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

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#101

Post by seattle_spring »

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…

Err… what? So people with abusive or absent dads should just forgive and love them?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#102

Post by dauertewigkeit »

mock-possum wrote: post #81
dauertewigkeit wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is that they do not mean it. What they want is for the man to make her feel loved. What they do not want is for the man to express his deepest insecurities and make her feel insecure by proxy because she depends on him.

I mean turning dependency into codependency isn’t exactly a step in the right direction is it

Not even joking: isn't that was a romantic relationship is? What is this fear of becoming dependent on your partner? If I didn't need a partner then I would remain single. Isn't love a form of dependency?

I think this very modern fear of being dependent on your partner emerged of late because of the way sexual liberalism eroded the security of romantic relationships. Nothing means anything anymore and your partner can leave you at any moment, therefore you have to somehow remain completely independent while leading a relationship.

But at the same time, to truly open yourself and love someone you have to become somewhat dependent on them.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#103

Post by version_five »

This sounds like they're not really taking into account boys needs, with the idea that we shouldn't be "gendered" when relating to them.

This made me think of Andrew Tate, who is a douchebag, but has a huge following with young men, apparently because he has found a way to appeal to them emotionally. Anyone who is looking at how to push boys in the right direction should look at what appeals to them and meet them where they are, not try to push some idea of emotional help that will only preach to the choir, which is what I see society doing. I definitely agree this role is best filled by fathers.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#104

Post by Viliam1234 »

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…

If you want to reduce the pressure on boys to do X, then calling X an "(adjective) masculinity" is exactly the wrong way to go.

Things that are bad, just call them collectively "toxic behavior", without reminding the boys that this is the stuff that they are not supposed - but also kinda supposed - to do. You may also include some toxic behaviors stereotypically attributed to women, to make it obvious that we are criticizing bad behavior in general, not just a specific sex.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#105

Post by FeistySkink »

klik99 wrote: post #85
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.

Yeah exactly. I let this kind of thing slide because obviously the problems facing minorities/women as groups are far worse than the problems facing men as a group, but just shifting the conversation from "I think group A of people is the problem" to "I think group B of people is the problem" is creating downstream problems. And there are very real issues facing men - suicide rates are dramatic enough to indicate tha…

There's a 5:1 male:female suicide rate in my home country. This has been going on for decades. "Temporarily" saying "men suck" doesn't help.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#106

Post by 411111111111111 »

version_five wrote: post #91
Natsu wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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?

I found the post you replied to very incongruous, because as I read it started with the idea that men are casually discriminated against (responding to the "men suck" thing) and then skewed into something that may be an issue but is completely in a different spirit (men defying stereotypes by being primary child carers) and then committed exactly the same offence the original post was pointing out with "toxic masculi…

Toxic masculinity means something very specific, i.e. surpressing emotions other then anger and rage.

I don't think it's fair to equate that to "men bad".

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#107

Post by gemstones »

akomtu wrote: post #90
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.

[flagged]

Interestingly, this is a plot point in a very popular Chinese-language sci-fi novel called Death’s End. Humanity is deliberately nudged to take on more feminine qualities to make them a less effective fighting force against a colonizing species.

The author had to run his book by the CCP - you get the sense this hints at an accepted strategy in the Chinese mainland. It’s an interesting read.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#108

Post by davidguetta »

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,…

> majority of the hetero/bi female dating pool selects in favour of features that are often red flags for toxic masculinity

This is so insane. Anyone who's been enough a player of the dating game and treed to optimise your strategy known you will end up becoming or (in my case) pretending to be "toxic masculinity" because it work so much more on girls.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#109

Post by Terr_ »

akomtu wrote: post #90
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.

[flagged]

> What's surprising is there is no visible response to neutralise that dogma.

Perhaps because your exceedingly-vague conspiracy theory is full of holes? For example:

1. Which foreign governments are you accusing? Do you even know, or are you just assuming somebody must be doing the thing?

2. Exactly what mechanism of foreign "grants" is being used to force the hiring of certain staff or educators, and where are they being hired?

3. What makes those individuals "demoralizing" actors, and why do you believe they have a significant effect on "young men"?

4. On what grounds can it be anything but noise, a tiny droplet in the heaving cultural ocean that is "current gender roles and expectations"?

_____

Truly nefarious foes would probably have much better results (for less money) just pumping out catchy songs with demoralizing subtext and hoping one gets popular. Heck, maybe they even spread a dogma of powerlessness by funding US Christian Radio stations, constantly telling people they are nothing without Jesus.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#110

Post by xwdv »

akomtu wrote: post #90
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.

[flagged]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN