Note the only reason I include “white” here is that, at least in America (for complex historical reasons), a particular mixture of racism and sexism is commonplace, producing a synergy between white identity and male identity: they reciprocally amp each other up. It is thus important to understand their tight relationship (see this article for an introduction to this phenomenon).

But the general idea of “male grievance” (as also “white grievance”) is a culture and mindset whereby men (qua men) complain about things and blame others for those things, when they have the wrong conception of what is even causing those things. They have “grievances” not legitimate complaints. And they center their grievances egoistically (it drives most of their ideology). And this then becomes a domain of code words and dogwhistles: where someone will see a sentence and interpret it through the lens of that cultural perspective.

Thus “it does not feel safe or acceptable for a boy or man to be just who he is” is a dogwhistle: it is a coded, indirect way to appeal to (and thus activate) this grievance culture, so that the writer and his aggrieved reader know what he means, but the author retains plausible deniability should anyone else criticize what he really meant (he can then claim he “didn’t really mean that”). This is a well known psychological and rhetorical phenomenon and it is a red flag for bigoted or toxic ideologies. It thus raises an eyebrow and is a subject of concern. It is possible Glover is oblivious to this and did mean something else. But that’s still a problem. Because it means what he “really meant” won’t be what many of his readers heard him say.

For more on white male grievance culture as a phenomenon see the EverybodyWiki entry on Grievance Politics and its bibliography. For examples see my article A Bayesian Analysis of Susannah Rees’s Ishtar-in-the-Manosphere Thesis and Edward Lempinen’s article “Loss, fear and rage: Are white men rebelling against democracy?” for the Berkeley News, as well as Eric Madfis’ sociological study “Triple Entitlement and Homicidal Anger: An Exploration of the Intersectional Identities of American Mass Murderers” and Leigh Paterson’s updated observations from it in “Many Mass Shooters Share A Common Bond: Male Grievance Culture” for NPR (those authors apply the cultural phenomenon as an explanation of a more isolated phenomenon of mass shooting, but in result they document and illustrate the wider culture that generates those extremists).

My conclusions logically follow from the actual evidence. His do not.

That’s the difference.

There is no such thing as what you describe as “feminism.” No feminist argues such nonsense.

You need to get out of your delusion and comprehend the reality of what feminism actually is and actually argues.

Here is some starting material:

• A Primer on Fourth Wave Feminism

• The Core Ideas and Beliefs of Feminism

You won’t even find your claims in the massive Wikipedia article on feminism. Because such teachings have never been a part of feminism.

I’m of the opinion that both feminists and Dr. Robert Glovers of the world are BOTH wrong. It’s benevolent sexist idea that men always fully accountable for their actions while women are not. It’s essentially claims that men are full agents in their lives while women are not.

It is not possible that both men and women are both agents and recipients? And both are responsible for how they treat each other? And most of the time one side shouldn’t take full responsibility for how a relationship goes.

I hardly ever watch videos. So I won’t likely know the answer to that question. 🙂

But I will check out the one on Peterson on your recommendation. If it tracks, I might add it to my Jordan Peterson page.

I concur with all that. Thank you for appending it here. It’s a worthwhile footnote.

I’ve only read the first part so far and I agree with you on your criticism of psychology; particularly with how drugs are used in psychotherapy. There’s a lot of money behind it and I don’t foresee any change any time soon.

Another issue that I have is that as a psychotherapist you don’t study full body anatomy and medicine. Mental illness isn’t always caused by malfunctions in the nervous system, but in other systems as well, such as in the digestive system (a lot of serotonin is produced in the gut, for example). That’s why studying brain anatomy doesn’t seem sufficient if you want to call yourself a psychotherapist, IMO.

Another point I want to make is that the terms “psychology” and “psychotherapy” are often used interchangeably, but they are not synonyms. There are sports and occupational psychologists, for example, whose goal is to improve performance, not to cure mental illness or to provide therapy. “Psychology” is the umbrella term and a psychotherapist is necessarily a psychologist but a psychologist is not necessarily a psychotherapist.

But I agree, Psychology is still a great field of study that has taught us a lot about human behavior. And YES, it is a science! I don’t get why some people claim it’s not!