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

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#701

Post by mlrtime »

sunderw wrote: post #668
myshpa wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read somewhere that just buying a parenting book, even without reading it, can make some people better parents or have a positive influence. Simply thinking about how to be a better parent and showing an interest in improving can lead to self-reflection and conscious consideration of parenting approaches. While reading the book (attending the course) would likely provide more benefits, just the intention to be a…

That's interesting. A little nitpick : you seem to imply that buying a book is having an influence on parenting skills. I'd argue that's its correlated but does not have a direct influence. As you said, if you're buying a book it means you're ready for self-reflection, which is what has an impact on parenting.

I'm fairly sure they are referring to a Freakonomics episode (or book). The researchers found "successful" parents, then found various statistics around them.

One of the conclusions was that they "type" of people that would go out of their way to buy a parenting book were already the type of people to do the "right thing" when parenting and the book itself offered no additional support.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#702

Post by mh- »

prepend wrote: post #693
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…

> 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, detention centers, jails etc. I think it’s a situation where we can’t stop people from having babies so we don’t even attempt to limit. There have been attempts to prevent births in “undesirable” populations that people thought weren’t capable of properly raising kids. [0] But unless…

> developing nations have really low birth rates

Did you mean to write developed, perhaps? I'm under the impression - and a quick google confirms - that the more economically developed a country is, the lower its birth rate tends to be.

(I'm sure I'm oversimplifying. I've not studied in this area, which is why I'm replying)

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#703

Post by fifticon »

pastage wrote: post #663
d--b wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is terrible "magic thinking" advice. Kids are VERY counterintuitive (mine at least). Our kid has had behavioral problems at school and at home. And it's extremely difficult to understand the root of the issues (it turns out that the pandemic, moving houses, starting school and having a baby brother all at once can be a bit much for a 3 year old). Literally EVERYONE who is not a professional told us to smack our…

> smack our kid into submission What does this mean? I never talk child care in any significant way on the net, so I feel there are way to many ways too misinterpret this. Even the nice interpretation of this would border on illegal here. (FWIW I think I agree with you on all accounts and I have had it easy)

I don't think this was intended as "physically hitting". The intent was "ignore what the kid is requesting, and communicate to them 'no you don't want that, it is wrong to want that'". One way to do that would of course be to "hit", but the idea is about insisting that 'your view is right', and ignoring/not acknowledging the need the child is trying to communicate. My point being, this can do almost as much damage, even if you are not 'hitting'. Source: Am parent, was child.

It is hard living some problem, and then experiencing that the people who are in charge of taking care of you, consistently communicate "No, there is just something wrong with you, you don't want that/that isn't really a problem".

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#704

Post by xiphias2 »

globular-toast wrote: post #678
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…

I don't know if this was considered in the film (I haven't seen it), but the difference between how men's and women's issues are treated is quite obvious to me. It's due to an imbalance in the care matrix. If we think broadly about who cares about whom, it goes like this: * Men care about women because they want to mate with them, * Women care about women because it's in their own best interest to look after each oth…

In every species female is the selector, that's how natural selection works.

Generally in a group of healthy young population with 50% sex ratio, about half of the men are selected, and they help eachother.

But in the online dating / birth control age this ratio has gone more extreme, and there's no real ,,parenting advice'' or emotional need support that can help, just accepting the new normal for everyone, and competing harder.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#705

Post by iosystem »

itronitron wrote: post #697
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…

I think a society would have better outcomes by teaching young people the consequences to their lives of having children, such as time and financial costs. In one of the classes in my high school, students had to carry around a sack of flour for a week without damaging it.

