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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#351

Post by jay_kyburz »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #308
celeritascelery wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe in a society where leadership is based on challenges of physical strength (i.e. 1v1 combat for the right to rule). But that hasn’t been true of most cultures for millennia. It goes deeper than that.

You are saying that women are inherently 'less wise' or 'mentally weak' or some such? What are you saying?

Against my better judgment, I'll comment in this thread.

I think the mistake in the post above is saying that physical strength has not been an issue for a millennia.

The strong have been using the threat of physical violence to take power right up to and including today. In the home, at work, and in society at large.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#352

Post by ryanwaggoner »

carabiner wrote: post #256
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.

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 agree with much of this, but not the takeaway. After my divorce, I decided that I’d rather be single than have to spend any more timing hiding myself. So I’m pretty open and vulnerable with women. If they can’t handle it, I’m not gonna spend my life hiding real shit, that’s insane. And the woman I’ve been seeing for almost two years doesn’t seem phased by it, so they’re out there.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#353

Post by ahansen »

carabiner wrote: post #337
em-bee wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If anything I feel like becoming more emotionally mature opened up my dating pool, and made me a better partner. Ultimately you are better off being with someone who you can talk about your emotions with.

I've been in relationships where I couldn't talk about my problems, and being unable to talk about them didn't make those problems disappear.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#354

Post by lockhouse »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #308
celeritascelery wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe in a society where leadership is based on challenges of physical strength (i.e. 1v1 combat for the right to rule). But that hasn’t been true of most cultures for millennia. It goes deeper than that.

You are saying that women are inherently 'less wise' or 'mentally weak' or some such? What are you saying?

That’s not what’s being said here at all. As has been said in multiple comments pregnancy and everything associated with it physically and biologically is the most likely factor. It’s not bigoted to point out that women are biologically different in ways that make them unlikely to be rulers.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#355

Post by ryanwaggoner »

carabiner wrote: post #337
em-bee wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, very much worth it. As someone who divorced after two decades, living your life behind a mask isn’t worth it for any romantic relationship. Which will lack true intimacy, since you will not be known for who you are. You will never feel chosen just for being you, because she won’t know who that is.

I get open and vulnerable and emotional with my partner, and I have since the beginning. Hasn’t hurt things yet. Maybe that’s still coming, but again, I’d rather be single.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#356

Post by tbrownaw »

abracadaniel wrote: post #221
dpifke wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "absentee father" issue would be easy to address: have the courts stop favoring mothers as custodial parents in divorces. Of the divorced couples I know with children, the mothers were awarded custody in every single case , often over the strenuous objections of the fathers and other family members like grandparents (and in one case, even in the face of documented abuse by the mother). I feel like studies…

In the US it depends heavily on the state, but as I understand it, the stats on the mothers getting custody are misleading. Overwhelmingly, the fathers are giving up custody and not fighting for it. When they do, it is roughly equal, though some studies suggest bias one way or the other. I’m not finding great primary sources, but here’s some articles on it https://legaljobs.io/blog/child-custody-statistics/ https://w…

So was parent commenter's experience just that non-representative or is something screwy going on with how the data gets recorded?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#357

Post by santoshalper »

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…

Yeah, I'm going call bullshit on this. Almost every society is historically patriarchal because for thousands of years, human attributes tied to testosterone (strength, endurance, athleticism, aggression) were extremely valuable. The world is changing, and we need to change with it by developing a new, healthy society, not retreating into traditional structures and patterns that no longer serve us as a species.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#358

Post by Terr_ »

mistermann wrote: post #281
Terr_ wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Which foreign governments are you accusing? Do you even know, or are you just assuming somebody must be doing the thing? I've yet to encounter a scenario in the last year where filling in that blank with "Russia" wasn't considered an objective fact by most.

> wasn't considered an objective fact by most.

Hold up, there's a HUGE difference between these two:

A: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia is a current geopolitical enemy to the US, it does some wacky shit, therefore if a foreign government is committing shenanigans there's a chance it's Russia."

B: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia has been somehow giving educational grants to US institutions with the explicit goal of installing a fifth-column of educators who will demoralize young US men with misandry."

Believing A does not imply B.

The parent-poster isn't being vague because the answer is obvious-and-accepted... they're being vague because they want to push the "foreign enemies in our colleges" meme without giving the audience any handles for critical-thinking.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#359

Post by WalterBright »

theoldlove wrote: post #280
foogazi wrote: post #240

> 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

I was recently wondering about who was typically in the delivery room 50+ years ago. So when I saw my elderly grandmother last week, I asked her whether my grandfather was there when my father was born in the late 50s. She was a little offended by the question (itself interesting), but said it was just her and the medical staff. No other support people. She thought my grandfather was at the hospital, but wasn’t sure.

In the times when I was born, the father waited in the waiting room.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#360

Post by TheCoelacanth »

93po wrote: post #258
enragedcacti wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seinfeld is one of the few sitcoms where a female character is as flawed as the men. You couldn't even do that show today. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia? Succession? Yellow Jackets? The Righteous Gemstones? Beef? White Lotus? House of The Dragon? You could argue about percentages but it is in fact extremely easy to do a show with flawed female characters today.

Interesting, maybe: Are any of those women not white? Aside from Beef, which I'm not sure counts as much since the actor was also the writer and the show doesn't have any main characters that aren't asian.

Insecure? Atlanta?
Post reply on HN