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

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#551

Post by prawn »

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…

If there are fewer people, won't there be less competition for housing and thus affordability would improve somewhat? If you need to spend less on a mortgage or rent, you may not need to work as much, or a single income couple might be viable once more, etc. (Or perhaps this just means cheaper property can continue to accumulate in the hands of wealthier people.)

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#552

Post by raverbashing »

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…

> Our social welfare and economic systems are not built to deal with decreasing populations, let alone halving of population every 2 generations.

They better make it work then

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#553

Post by raverbashing »

nicbou wrote: post #510
nprateem wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This would extend a prisoner’s punishment beyond their sentence. The goal of incarceration is to reform, not take revenge. That’s if all goes well and the system is not motivated by perverse incentives or overwhelmingly targeting a specific group of prisoners (like the poorer ones) with a deal they can’t really refuse.

Doesn't being convicted of a felony limits a person's right as well beyond their sentence?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#554

Post by halkony »

wonder_er wrote: post #400

My only credibility to make a reliable book recommendation on this topic: 1. Have experienced some of what's discussed 2. Has historically read quite a lot The following book, and others by the author, have proven to be the most efficient filter for 'compressing' sometimes challenging life experience into something manageable: 'The Tao of Fully Feeling: Harvesting Forgiveness Out of Blame', by Pete Walker. https://ww…

His CPTSD book was very enlightening to my childhood.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#555

Post by somenameforme »

dustypotato wrote: post #544
somenameforme wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eugenics is generally carried out not through selective breeding, but by removing the populations you do not want to breed. Same thing in 20th century America where the main effort was simply on removing elements from society that "we" didn't want breeding - which has the same effect while reducing the constraints on liberty, which would not be well received otherwise.

See, for instance, the famous quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Interestingly enough, the ruling from that court case (Buck v Bell) was never formally overturned. It's simply that eugenics fell out of fashion, following it being taken to extremes by a certain vegetarian artist in Germany with a knack for rhetoric.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#556

Post by zo1 »

esarbe wrote: post #516
zo1 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than sterilizing people, I've often thought that maybe we should rather have things like means-testing. Originally it was more in the context of not letting poor kids suffer, but perhaps we expand it to make sure kids will have a healthy and safe and loved childhood. There is something very visceral that comes out of people when you suggest that procreation should perhaps not be a universal right. And don't ge…

How about means-providing instead? Poverty is not a choice but dictated by economic circumstances. If you want to "fix" humanity, it's not by taking away a universal right from humans, but by making sure that their needs are are taken care of.

I think that's what I meant, perhaps I used the wrong word. So we "test" that they have the "means" to provide a roof and food for their children? And yeah, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be helping them at the same time

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#557

Post by andsoisthis »

hadlock wrote: post #446
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…

The daylight between instituting a parenting license and eugenics is not very much.

Well there already is eugenic like behavior going on. Partners select for money, tall and handsome. It's just not framed that way. End result is the same.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#558

Post by Der_Einzige »

nicbou wrote: post #513
Khaine wrote: post #470

What's interesting is that I recently watched The Red Pill Documentary. I recall when it was released that the director, Cassie Jaye a self professed feminist was pilloried absolutely everywhere for giving a voice to Mens Rights Activists. The actual documentary is quite milquetoast. What it is, is her engaging with the ideas around how in some ways men are disadvantaged in modern society. It's fascinating to me that…

That was not my experience. The message was bitterness, and there is a reason their lot is poorly perceived. Try /r/menslib for a healthier discussion that isn’t centred around blaming women for everything.

Sorry, any mention of "biological essentialism" is explicitly banned there. Unfortunately, a lot of biology is indeed objective essentialist. It's a terrible subreddit made for people who think that the solution to every problem that men face is to simply go read "Come as You Are" or some other shit from Bell Hooks.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#559

Post by BLKNSLVR »

screye wrote: post #477
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…

People aren't having enough children. Every extra hurdle is going to reduce the number of people who end up parents. > Potentially break the cycles of bad parenting You can't break cycles of bad parenting, because they are 2nd order effects of cycles of trauma. And cycles of trauma have been a fundamental part of human civilization since we've existed. We absolutely should teach compassion, good parenting 101s and ba…

> People aren't having enough children.

By what metric? Economics?

Economics, ironically, is the reason I don't have more kids. My family is doing, what I would consider, "quite well", but we'd still be pretty fucked with one more mouth to feed, the need for a larger car and possibly larger house.

I truly don't know how people that aren't that far below us on the resources / income scale have any hope of comfortable retirement prior to actual death.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#560

Post by esarbe »

zo1 wrote: post #556
esarbe wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about means-providing instead? Poverty is not a choice but dictated by economic circumstances. If you want to "fix" humanity, it's not by taking away a universal right from humans, but by making sure that their needs are are taken care of.

I think that's what I meant, perhaps I used the wrong word. So we "test" that they have the "means" to provide a roof and food for their children? And yeah, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be helping them at the same time

Thanks for clarifying!
Post reply on HN