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

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#431

Post by lucubratory »

yarg wrote: post #237
arp242 wrote: 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?

[flagged]

I can't flag yet, but you were flagged because your comment included a lie insinuating that queer people are predators, specifically that they "indoctrinate and neuter children". Most people would recognise that as hate speech, and older people would remember that the exact same hate speech was used against homosexuals (and still is, by many of the most fervent spreaders of the idea today).

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#432

Post by CalRobert »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #416
geff82 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, as a culture, we should emphasize MORE the health of the family, of the duty and honor it brings to raise kids and less on the "perfect" romantic relationships of the parents? Shouldn't we promote a less Hollywood-like picture of long lasting relationships? I have the feeling that we are trained too much to think that our "romance" and sex life should last forever. When - in reality - a good relationship trans…

> Maybe, as a culture, we should emphasize MORE the health of the family, of the duty and honor it brings to raise kids and less on the "perfect" romantic relationships of the parents? That ship has sailed. We live in a culture that not only has doubled down on the idea that the happiness/romance of the marriage is far more important than children, but even tells us that the marriage itself must dissolve when unhappy…

My parents' divorce was one of the best things to happen in my childhood.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#433

Post by xedrac »

anon291 wrote: post #382
underlipton wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not sure it's quite that simple, as some marriages are toxic to children. But the general dissolution of the nuclear family is not a positive trend, and will have grave consequences for future generations.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#434

Post by danielrhodes »

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?

Is this even a question? 1000%

Emotional vulnerability and openness is predicated on trust. If you can't trust your partner to be there when you express yourself, then you have a serious problem. Trust is the cornerstone of any relationship.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#435

Post by jacknobody »

Yes, neglect destroyed my health and social life too, and the men I meet in the places I meet them are very often from the same kind of background.

Our childhood needs were not met, hence we lacked the common lovedness that draws social groups together. In later life we find it difficult to form good relationships and find it difficult to function as part of a team.

I believe that neglect is the single most important cause of health issues. Neglect is however almost impossible to diagnose, because it is a lack, and not a thing in itself.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#436

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

InexSquirrel wrote: post #163
geff82 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, as a culture, we should emphasize MORE the health of the family, of the duty and honor it brings to raise kids and less on the "perfect" romantic relationships of the parents? Shouldn't we promote a less Hollywood-like picture of long lasting relationships? I have the feeling that we are trained too much to think that our "romance" and sex life should last forever. When - in reality - a good relationship trans…

I've never understood why there is a dichotomy presented in relationships like that - sure, 10 years into your marriage you might not be going at it like rabbits as you were in the first year, but there isn't any reason why parents can't provide stable environments for children _and_ have strong romantic relationships still. It takes very little to carve off some time for one another, and that continued investment in…

> It takes very little to carve off some time for one another, and that continued investment in bonding with another in and of itself long term provides the stability children need.

Why is romanticism the only way to "invest in bonding"?

There seems to be a large subset (maybe very large?) of the population where the only way to bond on some level is sex.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#437

Post by noname2021 »

lmm wrote: post #136
seattle_spring wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err… what? So people with abusive or absent dads should just forgive and love them?

Love them, no. Make their peace with what happened, accept that they can't change it, and move on, yes.

This is a lot easier said than done. I say this from first hand experience. I've been screwed a few times so far and generally managed to make my piece with most of those experiences except the abuse and apathy from my parents

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#438

Post by dumpsterdiver »

a_puppy wrote: post #421
shrimp_emoji wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"Punching up" is still punching. While men are on average more privileged than women, being a man also has disadvantages, and many individual men are actually quite vulnerable. "Punching up" at men causes real harm. Please don't make excuses for misandry.

It's not even punching up. For every one woman who commits suicide, four men will follow her to the grave the same way. More women claim to be lonely than men... my hypothesis is that women actually talk about being lonely while men just kill themselves at a certain point.
Post reply on HN