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

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#381

Post by CJefferson »

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…

Maybe the people who had dads worth hating don't turn out well, and those with dads worth accepting have good outcomes -- exactly part of what the linked article suggests!

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#382

Post by anon291 »

underlipton wrote: post #92
jl6 wrote: 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.

Without evidence, I'll suggest that this is an oversimplification. In a model where boys require masculine modeling from older, adult figures, "absent fathers" are most an issue when a boy's regularly-accessible social unit has been whittled down to the nuclear family. That seems to be a crisis in-and-of-itself. When I look at socially-successful men, they often have had multiple older men in their lives to model the…

There is no such thing as an extended family unless there are strong nuclear families to begin with. this concept is lost on so many people... But it's simply easier to raise your kids with their grandparents aunts and uncles if grandma and grandpa had a good relationship and aren't divorce to begin with.

Divorce is ultimately at the root of so many social ills but it's verboten to even mention

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#383

Post by lucubratory »

tbrownaw wrote: post #356
abracadaniel wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think it's probably just very, very unlikely that any individual person individually knows a representative sample of divorced couples, and within what sample there is the original commenter noted that the father contesting custody was a subset.

I think people also maybe aren't primed to think of this in terms of "What percentage of people who contest custody receive custody, by gender?" They're just thinking to themselves "Of the couples I know who are divorced, in what percentage does the woman have custody?", and that is going to be very large because a very small percentage of men contest custody. Anecdotally, almost every divorced couple I know has had child custody with the woman (I am in Australia, for the record). The much smaller subset of "divorced couples where I know the father contested custody" are two father's with custody and one mother. Obviously, those are also the only divorced couples I know where the man has custody - no court is going to give custody for a child to someone who doesn't want it, ideally. I also know a lesbian couple who've gone through a custody dispute but I don't believe that really has any impact here.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#384

Post by at_a_remove »

version_five wrote: post #103

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 whe…

There's a segment who function with the idea that the emotional needs of boys, teen guys, and men can go unmet and that they will just somehow crumble and be okay with it. This is not true. People with unmet needs will seek to meet those needs; if something healthy is not provided, it ought to be no surprise when unhealthy means are found as a substitute.

Instead, boys are discriminated against academically, emotionally, in terms of support and scholarships and these people who are in charge of starvation are shocked, shocked! when a guy like that appears to meet their needs.

If someone asked me an obscure sin, something that went unrecognized but was none the less heinous, I would say that attempting to inculcate the innocent with self-loathing, to saddle them with Original Sin, and to more or less attempt to have that hatred internalized, that would be a mortal sin, if for no other reason than there's simply a finite capacity you can find in humanity for that self-abnegation and past that point, one or more will snap, will turn on you, and it will always be in a way you most dread. Most dread because these ground-down types will have an endless flood of hearing the particulars of what another would like that they can simply do the opposite.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#385

Post by abracadaniel »

tbrownaw wrote: post #356
abracadaniel wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

From what I’ve read so far, there’s a lot of variation between states. The law used to explicitly prefer the mother, and that may still be the case in some states. Beyond that, n=2 isn’t a great sample, but there’s definitely going to be bias when it’s a friend sharing only their side of the story. Like how anytime someone you know gets into a car accident, it was definitely the other guy’s fault.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#386

Post by anon291 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #159
version_five wrote: post #103

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 whe…

AFAICT there is nothing good in Tate's message, except perhaps that one doesn't have to be ashamed of strength. Yet Tate seems to promote strength, power, and confidence as silver bullets for all ones problems -- mixed with a lot of get-rich-quick BS that boils down to "pay me to teach you to selling teaching to others". And this from a guy who got rich pressuring women into camming and taking a huge cut. Boys and me…

> Boys and men need nuanced male role models (even modestly flawed), not one dimensional grifters

All individual people are nuanced and flawed people when you interact with them one on one (even Tate I imagine).

What's toxic is social media and it's ability to portray a life that doesn't exist.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#387

Post by legostormtroopr »

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…

> Overwhelmingly, the fathers are giving up custody and not fighting for it.

Couldn't that be confirmation bias - if you don't think you are going to win, and it will cost lots of money - why fight?

Which is why when fathers fight for custody they may win more - because they have a stronger case.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#388

Post by anon291 »

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

What utter rubbish... Where did you read this? Or get this impression?

My grandfather was the epitome of "manliness". Blue collar worker. Hunter. Army service. My mother and her sisters have vivid memories of him singing to them.

Something is honestly sick with so many families in this country. Men have been caring for their children for millennia. It's what separates humans from the lesser beasts.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#389

Post by Natsu »

jimbob45 wrote: post #19
jl6 wrote: 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.

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 used to be done by promoting marriage and stigmatizing divorce. Now, that has obvious costs for the parents in many cases and certainly isn't always the right approach because of problems like domestic abuse.

But the good of the children is part of why past societies have incentivized keeping parents together to care for their children and maybe we've gone a bit too far in the other direction, away from a happier medium.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#390

Post by anon291 »

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.

The concept of the delivery room is a historical aberration. For most of history women would give birth at home accompanied by female friends and family.
Post reply on HN