Very well done Jim. Ferrara and Viagra expose themselves as being totally ignorant of male psychology. After closing down the male spaces where men could meet and enjoy themselves (male sports teams, all male schools, male sheds, boy scouts, Rotary Clubs and so many like them, men's clubs, all male barber shops) then they complain that the burden is on themselves since men no longer have their places to gather.
Slightly off topic here, but back in 2022, a psychology professor stated that the American Psychology Association is waging a war on men and boys - and it was published on Newsweek.
It's on topic, Frank. The journal that published this paper on "mankeeping" is called Psychology of Men & Masculinities. Psychology of Men & Masculinities is the flagship journal of Division 51 within the American Psychological Association (APA).
Thanks, James. The psychology professor that wrote that article states that he is a feminist, but he can see when men are being mistreated and abused by the psychology profession.
Thanks James. I've also posted a link your recent piece for Reality's Last Stand, and pointed out that the second bogus "study" is by a Canadian PhD student, not an "academic". I feel compelled to use inverted commas whenever referring to feminist "researchers", all of whom would be better employed cutting grass with nail scissors. My blog piece:
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that misandry no longer requires neuroticism or even malice to metastasize but has become an end in itself.
As for the APA, the real innovation is not its apparent interest in boys and men or even its creation of a division for members who do research on boys and men but rising indifference to the association (which many psychologists do not join) and opposition to this particular division. Though not a professional in the field, I did manage to observe several sessions of Division 51 (before being asked to leave) and to record my findings. I can show my notes to anyone who is interested. Even before that, however, I sent a letter to the APA about its new guidelines (gleaned from published excerpts). Here's my letter. No one replied to it.
***
Though not a psychologist and not by any means a “traditionally” masculine man—I am, in fact, a gay man—I find your guidelines with regards to treating male patients so misguided that I must register a strong complaint. Because so many others have expressed their dismay, I’ll confine myself to a few non-technical problems that trouble me personally.
Barbara Kay has compared your guidelines for treating female patients with these new ones for treating male patients. The comparison is very instructive. Both rely on feminist ideology, not scholarship, but there is one big difference. The former relies on the ideological premise that society (that is, men who have allegedly created and sustained a “patriarchal” culture in order to privilege themselves at the expense of women or even in order to oppress women) is responsible for whatever leaves female patients in need of therapy. The latter relies on the ideological premise that men themselves, not society in general and certainly not women, are responsible for what leaves male patients in need of therapy.
Taken together, these two guidelines suggest that what is at stake for the APA in these guidelines for treating men is not ultimately the psychological health of male patients (the “few” who suffer from collateral damage) but that of female patients. This means that the APA is not merely blaming the victims but also replacing therapy, let alone scholarship, with a political ideology. One implication is that the ultimate cure for masculinity is conversion to feminism. That amounts to conversion therapy, as I say, but it looks to me also like every other form of religious proselytism—that is, something other than the science in “social science.”
This ideological slant contaminates many, many features of the guidelines for both male and female patients. How else can you explain references to “masculinity ideology” but not to “femininity ideology”? Does the APA really assume that women have not, at the very least, colluded historically and cross-culturally with men in the production of culture and received support for their own needs in return? Does the APA really assume that feminism itself, in one form or another, is not an ideology? And whether you call it that or not, how does feminism affect boys and men? I refer here specifically to the pervasive and relentless shaming that it promotes either directly or indirectly. Evaluating the effect of all this misandry would be an appropriate topic in the guidelines for treating female patients, because many of them engage routinely in what I call the “identity harassment” of boys and men. But any guidelines for the treatment of male patients that fail to acknowledge this problem in the face of massive evidence of increasing dysfunction among boys and men is therapeutically, morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Young men, in particular, are giving up in and dropping out of a world that apparently has no room for them specifically as men. They’re dropping out of school, dropping out of society and dropping out of life itself at much higher rates than those of young women. How could it be otherwise when “society” keeps telling them that either masculinity or maleness itself (or both) causes every conceivable societal problem from violence (which is to say, “violence against women”) and domination (a.k.a. “hegemony” or “privilege”) to “manspreading,” “mansplaining” and who knows what accusation will be invented next? I’ve written four books, along with my co-author, Katherine Young, on misandry. I still need to explain over and over again that misandry is the sexist counterpart of misogyny. Both are rampant but only one, misogyny, is carefully monitored, publicly denounced and harshly punished.
