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

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#541

Post by nprateem »

gizmo wrote: post #514
nprateem wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You mention downvotes which suggests you understand forced/incentivized sterilization has a sordid history of eugenics. Yet, you make no effort to explain why your proposal isn’t eugenicist.

Because it must be a voluntary choice instead of forced. A free trade of reproductive capability in return for a reduced sentence. To avoid overly targetting certain groups, the offer could be standardised in some way.

Ultimately I believe society would benefit by breaking such toxic cycles.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#542

Post by MisterBastahrd »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #417
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This post seems unnecessarily harsh. would require women to choose better mates Or: Men should pay and do their fair share? Then: How many women are out there with three kids by three different fathers? Let's turn that around: How many men are out there with three kids by three different mothers? Sadly, a lot. And few of them are pulling their weight in term of parenting and financial support. I'm not talking about t…

My post isn't harsh at all. There's a whole world out there that doesn't revolve around middle class nuclear families. I meant every word of what I said, and it's all correct. There are very few mothers who want to share custodial time equally with the fathers of their children because there is an economic incentive for them not to. Most breakups are not amicable and women know that they can punish their former partners in court.

That you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't reality. In the United States, if the mother wants custody then the mother is getting custody unless there are legal / drug / behavioral issues with the mother that prevent her from doing so. You can just sit around and listen to any radio station for all of the family lawyers who specialize in advocating for men because of how biased the system is. Only 40% of states in the US even seek to grant 50% custody to fathers.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#543

Post by halkony »

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…

Haven't kept up with Sam Hyde after MDE got the axe. I saw a youtube vid where he answers a stream question about sleeping around. How does he communicate to his following nowadays?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#544

Post by dustypotato »

somenameforme wrote: post #505
monkeywork wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's a hell of a leap - saying take some basic classes (likely not that much unlike how catholic churches require couples classes prior to marrying folks) to understand how to properly care for a child is nothing like eugenics and gene manipulation.

All eugenics requires is reducing to fertility of a target undesired population to below sustenance. It's actually extremely easy to do because of how 'invisible' it is. Imagine there was a society where literally every single woman had an average of 1 child. It'd be quite weird to claim they were being driven extinct as everybody loads up on diapers, yet that society's population would indeed be trending towards 0 a…

> Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.

What you described is not eugenics though.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#545

Post by danbolt »

hayst4ck wrote: post #447
mark_mc wrote: post #413

I highly recommend I Don’t Want To Talk About It by Terry Real or The Will To Change by bell hooks (which extensively cites the former) on this topic. We don’t talk enough about the harm patriarchy inflicts on boys and men through emotional neglect and detachment.

Can you write a paragraph on what patriarchy is and what the harm it inflicts on boys is? Preferably without referring to emotional neglect or detachment but explaining the underlying mechanism itself? Ideologies are not something you are, people are not patriarchy-ists. Ideologies are something you do, which means people act in a patriarchal way, likely based on ideological reasons, often without ever consciously th…

> Ideologies are something you do, which means people act in a patriarchal way, likely based on ideological reasons, often without ever consciously thinking about the underlying ideology.

I think the emotional neglect and detachment you mention (and are mentioned in the comments of this post) are a symptom of the underlying ideology of patriarchy. We don’t always recognize the hidden biases we hold men to, leaving them in a place where the feel trapped and untrue. It’s much in the same way women might have been denied their athletic ambitions because of a destiny prescribed to them. [1] Be it a cruel friend or a selfish lover, I think a lot of men in our lives have a piece of their individuality and humanity supplanted by an ideal that only works in theory.

I can’t claim knowledge of a perfect patriarchy test. That said, since making the distinction between a “good man” and a good person who happens to be a man, I see a lot of my friends feel pressure to be something they’re not. And the thing they truly are often isn’t a bad thing in the first place.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-womens-ski-jumping-was-b...

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#546

Post by selfmodruntime »

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…

Tate fills a gigantic void that exists because rational people in that space are haunted and shouted down

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#547

Post by colordrops »

CalRobert wrote: post #432
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #416

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? 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.

Please expound.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#548

Post by Xixi »

screye wrote: post #519
oblio wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People aren't having enough children. Every extra hurdle is going to reduce the number of people who end up parents. There's 8 billion of us. Reducing the number of (unfit, unwilling, unplanned) parents is a net positive.

Birth rates are plummeting everywhere. I'm with you. We can have fewer people on earth. But, that means 2-ish generations will have to do 2x-the-work per capita while receiving 0.5x the care when they retire. Our social welfare and economic systems are not built to deal with decreasing populations, let alone halving of population every 2 generations. I am approaching 30. I very much feel like the generation that is g…

Look at it from the bright side: you are likely born towards a local maximum in terms of human development. Too late not to notice the decline, but early enough that you aren't likely to suffer too much from it for the best part of your life.

Current forecasts put generalized famines, all around the globe, at somewhere between +2.5ºC and +3.0ºC of global warming. We are on track to cross +2.0ºC around 2050, at best 2055 [1]. So really, it's just around the corner.

At current trend, it's not lack of birth, but lack of food that is going to drive population decline...

[1] https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/world-lik...

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#549

Post by implements »

brigandish wrote: post #492
Shared404 wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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.

[flagged]

Gametes, chromosomes and morphology - usually the first two are enough to determine 99.9r% of people as unambiguously male or female.

The situation isn’t helped by Americans often using the word gender as a direct substitution for the word sex. Gender is the set of social expectations around how the different sexes should look, feel, think and act.

Originally this was rigidly imposed (two genders - males obliged to be masculine / females feminine - or suffer negative social consequences) but now in the West people are free to construct their own gender from a set of infinitely variable gendered characteristics.

[disputed ideological view] Someone’s expressed gender doesn’t alter what sex they are, though - nor is someone’s ‘true sex’ that which their gender identity might suggest. I say this because it doesn’t seem logical to complicate sex (the process by which new humans are created) with the infinite complexity of human personality and culture. Sex doesn’t determine character, and character doesn’t determine sex - would be my TL;DR.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#550

Post by BLKNSLVR »

screye wrote: post #519
oblio wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People aren't having enough children. Every extra hurdle is going to reduce the number of people who end up parents. There's 8 billion of us. Reducing the number of (unfit, unwilling, unplanned) parents is a net positive.

Birth rates are plummeting everywhere. I'm with you. We can have fewer people on earth. But, that means 2-ish generations will have to do 2x-the-work per capita while receiving 0.5x the care when they retire. Our social welfare and economic systems are not built to deal with decreasing populations, let alone halving of population every 2 generations. I am approaching 30. I very much feel like the generation that is g…

Interesting that we may get to be test subjects for:

What will be prioritised when there aren't enough workers for all the current positions? - necessities for everyone - luxuries for those who can afford exorbitant prices

It can be both, to some extent, but with any luxuries will come a sacrifice of necessities, and a sacrifice of necessities will increase the prices. The best of people will tend towards being paid more, which shallows the pool of talent for necessities, which reduces quality at the same time as increasing price.

Post reply on HN