Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The data are clear: The boys are not all right

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#501

Post by symlinkk »

mrjangles wrote: post #474
awaythrow483 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 33, Ive got a fairly high IQ, make $340k in a STEM field and enough to retire tomorrow, I'm not unattractive, and put a huge amount of effort over many years into online dating. I've pretty much given up on dating. I have a total inability to find anyone I'm interested in that is interested in me. When I was younger and I wanted to go to bars and get drunk and be an idiot I had plenty of attractive sexual partner…

>huge amount of effort over many years into online dating My god I hope you aren't talking about tinder are you? You are totally clueless about women and dating if that is what you are talking about. Go out to bars, talk to people, do activities and meet lots of people. stop doing 'online' dating (of any kind) Seriously, myself and everyone I know found that upon reaching 33 the interest from women in their 20s sky r…

The majority of couples meet on Tinder these days. Your advice is outdated

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#502

Post by Spivak »

cperciva wrote: post #433
ReactiveJelly wrote: post #419

> we must stop defining masculinity as necessarily toxic I know "toxic masculinity" is a dumb academic term that never should have become a slogan, but Andrew, Mr. Yang, that's not what it means. It's like "async functions". Not all functions are async. It's okay if a function is sync. Adjectives modify nouns to make them refer to a specific subset. It's fine to be masculine. I don't know what it means to be masculin…

There's a difference between "toxic masculinity" and "asynchronous functions". Asynchronous functions are still functions, but there's nothing masculine about "toxic masculinity".

Toxic masculinity is literally masculine behaviors that end up harming the doer or the people around them — that’s why it’s called toxic. If you think it’s too politically charged then unhealthy masculinity is fine too.

Toxic masculinity is not solely men’s fault. It’s a systematic issue that is perpetuated by everyone.

Unhealthy independence is a good example. From the individual it’s “I don’t need anyone”, refusing help, and not forming connections. The worst manifestation of this is having to literally fight the men in my life to see a doctor for like glaringly obvious issues. It’s infuriating how many guys see it as emasculating. But from society it’s “glad to hear, because we’re not gonna offer you any help”, make you out to be a failure if you dare ask, and all media portrayal is going to make macho lone wolf archetypes seem cool and something you should strive for.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#503

Post by strken »

ReactiveJelly wrote: post #419

> we must stop defining masculinity as necessarily toxic I know "toxic masculinity" is a dumb academic term that never should have become a slogan, but Andrew, Mr. Yang, that's not what it means. It's like "async functions". Not all functions are async. It's okay if a function is sync. Adjectives modify nouns to make them refer to a specific subset. It's fine to be masculine. I don't know what it means to be masculin…

Functions are either asynchronous or synchronous. There's a dividing line between the two.

Masculine traits are not cleanly divisible like that. Is masculine emotional distance toxic? Maybe so, if it leads to unaddressed problems; or maybe not, if it helps a man to reframe things positively. Is taking control of a group toxic? Yes if it overwhelms or dominates others, and the man doesn't know how to follow; no if it's a willingness to step up only in situations where a leader is necessary. Is mansplaining a thing, and am I doing it? On the one hand, some men are braggarts and instant experts on everything; on the other, everyone needs to explain their own thoughts sometimes, even laymen.

I assume academics are well aware that some gender-coded traits are double-edged swords, but that nuance is lost in public conversations. I don't think I've ever heard a respectable public figure describe toxic femininity, either, though it obviously exists.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#504

Post by chrisseaton »

symlinkk wrote: post #496
chrisseaton wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lot of men and women who are generally not too motivated to seek out a companion, lose weight, put in the work to make it happen I don't think you need these things to find a partner and have children. Just go to a maternity ward. It sounds like you think everyone there is highly motivated, physically fit, and dedicated to working on relationships. They aren't. They're just normal people with a range of human flaws…

The selection process is on Tinder, not the maternity ward, and the bar is brutally high there for men.