Among the few academics to focus attention on young men at all is Michael Kimmel, and he’s a sociologist. Unfortunately, he’s also a feminist. His main argument (which the APA has clearly adopted) is that they feel a sense of “aggrieved entitlement” to privilege. Deprived of unearned status and power as men, supposedly learned from their alpha-male fathers, they turn against women. This is a spurious and pernicious theory. It’s true that young men feel a sense of aggrieved entitlement, sure, but to a healthy collective identity as men, not to “privilege.” A healthy identity is surely something to which every human being has a right. Young and I have written about this problem—the meaning of “healthy identity” (in the hope of stimulating research by psychologists) and historical factors since the Neolithic period that have made it increasingly difficult for men to sustain a healthy identity. To have a healthy identity, personally or collectively, means being able to make at least one contribution to society that is (a) distinctive, (b) necessary and (c) publicly valued. The APA should ask how men can now do anything at all that’s distinctive. But one possibility remains, albeit very tenuously. I suggest that only men can be fathers. If so, then fathers and mothers have different functions in family life and are therefore not interchangeable “social constructs” even apart from pregnancy and lactation.
I want to conclude with a note on “traditional” masculinity. The APA has identified that, mistakenly, with a perversion of it. My father’s masculinity was traditional but not even remotely “macho” (which now refers to a grotesque stereotype of masculinity). He was a gentleman. I never heard a vulgar word from him. I never saw him drunk or violent. He taught me, by both precept and example, the importance of courtesy. His idea of being a good father was to visit museums with me, attend synagogue and study groups with me or take me to his class reunions at MIT—not to go hunting, drinking or whoring. He didn’t understand homosexuality, it’s true, because no one did in those days (certainly not the psychologists or psychiatrists), but he never threatened to abandon me or withdraw his support for me. He treated my mother protectively (although he often tried to teach her about money), because that’s what she and other women of her class expected husbands to do. When she decided to go into business as an interior decorator, he encouraged her to take courses and set up shop with her friend (although she soon realized that she had no interest in the business, as it were, of business). In short, he was a good father, a good husband, a good citizen and a good man. He deserves admiration, not contempt.
And he wasn’t alone. I think that my father was the best one in the entire world and in all of human history, of course, but I do know that he was not some kind of genetic mutant. He was produced largely, though not entirely, by a cultural tradition. And that tradition was far more widespread than upper-middle-class Jews were. It was the paradigm, for example, in countless movies from before the 1960s. Not all men were gentleman; some were cads or worse. But the ideal was indeed a gentleman (until all hell broke loose during the Sexual Revolution seemed to make earlier ideals for both men and women obsolete). Even today, though, millions of men become fathers and struggle to do what many, including some psychologists, now consider superfluous or even oppressive. Even though most men don’t take Psychology 101 in college, partly because they don’t, they do understand that fathers are not merely assistant mothers or walking wallets.
Some, in fact, are beginning to realize that their distinctive function in family life becomes increasingly as children prepare to leave home and enter the larger world. The American Psychological Association owes every male patient a sincere and unambiguous effort to promote some form of the traditional Western ideal of manhood, not to heap scorn on it or try to replace it with something that no healthy male, gay or straight, could ever accept without pay a high cost in self-hatred (a psychological problem that the association should consider carefully).
These types of 'studies' really, really, really anger me, more so the fact that universities cheer/fund these useless papers. These so called 'studies' do NOTHING for society, they don't further men's or women's issues. The only thing they achieve is division, whilst Ferrara & Vergara feed their self-importance & egos. They like to make us think they are so well educated & smart, by the use of big words & convoluted phrasing. All they want to do is drag males down. I hope they do not have sons!!!
Great takedown of a complete piece of shit research paper. As if men are asking women to do any of these mankeeping activities. Most men would rather the women leave them alone to do as they please.
Projecting power and control and emotionalism intended for her infants anywhere else.
She just needs to follow the female life path of being protected by a husband, then married off with a dowry, producing children enough to keep her instincts hooked into where they evolved.
Also, as Chris Rock joked, “nothing is more offensive to a woman than a man at rest”. This is her evolved psychology, not his.
Women tend to try to break down a husbands social networks as a means of control and shit testing. She wants to keep him away from other men (and especially women) who might open his eyes. Again, it's that power and control instinct.
That's why the manosphere rising is an occasion for cancelling.
