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

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#231

Post by abracadaniel »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #87
jimbob45 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It’s possible that father presence for kids is only so valuable because the only fathers that stick around are the ones that care. Even if this would be the case, we should allow those fathers to spend more time with their kids. For example, it is very difficult for a man to find a part-time job. Most companies take "I also want to spend some time with my kids" as "I don't really care about the work I do". You can…

4 day work week, should be more common for this case here. If it were offered, I would take it, even if just for a few years while the kids are little.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#232

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#233

Post by brickteacup »

arp242 wrote: post #184
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.

Last year there was some graffiti near my house: "Trans rights are human rights!" Okay, fair enough. Then a few metres later, in the same colour and obviously by the same person: "Kill all men!" People will say "yes, but it doesn't mean literally kill all men", and of course it doesn't. But it's not exactly positive, is it?

I really wanna ask whoever wrote that if trans men are included

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#234

Post by magicalist »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #160
otoburb wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cosby's criminal conviction(s)[1] undermined much of what he championed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_case...

I don't see it that way. You've fallen for a tu quoque fallacy. To say that Cosby was hypocritical doesn't seem to devalue the merits of his message: that men need to step up, that fathers need to stop being absent, take some responsibility for the dignity of women and children. If anything, it makes it even more poignant. Haven't you ever seen a man in prison, pleading with his son not to turn out like him? Does the…

> You've fallen for a tu quoque fallacy.

You literally cited his personal experience in your original comment, and thought it relevant enough to take up one of the two sentences in it, so I don't see a problem with the response.

The man is a self confessed serial rapist. Maybe look to almost anyone else's opinion on the importance of father figures.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#235

Post by QuarterReptile »

arp242 wrote: post #184
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.

Last year there was some graffiti near my house: "Trans rights are human rights!" Okay, fair enough. Then a few metres later, in the same colour and obviously by the same person: "Kill all men!" People will say "yes, but it doesn't mean literally kill all men", and of course it doesn't. But it's not exactly positive, is it?

Just to be clear, "kill all men" literally means "kill all men", whatever the mindset of the man broadcasting it.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#236

Post by XorNot »

throwaway675309 wrote: post #203
Panzer04 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you say the problems facing people other than man are far worse? I'm genuinely curious, because often conversation around these topics will go along the lines of "well, women have to worry about getting beaten up" (or (sexually) assaulted, etc), but men have problems too! The above attitude I feel like minimises men's problems - the implicit assumption is that everyone else has it worse, whether that attit…

I don't wanna get into a whole thing, but if you stop to think for maybe 10 seconds, you'd realize that the problems women face (physically, socially, economically ,etc) are incomparably worse than what men face. - How about the fact that in some countries women can't even show their hair, have the right to drive or vote? - How about the fact that women are several times more likely to be sexually assaulted? - How ab…

Also that most problems women face are also part of related issues for men: the construction of femininity in opposition to masculinity has been the basis of an enormous amount of bullying and emotional trauma for men who are perceived to not adequately meet whatever arbitrary standard of "manliness" is allowed.

This should be familiar to most male members of this forum: being the computer nerd was weak, not playing the man's sports was "girly", not meeting body image standards is contrasted to being too feminine.

Men who are raped aren't taken seriously at all because of these problems. But that's never getting fixed so long as your only answer (and it's rife in this thread) is to construct these issues in opposition to femininity.

Instead everyone can remember one person saying "men suck" in some context, and on that basis they're clamoring to tear down decades of progress on equality. Which isn't going to help any man.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#237

Post by yarg »

arp242 wrote: post #184
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.

Last year there was some graffiti near my house: "Trans rights are human rights!" Okay, fair enough. Then a few metres later, in the same colour and obviously by the same person: "Kill all men!" People will say "yes, but it doesn't mean literally kill all men", and of course it doesn't. But it's not exactly positive, is it?

[flagged]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#238

Post by MyShawdowySelf »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #160
otoburb wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cosby's criminal conviction(s)[1] undermined much of what he championed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_case...

I don't see it that way. You've fallen for a tu quoque fallacy. To say that Cosby was hypocritical doesn't seem to devalue the merits of his message: that men need to step up, that fathers need to stop being absent, take some responsibility for the dignity of women and children. If anything, it makes it even more poignant. Haven't you ever seen a man in prison, pleading with his son not to turn out like him? Does the…

True, even slyzz ball can be have good argument.

However, the problem about Cosby, and the general "men need to step up" crowd is that frame the issue of absent father as a moral and character issues. Never going deeper to understand if there were external constraints pushing those men out.

We shouldn't completly alleviate those absent father from any responsibilities for their choice, but we should also look at the cause and condition making those choices so prevalent.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#239

Post by htag »

arp242 wrote: post #184
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.

Last year there was some graffiti near my house: "Trans rights are human rights!" Okay, fair enough. Then a few metres later, in the same colour and obviously by the same person: "Kill all men!" People will say "yes, but it doesn't mean literally kill all men", and of course it doesn't. But it's not exactly positive, is it?

That person has very strong emotions about gender.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#240

Post by foogazi »

> Fathers are also more likely to sing to and soothe their toddler daughters at night when they cry.

100 years ago father’s wouldn’t even talk to their kids. I don’t think dads even went into the delivery room

Dad’s didn’t get time off from work to be with their wives when the baby was born or get bonding time

Things are definitely getting better on this front

Post reply on HN