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

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#41

Post by EatingWithForks »

joemazerino wrote: post #23
icegreentea2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Actually I think a man who doesn't seriously acknowledge their own self as an emotional being is the opposite of adapting and overcoming. There should be nothing weak about acknowledging when you're too upset to handle a situation. My professional life would be vastly improved if the men around me had the emotional intelligence to realize they're getting worked up about a code review or something and to take a walk for 10 min instead of assuming their anger is always logically justified somehow.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#42

Post by fullspectrumdev »

rr808 wrote: post #31

Its interesting how in Ukraine and Russia and countries which really need soldiers and heavy security how males are treated. It seems in Western comfortable countries there isn't any advantage in being male, women can do everything just fine. Until someone invades, then everyone wants the thugs to come out and do their thing.

What, exactly, are you trying to say.

Have you been to Ukraine?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#43

Post by fullspectrumdev »

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.

[flagged]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#44

Post by hkt »

caditinpiscinam wrote: post #29

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.

Totally. When my kid was young and I was out with him the other parents (invariably women) treated me as an oddity and assumed I would be incompetent. Yet, many don't like the fact they're saddled with the majority of childrearing.

Dating is much the same: the majority of the hetero/bi female dating pool selects in favour of features that are often red flags for toxic masculinity. This gets better as one gets older, mercifully, but gender is a verb as well as a noun, and men and women alike aggressively gender one another and unwittingly punish people who deviate from the rules.

Still, at least we're talking about it. Previous generations succumbed badly to gender essentialism - "men are from Mars" and that stuff - and as ever, left a mess for the next generations.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#45

Post by codr7 »

ravenstine wrote: post #28
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'…

The funny thing is many women seem to prefer exactly the kind of men everyone is complaining about, and not because they really like them either. Nice guys are always treated like trash.

I can count the number of healthy relationships I've seen in this life on one hand.

I don't know exactly how we ended up here; but unless things get better fast, over population will be the least of our troubles.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#46

Post by hparadiz »

xdennis wrote: post #16
leodler wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> slighting your identity I'm not a strong male, so it's not slighting anything. But I don't like it when basic truths are denied. If you look at Ukraine, pretty much all of the assault forces are made of men, the sex this paper considers fragile and vulnerable. Societies which publish such papers are lucky they are not under attack because they wouldn't last long if they put in front the sex THEY consider stronger.

The assault forces aren't men because they are "stronger" but because society shames men for not fighting. I've had frank discussions with women on this topic and it always comes down to "fuck that I don't want equal rights. I don't want to be drafted in a war" - direct quote from a ex. The shame that comes down on men from women during wartime is intense.

See the White Feather movement in the UK during WW1.

To be fair I've seen quite a few women fight in Ukraine but they are outnumbered by men something like 1:100. Even in Israel where women are drafted and have compulsory service they still are shielded from the real meat grinder operations.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#47

Post by dauertewigkeit »

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.

[flagged]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#48

Post by bitwize »

joemazerino wrote: post #23
icegreentea2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

What boys need in order to become men are coping skills. I... didn't really get these growing up. I was simply taught that "men don't cry" and there are consequences for having been seen to cry. I started covering up the times I cried, and then I learned there are consequences for lying, too. I had to figure out a lot on my own, and it took longer than it should have.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#49

Post by voldacar »

rr808 wrote: post #31

Its interesting how in Ukraine and Russia and countries which really need soldiers and heavy security how males are treated. It seems in Western comfortable countries there isn't any advantage in being male, women can do everything just fine. Until someone invades, then everyone wants the thugs to come out and do their thing.

How are men treated there? I'm not sure what your point is. Most of us haven't lived in Ukraine or Russia.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#50

Post by klyrs »

tivert wrote: post #21
gumby wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

No, women are subject to ridiculous double standards from everything from body shame (too skinny too fat too ugly too pretty too grown too immature) to their clothing, manner of speech, grooming, and on and on.

"Toxic masculinity" is a problem because of cultural standards where it is seen as manly to harm others. I know lots of very manly men, who are secure in their manhood where that isn't the least bit toxic. I don't think that, for example, cat-calling is manly. But I would describe it as toxic.

Post reply on HN