To the writers of "Manskeeping" I would say "Do your own job and mind your own business"
which is Socrates definition of justice. The phrase, mind your own business, means that you want that person to stop asking you questions about your life or to stop prying into your life.
And that of course means that justice will be reciprocated.
"Mankeeping" - even the choice in terms is too transparent: women "consider" themselves like beekeepers - watching men, spraying smoke (false accusations) to protect themselves from docile bees so they can harvest the honey and show off to other women that they are the "Queen Bee"
Men tend to have fewer social connections not purely out of choice but because they are more likely to work full-time in more demanding jobs, and to be self-employed. They don't get maternity leave either, which is what enables many women to sustain broader social networks (i.e. mothers' groups). Put simply, men have less discretionary time to devote to socialising so their social networks tend to suffer once they enter the workforce.
Instead of encouraging men to socialise more, women are generally resentful of men socialising together without them (or even relaxing instead of fixing something). If women were less neurotic and controlling then everyone could be a lot happier.
Great piece James. I’m just seeing this today 7/12/25. Myself and Karina Schneidman collaborated to bring the male/female perspective on this issue. Love your angle through research. We touched on research and spoke clinically - what we’re seeing in our practice.
Very well done Jim. Ferrara and Viagra expose themselves as being totally ignorant of male psychology. After closing down the male spaces where men could meet and enjoy themselves (male sports teams, all male schools, male sheds, boy scouts, Rotary Clubs and so many like them, men's clubs, all male barber shops) then they complain that the burden is on themselves since men no longer have their places to gather.
Slightly off topic here, but back in 2022, a psychology professor stated that the American Psychology Association is waging a war on men and boys - and it was published on Newsweek.
https://www.newsweek.com/american-psychological-association-waging-war-men-boys-opinion-1744998
It's on topic, Frank. The journal that published this paper on "mankeeping" is called Psychology of Men & Masculinities. Psychology of Men & Masculinities is the flagship journal of Division 51 within the American Psychological Association (APA).
Thanks, James. The psychology professor that wrote that article states that he is a feminist, but he can see when men are being mistreated and abused by the psychology profession.
John Barry of the Centre of Male Psychology has also written about the APA guidelines.
https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/male-psychology-magazine-listings/the-apa-have-changed-their-view-of-masculinity
Was he stating that he was a feminist to pre-empt the cancellation that may have occurred as a result of the article?
Men & women are capable of equality without having to be feminist. That ideology is unwell, and we are in need of regime change.
It not only harms men but also the women who care/value them in community and their lives.
Thanks James, an outstanding piece. I'll link to it now in a blog piece on the J4MB website.
Keep up the great work!
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS http://j4mb.org.uk
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS http://c4mb.uk
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS http://laughingatfeminists.com
Thanks, Mike.
Thanks James. I've also posted a link your recent piece for Reality's Last Stand, and pointed out that the second bogus "study" is by a Canadian PhD student, not an "academic". I feel compelled to use inverted commas whenever referring to feminist "researchers", all of whom would be better employed cutting grass with nail scissors. My blog piece:
https://j4mb.org.uk/2025/07/10/james-l-nuzzo-woke-academics-are-rigging-research-methods-to-support-their-ideology/
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS http://j4mb.org.uk
CAMPAIGN FOR MERIT IN BUSINESS http://c4mb.uk
LAUGHING AT FEMINISTS http://laughingatfeminists.com
Thanks again, Mike.
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that misandry no longer requires neuroticism or even malice to metastasize but has become an end in itself.
As for the APA, the real innovation is not its apparent interest in boys and men or even its creation of a division for members who do research on boys and men but rising indifference to the association (which many psychologists do not join) and opposition to this particular division. Though not a professional in the field, I did manage to observe several sessions of Division 51 (before being asked to leave) and to record my findings. I can show my notes to anyone who is interested. Even before that, however, I sent a letter to the APA about its new guidelines (gleaned from published excerpts). Here's my letter. No one replied to it.
***
Though not a psychologist and not by any means a “traditionally” masculine man—I am, in fact, a gay man—I find your guidelines with regards to treating male patients so misguided that I must register a strong complaint. Because so many others have expressed their dismay, I’ll confine myself to a few non-technical problems that trouble me personally.
Barbara Kay has compared your guidelines for treating female patients with these new ones for treating male patients. The comparison is very instructive. Both rely on feminist ideology, not scholarship, but there is one big difference. The former relies on the ideological premise that society (that is, men who have allegedly created and sustained a “patriarchal” culture in order to privilege themselves at the expense of women or even in order to oppress women) is responsible for whatever leaves female patients in need of therapy. The latter relies on the ideological premise that men themselves, not society in general and certainly not women, are responsible for what leaves male patients in need of therapy.
Taken together, these two guidelines suggest that what is at stake for the APA in these guidelines for treating men is not ultimately the psychological health of male patients (the “few” who suffer from collateral damage) but that of female patients. This means that the APA is not merely blaming the victims but also replacing therapy, let alone scholarship, with a political ideology. One implication is that the ultimate cure for masculinity is conversion to feminism. That amounts to conversion therapy, as I say, but it looks to me also like every other form of religious proselytism—that is, something other than the science in “social science.”
This ideological slant contaminates many, many features of the guidelines for both male and female patients. How else can you explain references to “masculinity ideology” but not to “femininity ideology”? Does the APA really assume that women have not, at the very least, colluded historically and cross-culturally with men in the production of culture and received support for their own needs in return? Does the APA really assume that feminism itself, in one form or another, is not an ideology? And whether you call it that or not, how does feminism affect boys and men? I refer here specifically to the pervasive and relentless shaming that it promotes either directly or indirectly. Evaluating the effect of all this misandry would be an appropriate topic in the guidelines for treating female patients, because many of them engage routinely in what I call the “identity harassment” of boys and men. But any guidelines for the treatment of male patients that fail to acknowledge this problem in the face of massive evidence of increasing dysfunction among boys and men is therapeutically, morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Young men, in particular, are giving up in and dropping out of a world that apparently has no room for them specifically as men. They’re dropping out of school, dropping out of society and dropping out of life itself at much higher rates than those of young women. How could it be otherwise when “society” keeps telling them that either masculinity or maleness itself (or both) causes every conceivable societal problem from violence (which is to say, “violence against women”) and domination (a.k.a. “hegemony” or “privilege”) to “manspreading,” “mansplaining” and who knows what accusation will be invented next? I’ve written four books, along with my co-author, Katherine Young, on misandry. I still need to explain over and over again that misandry is the sexist counterpart of misogyny. Both are rampant but only one, misogyny, is carefully monitored, publicly denounced and harshly punished.
Among the few academics to focus attention on young men at all is Michael Kimmel, and he’s a sociologist. Unfortunately, he’s also a feminist. His main argument (which the APA has clearly adopted) is that they feel a sense of “aggrieved entitlement” to privilege. Deprived of unearned status and power as men, supposedly learned from their alpha-male fathers, they turn against women. This is a spurious and pernicious theory. It’s true that young men feel a sense of aggrieved entitlement, sure, but to a healthy collective identity as men, not to “privilege.” A healthy identity is surely something to which every human being has a right. Young and I have written about this problem—the meaning of “healthy identity” (in the hope of stimulating research by psychologists) and historical factors since the Neolithic period that have made it increasingly difficult for men to sustain a healthy identity. To have a healthy identity, personally or collectively, means being able to make at least one contribution to society that is (a) distinctive, (b) necessary and (c) publicly valued. The APA should ask how men can now do anything at all that’s distinctive. But one possibility remains, albeit very tenuously. I suggest that only men can be fathers. If so, then fathers and mothers have different functions in family life and are therefore not interchangeable “social constructs” even apart from pregnancy and lactation.
I want to conclude with a note on “traditional” masculinity. The APA has identified that, mistakenly, with a perversion of it. My father’s masculinity was traditional but not even remotely “macho” (which now refers to a grotesque stereotype of masculinity). He was a gentleman. I never heard a vulgar word from him. I never saw him drunk or violent. He taught me, by both precept and example, the importance of courtesy. His idea of being a good father was to visit museums with me, attend synagogue and study groups with me or take me to his class reunions at MIT—not to go hunting, drinking or whoring. He didn’t understand homosexuality, it’s true, because no one did in those days (certainly not the psychologists or psychiatrists), but he never threatened to abandon me or withdraw his support for me. He treated my mother protectively (although he often tried to teach her about money), because that’s what she and other women of her class expected husbands to do. When she decided to go into business as an interior decorator, he encouraged her to take courses and set up shop with her friend (although she soon realized that she had no interest in the business, as it were, of business). In short, he was a good father, a good husband, a good citizen and a good man. He deserves admiration, not contempt.