A reward/benefit system is possibly better. We can examine how teaching consequences concerning the law, isn’t working sufficiently if we look at the US prison system population and the US prisoners reoffending rate. I think something like offering a tax deductible for completing a parenting program that’s specifically designed for outlining psychology negatives of not being there for the child is obvious. The money for financing the said program should be taken by a tax of adults with kids that haven’t completed the said program. I wouldn’t apply and cutoff age as well because everyone that has kids regardless of how long ago would still benefit society by completing such a program.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#706

Post by no_time »

globular-toast wrote: post #678
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…

I don't know if this was considered in the film (I haven't seen it), but the difference between how men's and women's issues are treated is quite obvious to me. It's due to an imbalance in the care matrix. If we think broadly about who cares about whom, it goes like this: * Men care about women because they want to mate with them, * Women care about women because it's in their own best interest to look after each oth…

It appears you and me came to the same conclusion.

The only solution I see to this problem is bringing down the value of reproduction through technology. Think artificial wombs.

That should hopefully lessen the social pressure of men to compete.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#707

Post by figmah »

msla wrote: post #314
brickteacup wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wanna ask whoever wrote that if trans men are included

The dogma among certain groups of feminists is that trans men are "really" confused lesbians, and that those feminists are entitled to their bodies because they "should" be in lesbian relationships as opposed to transitioning. Claiming those feminists aren't feminists does nothing to stop them from calling themselves feminists.

[flagged]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#708

Post by xiphias2 »

yarg wrote: post #457
paulddraper wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tribalism. Black and white. Lack of nuance. Masculinity can be wholesome or toxic. Femininity can be wholesome or toxic. Which one is discussed more, by a literal order of magnitude? [1] [1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Toxic%20ma...

I think part of the issue is that through our success we erased a lot of the need for the most fundamental male roles. When it came to handling the things that go bump in the night, a social species with thumbs, a bit of fire and a few sharpened sticks went a hell of a long way. And after bumping back for long enough, we were the only monsters left standing. I think that one of the problems with toxic feminity is tha…

It was really interesting to see Season 2 of the Island (men vs women).

The most interesting part was not how much women failed to survive, and how successful men were (which makes sense, as men are designed for survival), but the feeling of how much easier in that world is to show the need for masculanity (which is mostly not needed anymore).

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#709

Post by bounck »

zmgsabst wrote: post #676
cies wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So biology says tomato is a fruit. In the kitchen we consider it a vegetable. Could the same be true for the whole gender discussion? That biology gets side-stepped in the name of common sense (that does not answer questions regarding toilets, sports competitions and mis-pronouning; but it would give us some space without totally invalidating biology)

But the whole tension is over sports: Do we base sports on the biological reality of sex or mute our awareness of that objective fact[1] to preference “identity” — even if the outcome is females[2] no longer having a space to compete? [1] - Humans like other apes (and mammals) are sexually dimorphic. [2] - Female is the scientific term referring to the sex.

[flagged]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#710

Post by qwery »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #264
qwery wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seinfeld was pretty good, eh? > Misandry is normalized in society. Is it? I don't regularly (if ever) encounter "baseless attacks on men"... excepting situations where "reversing the roles" would result in the perpetrator still being a man and the victim still being a man. > there'd be pitchforks for treating women as anything other than paragons of virtue. Wait, are you doing a sarcasm? Who wields the pitchforks? It…

You just have to look at some of the prominent Karens who are now getting their behavior recorded to see how many have internalized this concept. Both SoHo and Central Park Karen's were quick to don the caul of victimhood to shine a negative light on males and seek special treatment when they were in fact the victimizers.

You're confusing racist attacks with imagined "misandry". Note that the term 'karen' usually refers to a racist white woman, as it does in these cases.

In fact, the sensational coverage of these very incidents you cited demonstrates the misogynistic standards of the society and media cycle. The reason you've heard so much about these "prominent karens"[0] perpetrating racist attacks is because they are women. Women being violent is seen as a scandal and ridiculed by society/media. The fact that it's not an everyday occurrence is (counter-intuitively) why it seems so common. Men are responsible for a much greater share of all violence. It is clearly the violence perpetrated by men, not women, that is normalised.

[0] and that there can be "prominent karens" in the first place

Post reply on HN