Live data from Hacker News

Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

wbur.org

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#261
post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know many good men, and the defining characteristic of every single one of them is That would stand if you considered every guy talking shit about their father as "bad" men, regardless of how they behave otherwise. I agree having a settle relationship with one's father is better, but people with legitimate grief against their father and having objective disgust about what they did as human beings shouldn't be a d…

Hate implies resistance, while acceptance has no resistance. It's this resistance that manifests itself in how they treat men in general.

Someone who hates how their father behaved and treated them, and put their soul into being better as a human being would still fit that "resistance" theme. That resistance could totally manifest in them not engaging in aggressive or corrosive behavior toward other men, if that's part of what they hated in their father.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#262
post #39
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.

As someone who grew up on shitty side of that research, I make it a point in my life to be the exact opposite for my son.

My father attempted to be the opposite of my grandfather and yet still remained very similar to him. Thankfully still an improvement over my grandfather. Not implying this is you too. Just thought the observation was interesting.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#263

tbh its not just ignoring their emotional needs, painting this as an emotional needs problems just characterizes them as women and basically claims that men need to be treated like women, which is not true. its ignoring their developmental needs you need some kind of expertise to feel like you can make even the most basic of professions out of you need responsibility you need role models that you can choose and can t…

Were you expecting this 1000 word piece to address all social, emotional, mental, and physical needs of a child? I don't see anything in the piece that contradicts the developmental needs you list, except of course treating the need for emotional support as inherently a feminine trait, which is very well addressed by the piece.

Men have a need to feel like men, which means different from women. As emotional support is considered a feminine thing it might be better to use a different framing without necessarily changing much of the substance.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#264
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misandry is normalized in society. Whenever you encounter a baseless attack on men just reverse the roles and you'll realize that there'd be pitchforks for treating women as anything other than paragons of virtue. Entire entertainment genres are built around portraying men as inept fools who can be looked down upon by the opposite sex. Seinfeld is one of the few sitcoms where a female character is as flawed as the me…

Seinfeld was pretty good, eh? > Misandry is normalized in society. Is it? I don't regularly (if ever) encounter "baseless attacks on men"... excepting situations where "reversing the roles" would result in the perpetrator still being a man and the victim still being a man. > there'd be pitchforks for treating women as anything other than paragons of virtue. Wait, are you doing a sarcasm? Who wields the pitchforks? It…

You just have to look at some of the prominent Karens who are now getting their behavior recorded to see how many have internalized this concept. Both SoHo and Central Park Karen's were quick to don the caul of victimhood to shine a negative light on males and seek special treatment when they were in fact the victimizers.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#265
post #184

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?

What exactly does it mean then? No matter how charitable I view "Kill all men!", I fail to find an interpretation that doesn't mean "Kill all men!".

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#266
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

:%s/men/jews/g Doesn’t seem ok now does it? Because no matter what it’s not ok to call for the death of any group. JFC why is this is hard?

Have you ever tried this approach in the real world? In my experience it just makes things worse.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#267
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe our entire school system is setup to offer success to women, and failure to boys. And that's why most entrepreneurs/successful people are men. System was rough to them since the start, putting them down during every occasion and most boys have learnt how to stand up back on their feet again since early age. The system offered them failure and gave them resiliency. Girls were carried around and when real l…

I can’t tell if this is a troll or serious.

Unfortunately, I think they and the people agreeing with him are actually being serious. I wonder if this is something they picked up through their lived experience or if they're just stuck in some sort of bubble.

>"our entire school system is setup to offer success to women, and failure to boys." And these comments just strike me as strange especially in STEM. It's only recently that girls are being pushed towards this path, after decades of being actively pushed out and consistently told they are worse than their male peers.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#268

This plays out at all levels. I felt extremely insulted just a few days ago when my youngest’s preschool held a gathering to celebrate their “graduation” to pre-school. At least 4 times mothers were called on to step forward— once to have a song sung to them, another to receive a flower, etc. Fathers were not mentioned at all. This prompted me to look around, get a rough sense of the distribution… Counting the kids &…

[flagged]

I'd encourage you to look up what toxic masculinity is and reflect on it

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I watched my wife (and our lives) before and after children and I disagree. She was always strong, but nothing challenges her, or us, like raising kids. Especially after the toll pregnancy had on her body. That's not to say it's the only virtuous thing a woman can do, but it's so incredibly selfless to continuously drain your body and mind intentionally for the sake of a child's well-being.