And he wasn’t alone. I think that my father was the best one in the entire world and in all of human history, of course, but I do know that he was not some kind of genetic mutant. He was produced largely, though not entirely, by a cultural tradition. And that tradition was far more widespread than upper-middle-class Jews were. It was the paradigm, for example, in countless movies from before the 1960s. Not all men were gentleman; some were cads or worse. But the ideal was indeed a gentleman (until all hell broke loose during the Sexual Revolution seemed to make earlier ideals for both men and women obsolete). Even today, though, millions of men become fathers and struggle to do what many, including some psychologists, now consider superfluous or even oppressive. Even though most men don’t take Psychology 101 in college, partly because they don’t, they do understand that fathers are not merely assistant mothers or walking wallets.
Some, in fact, are beginning to realize that their distinctive function in family life becomes increasingly as children prepare to leave home and enter the larger world. The American Psychological Association owes every male patient a sincere and unambiguous effort to promote some form of the traditional Western ideal of manhood, not to heap scorn on it or try to replace it with something that no healthy male, gay or straight, could ever accept without pay a high cost in self-hatred (a psychological problem that the association should consider carefully).
Thank you for sharing your letter, Paul. And thanks for sending it to the APA.
These types of 'studies' really, really, really anger me, more so the fact that universities cheer/fund these useless papers. These so called 'studies' do NOTHING for society, they don't further men's or women's issues. The only thing they achieve is division, whilst Ferrara & Vergara feed their self-importance & egos. They like to make us think they are so well educated & smart, by the use of big words & convoluted phrasing. All they want to do is drag males down. I hope they do not have sons!!!
Worse, Patricia, these "studies" have been funded by governments out of tax dollars, including those of men.
Paul, mostly those of men, who pay collectively far more income tax than women. In the UK, at least, close to 3x as much.
Great takedown of a complete piece of shit research paper. As if men are asking women to do any of these mankeeping activities. Most men would rather the women leave them alone to do as they please.
It's maternal instinct out of control.
She's infantilizing her husband.
Mankeeping is just babying.
Projecting power and control and emotionalism intended for her infants anywhere else.
She just needs to follow the female life path of being protected by a husband, then married off with a dowry, producing children enough to keep her instincts hooked into where they evolved.
Also, as Chris Rock joked, “nothing is more offensive to a woman than a man at rest”. This is her evolved psychology, not his.
Women tend to try to break down a husbands social networks as a means of control and shit testing. She wants to keep him away from other men (and especially women) who might open his eyes. Again, it's that power and control instinct.
That's why the manosphere rising is an occasion for cancelling.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Bravo !!
Well said! 1000 likes
To the writers of "Manskeeping" I would say "Do your own job and mind your own business"
which is Socrates definition of justice. The phrase, mind your own business, means that you want that person to stop asking you questions about your life or to stop prying into your life.
And that of course means that justice will be reciprocated.
"Mankeeping" - even the choice in terms is too transparent: women "consider" themselves like beekeepers - watching men, spraying smoke (false accusations) to protect themselves from docile bees so they can harvest the honey and show off to other women that they are the "Queen Bee"
Men tend to have fewer social connections not purely out of choice but because they are more likely to work full-time in more demanding jobs, and to be self-employed. They don't get maternity leave either, which is what enables many women to sustain broader social networks (i.e. mothers' groups). Put simply, men have less discretionary time to devote to socialising so their social networks tend to suffer once they enter the workforce.
Instead of encouraging men to socialise more, women are generally resentful of men socialising together without them (or even relaxing instead of fixing something). If women were less neurotic and controlling then everyone could be a lot happier.
What a load of shit. Nothing would aggravate me more than a wife doing these things. Treating me like a human being would be a better suggestion.
Great piece James. I’m just seeing this today 7/12/25. Myself and Karina Schneidman collaborated to bring the male/female perspective on this issue. Love your angle through research. We touched on research and spoke clinically - what we’re seeing in our practice.
https://open.substack.com/pub/tidbitsofaudacity/p/mankeeping-the-cluster-b-squads-newest?r=h20p2&utm_medium=ios
Thanks, I will read your essay.
Feminism is cancer and I will only reproduce with a woman who isn’t a feminist. They can all wither away childless for all I care.