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

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#331

Post by ineedasername »

foogazi wrote: post #244
mattdeboard wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So would you say that the commenter you’re replying to needs to stop complaining and just fix his own problems? And that in general men need to quit talking about feelings of sadness and disappointment (aka throwing a pity party)? Because, my guy, lol. The irony is absolutely impeccable.

They are complaining but didn’t participate in the planning and therefore surrendered all agency Only thing left is complain why they didn’t think of him when he wasn’t around

As stated in my other reply, there was no parent participation in the planning of this. It was a done by the preschool in its entirety. No parents, mothers, fathers, or other legal guardians had a part in planning things.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#332

Post by seabird »

EatingWithForks wrote: post #299
plewd wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Jordan Peterson is doing a decent job at this though, his stance on helping young men is quite similar to Tate's, albeit less delusional.

Jordan Peterson's focus on trans people/fat women instead of men's issues is hella distracting though

It is, but part of being a man (and more importantly, a good person) is understanding that there's a limit to how much you should be looking up to somebody. At some point, the sense of right and wrong you have developed in your life needs to override the mental influence somebody has over you, at which point you can appreciate and continue doing the good that they do without perpetuating the bad. Somebody who has developed as a man probably first experiences this with their parents (or parent figures), and continues experiencing it multiple times throughout their life. There's no reason somebody can't do it first with Peterson. It's a valuable lesson.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#333

Post by jimmaswell »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #245

It is absolutely true that boys have been neglected. But the contempt of men is a recent phenomenon. Feminism has a great deal to do with it, demonizing masculinity by construing all men as brutes and promoting the false doctrine that men are unnecessary, that women are self-sufficient, that the patriarchy is some kind of evil oppressive thing. All of that is false. Men and women are complementary , which is to say t…

> All children need fathers

Every study I've seen on the subject has said that children of same sex parents, including having two mothers, do as well or better than their peers across any metric of wellbeing or success.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#334

Post by ForRealsies »

lowken wrote: post #328
somewhereoutth wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a reason virtually every culture is patriarchal. It's because men are physically stronger than women. That's it. That's all it is.

This is not true. The reason men tend to rule things is because men tend to lift each other up in life to a higher degree than women do.

[dead]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#335

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#336

Post by lockhouse »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #310
lockhouse wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's that simple. The fact that women give birth, have periods, and have a hormonal cycle that has wide ranging impact upon their psyche and decision making processes also has probably had a major impact on most cultures trending patriarchal.

What do you mean by 'impact on their psyche and decision making processes'? They are less mentally capable in some sense? I'd like you to spell it out.

It’s no mystery that during certain parts of a woman’s menstrual cycle they become prone to being more emotional.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#337

Post by carabiner »

em-bee wrote: post #329
carabiner wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brene Brown studied it. It does not turn out well for men: > I was not prepared to hear over and over from men how the women — the mothers, sisters, girlfriends, wives — in their lives are constantly criticizing them for not being open and vulnerable and intimate, all the while they are standing in front of that cramped wizard closet where their men are huddled inside, adjusting the curtain and making sure no one see…

i'd suggest the total opposite: do talk about your feelings, and if she can't handle it then she isn't the right partner for you.

You've just whittled down your already small dating pool to something even smaller, or you've alienated your girlfriend (or wife) of 3 years. Was it worth it?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#338

Post by yowlingcat »

seabird wrote: post #322
plewd wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Jordan Peterson is doing a decent job at this though, his stance on helping young men is quite similar to Tate's, albeit less delusional.

Peterson is a perfect example of how being reasonable doesn't work. His ideology/commentary had nowhere near the delusion and woe-is-me gnashing of teeth that Tate's grift revolves around, it is nowhere near as destructive to its target audience and society, and it caught the dude so much shit that he basically self-destructed. There was a $35 million film made where the villain was based on him, with the director ha…

Couldn't agree more, and I've spent a lot of time looking at this particular strain of culture from both sides and talking to high up figures inside of it. I'm surprised by the commentary here in other threads, and it does make me imagine how much time people have spent investigating this world versus strongly articulating "is-ought" fallacies.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#339

Post by Panzer04 »

jimmaswell wrote: post #333
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #245

It is absolutely true that boys have been neglected. But the contempt of men is a recent phenomenon. Feminism has a great deal to do with it, demonizing masculinity by construing all men as brutes and promoting the false doctrine that men are unnecessary, that women are self-sufficient, that the patriarchy is some kind of evil oppressive thing. All of that is false. Men and women are complementary , which is to say t…

> All children need fathers Every study I've seen on the subject has said that children of same sex parents, including having two mothers, do as well or better than their peers across any metric of wellbeing or success.

Is the implication instead that children should have two parents? Ie. Sharing the burden, more perspective and the like cause the benefits?

If so, given that most children are born of conventional couples, it makes sense to say they should have their father in their life.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#340

Post by wrp »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #259
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #245

It is absolutely true that boys have been neglected. But the contempt of men is a recent phenomenon. Feminism has a great deal to do with it, demonizing masculinity by construing all men as brutes and promoting the false doctrine that men are unnecessary, that women are self-sufficient, that the patriarchy is some kind of evil oppressive thing. All of that is false. Men and women are complementary , which is to say t…

> There's a reason virtually every culture is patriarchal. It's because men are physically stronger than women. That's it. That's all it is.

We need to lay to rest the idea that patriarchal societies arise just because men are physically stronger. There are known quite a number of matriarchal tribal societies where inter-tribal warfare was a significant focus of their society, so physical violence was strongly tied to social status. I"m thinking of pre-contact North America in particular.
Post reply on HN