of men and their toxic masculinity and nothing whatsoever to do with women eliminating any male influence from the boys life and the State enabling this by subsidising single parenthood. Certainly not toxic femininity. Don;t believe me. Ask any woman.

  9. Barely half of papers in psychology or psychiatry reproduce. That’s an awful lot of stuff they know that isn’t so.

  10. “How many future school shooters are they creating by middle-aged female psychologists pigeon-holing young boys displaying ordinary boisterous behaviour as problem children, then pumping them full of mind-altering drugs?”

    An issue Peter Hitchens in MoS/DM frequently addresses – correctly imo

    As for MMR, I believe it should be one at a time – allow the infant’s developing immune system to deal with one crisis and recover before tackling the next.

    Me: I predate MMR, didn’t have M but had M & R – I’m alive.

  11. @Ljh on April 26, 2019 at 12:51 pm

    “…How often does one engage on social media with a Social Scientist NiV who, when you are foolish enough to disagree with him, merely directs you to the correct research paper on the right shelf in his particular Library of Truth as though that is the last axiomatic word on the matter and he can go home for his dinner

    Regrettably, we now see Gove, in his role as Environment Secretary, servilely apologising in public to the affectless, 16-year-old climate scold, Greta Thunberg, and her whole generation. On the surface it seems that he has swallowed her apocalyptic Kool Aid and that the ‘experts’ have got to him at last…”

    @Bloke in North Dorset on April 26, 2019 at 6:13 pm
    @Gavin Longmuir on April 26, 2019 at 10:41 pm
    @Phil B on April 27, 2019 at 9:26 am


Comments are closed.