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

Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

wbur.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#21

Post by tivert »

gumby wrote: post #15
rich_sasha wrote: post #12

My impression is, men are stuck in a world where they are told not to be men. Toxic masculinity is perhaps a thing, but boys are told endlessly how they shouldn't behave and how their nature is flawed. Girls on the other hand, all is well.

> Girls on the other hand, all is well. This is also far from the case.

>> Girls on the other hand, all is well.

> This is also far from the case.

Yes, all is not well with girls, but I don't think they have to deal with an analog of the condemnation of "toxic masculinity" and messages that "their nature is flawed." I believe their problems are frequently blamed on external actors (e.g. beauty magazines, social media, etc).

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#22

Post by xdennis »

Barrin92 wrote: post #17
xdennis wrote: post #7

[flagged]

>It contradicts even the most basic of common sense It doesn't do that at all. The most obvious example of this is unemployment. When men lose jobs, they are at much higher risk to slide into social isolation, drug use and even suicide. Anti-social behavior among women in those situations is much less common. Young men without perspective likewise are much more likely to turn towards extremism, violence and so on. Mo…

[flagged]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#23

Post by joemazerino »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #13
MattGaiser wrote: post #2

> many young men don’t seek emotional support when they need it because they fear being perceived as weak and ineffective. I would be curious to see a study on what happens to those men who do seek it. As in every last case I anecdotally am aware of, that perception quickly became reality and those men regretted it.

Right, I think the article would completely agree that society as it is right now is not a broadly accepting place for males to be open about their emotional needs. Which is why the call to action isn't for males to be emotionally open in general, but for fathers to try to have more positive and supportive interactions with their sons about emotional needs. And why the article's guide point is 'Encourage them to shar…

[flagged]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#24

Post by maxerickson »

jimbob45 wrote: post #19
jl6 wrote: post #11

> New research shows that when fathers are present and emotionally invested in children’s lives, they are more likely to develop a stronger sense of self-worth and excel in everything from school to relationships. Regardless of the debate on how tough (or not) love should be, the absent fathers issue seems like something concrete and impactful that we should be trying to address.

How do you even address something like that? Even if you paid each father $10k to stick around to age 18, that doesn’t guarantee that they wouldn’t become domestic abusers, suicide victims, or would even be good role models. It’s possible that father presence for kids is only so valuable because the only fathers that stick around are the ones that care.

A good start is to not beg the question.

Are you doing something other than assuming that 'caring' is the primary factor?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#25

Post by rubicon33 »

rich_sasha wrote: post #12

My impression is, men are stuck in a world where they are told not to be men. Toxic masculinity is perhaps a thing, but boys are told endlessly how they shouldn't behave and how their nature is flawed. Girls on the other hand, all is well.

I think it actually is far deeper than that. I believe our entire school system is setup to offer success to women, and failure to boys.

Take as one point the fact that boys brains develop slower and later into life than women. Should then boys be competing against women of the same age given what we know?

Take as another point the decline in physical activity in schools and the reduction is recess time. Does this negatively impact boys more than girls? I think so, but it hurts then both to be sure.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#26

Post by rosmax_1337 »

leodler wrote: post #14
xdennis wrote: post #7

[flagged]

It's unfortunate that you're (willfully?) uninformed to such a degree that you perceive these passages as slighting your identity or something, but what they're saying isn't controversial scientifically.

What are those passages saying, scientifically?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#28

Post by ravenstine »

joemazerino wrote: post #20

The reality of the world dictates that men require a smidgen of "toxic masculinity" to power through. Try telling a sewer cleaner to feel more, or share his feelings. He instead should embolden himself and power through it.

Even if the material world didn't require this, it's required by a substantial portion of women, romantically speaking. Many women express their concern that "he never shares his emotions", but when he finally does express his emotions and what truly bothers him she finds herself unusually dry and loses respect for him. Some men never have to learn this the hard way, and they're fortunate. It's common enough that it's not hard to find such stories online.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#29

Post by caditinpiscinam »

As a black guy I don't remember a friend ever saying "black people suck" to my face. But I've heard people I'm close with, both women and men, say that "men suck" countless times. I think a lot of people who don't see themselves as "biased" still carry a lot of bias when it comes to gender, and it has an impact.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#30

Post by troupe »

jimbob45 wrote: post #19
jl6 wrote: post #11

> New research shows that when fathers are present and emotionally invested in children’s lives, they are more likely to develop a stronger sense of self-worth and excel in everything from school to relationships. Regardless of the debate on how tough (or not) love should be, the absent fathers issue seems like something concrete and impactful that we should be trying to address.

How do you even address something like that? Even if you paid each father $10k to stick around to age 18, that doesn’t guarantee that they wouldn’t become domestic abusers, suicide victims, or would even be good role models. It’s possible that father presence for kids is only so valuable because the only fathers that stick around are the ones that care.

> only so valuable because the only fathers that stick around are the ones that care.

Last time I looked at data about this, it appeared that even a poor father who was present was better than no having a father in the home. If I remember right it was measuring the likeliness of a teenager to end up in prison. If there was a segment of fathers that were worse than not having a father, I don't think it shows up in any study I've seen.

Gilder's Wealth and Poverty book cites a lot of studies and examples showing how society has changed in ways making it harder for dads to stick around with everything from how drug policies are enforced to the way that welfare resources are allocated.

Post reply on HN