> to continuously drain your body and mind intentionally for the sake of a child's well-being.

This is gonna sound a little facetious, but... aren't you also doing the same?

> it's so incredibly selfless

Perpetuation of one's genes is far from selfless. (Unless perhaps one views one's genes as the important entity, and oneself as their mere vessel. But that's too deep for this post.)

I've heard an emotionally immature would-be mother say that pregnancy and motherhood is basically her license to be selfish. ("From now on I get to only think about myself", were her words. Personally, I'm not OK with anyone raising children while holding such mentality, as I believe they would not be able to empathize healthily with the needs of the child. I strongly advised her to reconsider, and got a response that she "wished she lived in a jurisdiction where abortions are illegal". This is your brain on patriarchy!)

I'm happy that you and your wife find it worthwhile to raise children. More power to you! But I responded to:

> Can you think of anything feminine that takes more strength than motherhood

with: remaining childless. So I think your counterpoint misses the mark.

---

On a related note, the discussion in other subthreads largely focuses on the role of "good" and "bad" father figures in the emotional growth of young men. The loss of good role models is lamented, and the men of the past are idealized as "the men of a a more cohesive society" or smth as if the 20th century was an idyllic utopia lol.

But wasn't the previous generation of men even less in touch with their emotions? And wasn't it more accepted in past generations to solve problems through violence and destruction? So why weep for this cycle being broken, instead of inventing something better? Last time I checked this was Hacker News, not Curmudgeon News ffs

I believe we should more openly consider the possibility that some percentage of males grow up fucked up because it was their mother who was not a decent person. Or perhaps she was a perfectly decent person who made a bad choice in the given circumstances, resulting in a poor environment for an infant to receive initial limbic calibration.

Because hey, nobody is infallible, not even childbearers. Crazy I know. This is a huge blind spot of our culture: being a mother is a tremendous responsibility, and we just sort of decide that there's no way for it to go wrong?

At the same time, virtually everyone means well to mothers and children. Nobody wants to make mothers more anxious, because that might just unleash a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which is the last thing anyone needs in this climate. So it's a really touchy subject - with which I unfortunately have a smidgen of experience - so I'll allow myself to elaborate for diversity's sake.

You know how in some traditional societies, people are considered mature and ready to start a family soon after puberty? While in our hi-tech utopia we remain infantilised throughout our 20s (which are prime reproductive age, biologically speaking), for the sake of an education that may or may not bring the promised benefits?

So there's an ubiquitous mix of vaguely contradictory cultural and biological factors that strongly pressure women into motherhood. Whether they want it or not. Whether they are in fact mature enough to make this decision or not.

This pressure is generally stronger than the willpower of an individual human being. Therefore, it takes considerably more fortitude to resist it, than to go with the default.

It's institutionalized misogyny on the deepest level: our society's self-perpetuation depends on this cycle of morally sanctioned self-delusion, and good luck unrooting that one without conceding ground to even harsher ways of life!

Many (most?) young women have been conditioned throughout their lives that their ultimate "purpose" is to be mothers, and that their validity as human beings depends on their child-bearing potential. In the meantime, just like young men, they are deprived of opportunities for maturation and personal growth, and only offered a shallow existence in a maliciously confusing environment.

And this is how you end up a whole lot of very broken children who subconsciously wish they have never been born. Those children then grow up as insecure assholes who cause suffering for themselves and others while they blindly stumble to independently achieve the sense of personal safety and integrity that their caregivers failed to bestow upon them. (Source: am one.)

Men being pressured into parenthood by women who are themselves pressured into parenthood, is how you end up with absent, abusive, or ineffectual fathers. It's far from the only factor - but without this secret ingredient, they'd just harmlessly do their thing till they die, and not perpetuate their immaturity into the generations.

See also: rise of abortion bans, survivorship bias, falcolas and Pigalowda's posts.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#270
post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

:%s/men/jews/g Doesn’t seem ok now does it? Because no matter what it’s not ok to call for the death of any group. JFC why is this is hard?

The distinction is that Jews can and indeed repeatedly have been rounded up and slaughtered. Not something that will ever happen to 'men' as a whole class (who would do it? Women?)
Post reply on HN