> the bar is brutally high

The men I've seen in maternity wards are just totally normal men.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#505

Post by pie_flavor »

ReactiveJelly wrote: post #419

> we must stop defining masculinity as necessarily toxic I know "toxic masculinity" is a dumb academic term that never should have become a slogan, but Andrew, Mr. Yang, that's not what it means. It's like "async functions". Not all functions are async. It's okay if a function is sync. Adjectives modify nouns to make them refer to a specific subset. It's fine to be masculine. I don't know what it means to be masculin…

People say this, but both them and the people they're saying it to know perfectly well it's total garbage. You neuter it right in your description, even; masculinity is partially about pushing the boundaries of what's safe or sane. If entire classes of developers never said the word 'function' in a context other than async functions, except for when they're explicitly assuring people other contexts totally exist, then 'async functions' would be comparable.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#506

Post by fleddr »

ok_dad wrote: post #162
Beltalowda wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed; how is it fair that men are "forced" to work and provide income (with all the stress associated for that, especially for low-earners) and are "forced" to miss out on their kids? It seems to me that's just as much of an injustice as women being "forced" to stay at home. ("forced" in quotes as it's not strongly forced, but rather "forced" by expectations, prospects, etc.) I've long considered traditional gender…

Men are socialized to work by the same society that women are socialized to stay home and make babies. Feminism's direct goals would be breaking that down so that men could stay home (unfortunately we cannot make babies) and women could work, or any other combination, without the traditional gender role boundaries. Feminism's goals are good for everyone.

I'm sorry, but this is bullshit.

Women, regardless of their own earnings, do not want men that are unemployed, lowly employed, "in between jobs". You will be completely ignored. It's a crude reality, but a reality nevertheless. Men are selected by utility.

Read the article again. It seems there's whole armies of men with time on their hands. Unemployed, unable to get a partner. A great supply of male homemakers one would think.

But no. Nobody wants them. A male without utility is cast aside like trash.

Likewise, women do not really want the feminine or sensitive men that they claim to want. They may want it after first securing a man with good looks and good earnings, after which said man may at times express his emotions. But don't overdo it, obviously.

This feminist idea to destroy male gender roles directly contradicts what women actually do. For as long as feminists do not marry economically disadvantaged men and financially take care of them, none of this will change, and it's all just a bunch of hypocrisy.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#507

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #196
zozbot234 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being awkward around women in High School is a given, but as a thirty-something it can be profoundly uncomfortable and off-putting. Males should be fixing that by making some female friends. Don't go the "creepy incel who hates all women and Chads" route.

>" Don't go the "creepy incel who hates all women and Chads" route" Absolutely. I am on the autism spectrum so part of the difficulty I have can be attributed to that. However I accept that my social shortcomings are my own responsibility. I think a big part of the problem is finding new friends now that I am in my 30's and life is very stagnant.

Would you be open to advice? Regardless I wish you luck in your endeavors.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#508

Post by fooblitzky »

I'm a mid-30's white male. While I agree that large numbers of males unemployed, failing in education, not going to college etc is bad for society, it's uncomfortable to read a call for more funding for the purpose of helping men succeed.

Women are still paid less than men, and hold fewer positions of power in politics or business. They still far outnumber men as victims of sexual assault. They are still expected to carry the burden of unpaid domestic work and care.

If women as a whole are achieving more than men, despite the disadvantages they still suffer, then good on them. That funding should be going towards educating men so that women can walk down a street at night without a completely reasonable fear of violence.

The tone of the article comes off uncomfortably close to the whole incel thing.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#509

Post by orik »

Animats wrote: post #370

Some people say a man is made outta mud A poor man's made outta muscle and blood Muscle and blood and skin and bones A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong "Sixteen Tons", Tennessee Ernie Ford There are few Real Men jobs like that any more.

Hopefully not “another day over and deeper in debt / I owe my soul to the company store”.

Great song though

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#510

Post by mdorazio »

lariati wrote: post #424
thrway99 wrote: post #61

My observation is that we are going to have a radical rebalancing of who reproduces and who doesn’t. Lot of men and women who are generally not too motivated to seek out a companion, lose weight, put in the work to make it happen just…won’t pass on genetics. Children are a lot of work and energy. I’m highly introverted and high earning. My wife was the aggressor in my case. She pretty much made it all happen. I think…

You are generalizing your stable situation and values far too much. The population stats are something like 60% of men will be fathers but 90-95% of women will be mothers. Most women who can reproduce will but a huge percent of men who can will not. 40% of births are outside of marriage in the US. I would think the only real generalization that can be made is that an introverted guy with money is more likely to get m…

Not sure what stats you're looking at. In the US it's about 80% of women [1] and 60% of men [2]. More interesting to me is the overall downward trend in fertility rates.

[1] https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-rise-of-childless-america

[2] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/mens-fer...

Post reply on HN