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

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#71

Post by Timon3 »

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).

I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it directly hurts boys. Toxic masculinity isn't a description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of the social image of masculinity that are toxic. Stuff like "boys shouldn't cry" or "boys should suck up their problems and not talk about them". You don't improve boys' emotional needs by resuming this kind of messaging.

Masculinity itself is a wonderful thing and necessary for men to (at least partially) embrace - but not the parts that stunt their development and keep them alone! Instead it should be aspects like reliability, trustworthiness, empathy, confidence, emotional strength - what comes to mind when you think about what makes a good man.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#72

Post by lisasays »

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.

Is the ability to embolden one's self and power through stuff now considered "toxic" -- or intrinsically masculine?

If so, then we're in trouble.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#73

Post by dang »

xdennis wrote: post #22
Barrin92 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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]

Could you please stop posting to HN in the flamewar style? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, so we're trying for the opposite.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#74

Post by rich_sasha »

Timon3 wrote: post #71
tivert wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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).

I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it directly hurts boys . Toxic masculinity isn't a description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of the social image of masculinity that are toxic. Stuff like "boys shouldn't cry" or "boys should suck up their problems and not talk about them". You don't improve boys' emotional needs by resuming this…

That may be so, but it is totally not the popular image of "toxic masculinity". That would be more like, boys are aggressive, horrible to women, insensitive and their one mission in life is to not act in accordance with their flawed nature.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#75

Post by motohagiography »

We don't need a critical theory of boyhood, we just need to stop institutionally empowering people who hate their dads. I know many good men, and the defining characteristic of every single one of them is that regardless of who their father was, they accept him, and by extension they accept themselves. If you are still mad at him or have contempt for him, I recommend considering how it's manifesting in your beliefs about the world before even thinking about problematizing boyhood.

Obviously I'm quite suspicious of adults talking about how to raise boys, but only because the only problem they should be trying to solve at all is how to be a worthy example, and anything else is a substitute for that essential element. But the "concern" about boys is just another form aggression against them, imo.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#76

Post by Natsu »

hkt wrote: post #44
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,…

>> 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. ... > toxic masculinity

Maybe we could make progress by tabooing words that frame being male as a bad thing?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#77

Post by throwanem »

corinroyal wrote: post #57

In the nineties I joined a men's group retreat where we circled up and listened to each other's struggles, gave lots of support, and lots of hugs. Then we did some consciousness raising around circumcision and it's barbarity. We took our cue from the Feminist movement. They were getting their shit together and so could we. Gary Snyder read his gorgeous nature poetry, Peter Berg sold us on a green cities concept that…

Before this comment gets downvoted to hell by the shitshow that invariably characterizes HN discussion of men's issues, just to say I appreciate the historical context here in particular, and the confirmation that just because the fascist right owns the topic today doesn't mean it was ever thus - or that it needs to stay that way.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#78

Post by tivert »

Timon3 wrote: post #71
tivert wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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).

I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it directly hurts boys . Toxic masculinity isn't a description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of the social image of masculinity that are toxic. Stuff like "boys shouldn't cry" or "boys should suck up their problems and not talk about them". You don't improve boys' emotional needs by resuming this…

> I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it directly hurts boys. Toxic masculinity isn't a description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of the social image of masculinity that are toxic.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you're accurately describing a particular meaning of that term in some jargon, but that jargon doesn't control the meaning of the term.

There are certainly people who view masculinity itself as toxic, and I wouldn't be surprised if "toxic masculinity" has been borrowed to describe that view. It's a pretty straightforward application.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#79

Post by corinroyal »

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 wrong here, it burns! Feminists fight to integrate the military (while developing an critique of militarism), powerful traditionalist men fight to keep them out. Feminists are winning and now the US military is ~18% women and growing. In sexist Ukraine and Russia, the percentages are much lower. So tell me again how women are too weak for combat?

It's not feminists calling for powerful men to send disposable poor men into the grinder. It's not feminists calling for men to "man up" and pretend they don't have emotional needs or fears. That's all on traditionalist men. Sexist men don't get to both enforce such traditional roles while decrying them as unjust.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#80

Post by fatherlessthrow »

motohagiography wrote: post #75

We don't need a critical theory of boyhood, we just need to stop institutionally empowering people who hate their dads. I know many good men, and the defining characteristic of every single one of them is that regardless of who their father was, they accept him, and by extension they accept themselves. If you are still mad at him or have contempt for him, I recommend considering how it's manifesting in your beliefs a…

Provocative notion, but I agree. n = 1 : no father, but had some stabilizing male influences in my formative years.

People without good enough “father figures” turn out emotionally volatile. I see it in myself, and I see it in others. Sometimes, emotions should be observed and not yielded to. “Toxic masculinity” is just taking this to the extreme of disregarding all emotions. “Toxic femininity” is just yielding to all of one’s emotions. It mirrors the narcissist:BPD relationships (absent, cold, and self-absorbed man; next to the hysterical, ever-present, and needy woman).

A healthy person has cultivated both aspects of themselves in moderation (learning to listen to and identify one’s emotions, and having the good judgement to know when they should and shouldn’t be allowed to continue) — this is usually best done by emulating others with this healthy outlook, most commonly with a healthy mother and father (but with the dissolution of gender norms, gender doesn’t matter on the surface, so long as the people involved have nurtured both parts well).

The best way to raise boys is in a village with all sorts of people to learn from. The worst way is to neglect them and let them figure out life for themselves.

Post reply on HN