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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#481

Post by yarg »

dumpsterdiver wrote: post #463
yarg wrote: post #228

The world crushed my spirit, and erased the remnants with SSRIs. I'm frequently told that I have no right to treat my own depression with mushrooms, with my depression and its consequences held as proof that I don't know what I'm talking about and should have no decision making autonomy. The long term destruction of self that resulted from only three months of that is difficult to comprehend if you haven't been there…

> I'm frequently told that I have no right to treat my own depression with mushrooms What a bizarre thing for them to say. In my experience, psilocybin mushrooms are absolutely amazing for mental health. I think that everyone should take mushrooms at least once a year to clear out the cobwebs.

They saved my life, I'm still depressed, but I don't want to die (still don't care too much if I do, but little steps).

There's not a single conversation that I've had where my subjective experience has been relevant to the other person's opinion or position, both with family members and medical professionals.

Casually discounting my internal understanding and experience in conversations pertaining to the internal emotional state of my mind. It's fucking infuriating.

One of the weirdest parts has been the way that mental health practitioners react whenever I bring up mushrooms. They don't say anything - just look at me and wait for the topic to change.

This has happened several times, and with several different people.

The most ridiculous example was a woman who dismissed my need for mushrooms and then chastised me for refusing to slip back into SSRI induced asexuality.

Wouldn't it be better?

Well it wasn't for the first twenty years, so I'm gonna run with no.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#482

Post by bergerjac »

hknmtt wrote: post #467

not going to read it. i know how it always ends up: "men suffering...women most affected"

The effects onto men are more internal. Whereas effects onto women are normally more external.

For example, a man could allow himself to be triggered into rage. And afterwards there will be no visible signs it happened within him.

But his wife could've been around him, and now she has purple bruises.

External signs are more easily measurable, and therefore reported more, therefore readers assume the most affected.

If the man had internal bio-signals measured, such as HRV, blood pressure, etc, you'd see the effects even BEFORE that of a beaten wife. (Of course there are also long-term health issues for being a slave to rage/anger/frustration)

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#483

Post by dumpsterdiver »

pizzafeelsright wrote: post #303
znpy wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I’m gonna bite the bullet and give a quick answer, based on what’s I’ve seen growing up: Basically you get answers like: “Man up” “Grow a pair” “Boys don’t cry” “Life is harsh, get used to it” Last but not the least: “psychologists are for weak people with mental problems, not for you”. Two more observations again based on my life experience: 1. Weakness is generally accepted in girls/women, largely acknowledged…

I teach my son not cry. I teach him how to conduct violence. I teach him to treat people kindly, never equally. We don't cry because we manage our emotions. We know words cannot physically harm us. If it's truth, acknowledge it. If it's a lie, it can be ignored and the liar pitied. Teaching violence because it teaches respect, physical limits, and healthy lifestyle. We know how to be gentle because we are strong. We…

> We don't cry because we manage our emotions. We know words cannot physically harm us.

Words can absolutely physically harm you. Have you ever felt your heart beating fast when someone says something that upsets you? At some point that might become a heart attack.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#484

Post by Doxin »

dumpsterdiver wrote: post #415
dayvid wrote: post #394

I spent a summer teaching at a high school with separate gender classrooms. One thing that stuck out was that the women were motivated from hearing them out and how they felt first and men were motivated by giving them a challenge. To some extent, society is becoming more effeminate. This is a good thing in giving more opportunity for women, but there seems to be less space for men to grow or learn to be men. The mai…

While I agree with your take about society, I disagree that boys have less space to be boys. Boys will be boys, no matter what the world does. There will never be a shortage of boys who want to throw rocks and jump in mud until their feet get stuck.

> Boys will be boys, no matter what the world does.

I dunno man. In school it seems that gossiping is more or less accepted where roughhousing is clearly banned. That sure seems to me like the world is trying to repress at least part of "boys will be boys".

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#485

Post by Khaine »

geff82 wrote: post #37
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.

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 think as a culture we need to normalise respect for both men and woman. Currently, in society violence against men is acceptable. You see it through articles like this[1] or in tv shows where it's acceptable for a woman to slap a man. Men in ads and tv shows are shown as helpless and clueless without their wives/girlfriends.

In modern media, woman are nearly always portrayed positively. Woman are always the 'girlboss', who need to show they are equal or superior to men. Practically, every male space has been feminised.

Current culture doesn't really respect Men.

[1] http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-...

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#486

Post by somenameforme »

noname2021 wrote: post #444

Here's a thought and I am writing this as I don my kevlar flame retardant jacket. For most things in life where we could impact the lives of other people materially - driving is a good example - we ensure some minimal amount of training before letting people perform that activity. However with parenting we have nothing and the result it seems is we pay with a ton more resources downstream in the way of therapy, deten…

A simple question for you, what exact measurable and quantifiable differences would you expect to see in, for instance, the children of psychologists of the sort this article appeals to, and those of e.g. Joe [demographically equivalent] Normal's children? And this naturally somewhat leads into, and what factors, as a society, should we prioritize?

To me it seems quite trivial to create unfalsifiable arguments, for near anything, using extremely nebulous terms like "reducing public health risks." It's not like anybody's ever going to say, "No way man - I really think we should work to increase public health risks!" But what separates science from pseudoscience is falsifiability. So it's only once you break things down into actual, specific, and measurable goals that the conversation can even begin.

---

As but one example, the most fundamental component for a society to perpetuate itself is fertility. And so, in my mind, a child's upbringing should absolutely be focused on ensuring this person will be able to both raise and support their own healthy family in the future. Yet of course even this simple goal is going to prove controversial because there's some conflict between it and certain cultural norms. And you'd need to reconcile this in some way that people, independent of worldview, can be generally happy with. I'm not sure this is possible.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#487

Post by midoridensha »

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…

Ask anyone who grew up with parents that stayed together "for the kids": they'll tell you it's a miserable experience growing up in such a home.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#488

Post by newacct3 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #53
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.

> absent fathers issue seems like something concrete and impactful There is a general corruption of the concept of masculinity in American culture. It’s similar to what’s happened to the symbol of the American flag, but more insidious. When I say masculinity, or masculine values, what do you think of? When you think of someone who values their masculinity, who do you perceive? Now do the same for femininity. Which mo…

> When I say masculinity, or masculine values, what do you think of? When you think of someone who values their masculinity, who do you perceive? Now do the same for femininity. Which model is healthier?

I don't think of anything aside from obvious physiological differences

> but there are right questions that boys dealing with a burst of testosterone should ask themselves

I mean, everyone's different, different personalities, different trials and tribulations of life. I have no idea how you can generalize across all teenage boys without making a bunch of stuff up

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#489

Post by nprateem »

noname2021 wrote: post #444

Here's a thought and I am writing this as I don my kevlar flame retardant jacket. For most things in life where we could impact the lives of other people materially - driving is a good example - we ensure some minimal amount of training before letting people perform that activity. However with parenting we have nothing and the result it seems is we pay with a ton more resources downstream in the way of therapy, deten…

[flagged]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#490

Post by hackinthebochs »

Shared404 wrote: post #472
brigandish wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> (that humans are sexually dimorphic and ramifications of that) We're actual a bimodal distribution. Even not accounting for intersex folk it's a lot less binary than most people assume or was covered in 8th grade bio.

We're bimodal in distribution of traits, but dimorphic in terms of participants in sexual reproduction. Sex is a classification of reproductive roles and the distribution of traits downstream from the dimorphic roles.
Post reply on HN