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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#781

Post by oblio »

_8j50 wrote: post #772
oblio wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This take is crazy. I hope you don't have, nor will have kids. Fathers should absolutely be there for emotional support, especially for small kids. Also, distant mothers are not a modern creation, there have always been distant mothers.

> Fathers should absolutely be there for emotional support, especially for small kids. A CEO should know about corporate finance but that doesn't mean he should also be the CFO. Both roles are important enough to have separate execs. Parenting is similar. I did not advocate for an emotionally shutoff and cold father, but rather the responsible person and the person the child runs to for emotional support is the femin…

If the mother isn't doing her job, yes, that sucks.

And yes, I'd expect the father to do both things if that happens, for the sake of the child. The inverse is also true.

I don't think you can force a distant mother (or father) to be more involved but knock yourself out if you think otherwise.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#782

Post by esalman »

earthnail wrote: post #673
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…

There’s a saying: “it takes a village to raise a child.” Historically, the role of the “parentin school” you’re proposing has been played by the family, most importantly grandparents. As we move away as a society from relying on family structures, we need to recognise their utility and find equivalents. We moved away successfully from family structures in many areas of society: succession of rulers, for example. So t…

This is an underrated comment. American lifestyle forces people to make tough choices about their extended, sometimes even closest family. The % of the population who earn enough to support one or more dependents comfortably, be it a child or a parent, is probably in single digits. The result is the mental health epidemic.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#783

Post by oblio »

Nemrod67 wrote: post #642
oblio wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. History, just like nature, is almost completely random and "unfair".

Nature is absolutely not "almost completely random", it follows the path of least resistance in any and all things. Thus making it "Fair" if we had all the variables

In an obtuse sense nature isn't random, since it follows natural laws.

Small consolation for the dinosaurs when the asteroid hit...

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#784

Post by sidewndr46 »

orasis wrote: post #606
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…

You don’t learn how to parent, you learn how to live, in a wholehearted way, and you model that for your children. Good parenting is foremost about growing up before your kids do.

This is the mistake that most parents make. They assume that what worked for them will work for their children.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#785

Post by esalman »

literalis wrote: post #776
hadlock wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

Close to 10 years of marriage and one child. I agree with the sentiment of the OP.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#786

Post by BigRedDog1669 »

dumpsterdiver wrote: post #403
legostormtroopr wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overwhelmingly, the fathers are giving up custody and not fighting for it. Couldn't that be confirmation bias - if you don't think you are going to win, and it will cost lots of money - why fight? Which is why when fathers fight for custody they may win more - because they have a stronger case.

> Couldn't that be confirmation bias - if you don't think you are going to win, and it will cost lots of money - why fight? Confirmation bias is defined as "the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." What you're describing is not confirmation bias, because there is no "new evidence" which one could interpret as confirmation of their existing beliefs or theories. If…

It's not confirmation bias for the men, it's more for the researchers: Selecting data on who contests custody as a proxy for who wants custody. If there is a gender bias in the courts, that might not be accurate.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#787

Post by grugagag »

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…

What to do about multiple parenting styles that are at odds with one another (sometimes even in the same household)? How about the baggage that parents are carrying that influence how they’re gonna parent, many of those suitcases inherited from their parents? That’s one thing for sure, but some parents aren’t even parenting for various reasons, not enough time, lack of responsibility or not being around for various reasons. If we could tackle all that we’d basically get a much better society but it’s a nearly impossible problem to solve in a practical way…

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#788

Post by ClumsyPilot »

somenameforme wrote: post #486
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 n…

> measurable and quantifiable differences would you expect to see.

Amount of psycological trauma and repression, neuroticism, insecurity. Suicides.

All easilly measurable.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#789

Post by 0xParlay »

itsoktocry wrote: post #733
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. What do you consider "quite well"? Does your car have a backseat? Does your home have more than one bedroom? If so, you don't need larger of either. Yes, there are some sacrifices to having a family. Nothing in life is free. The problem is that it…

> The problem is that it sounds like you don't want to your lifestyle hindered by a child

But that's not really a problem. The world has plenty of children. If you visit the border of Mexico you can probably snag a handful. Given their state of poverty they won't even mind.

So to the original question. What does it mean for a birthrate to be "too low". Too low for what? Sustaining some level of GDP output? Propping up Wal-marts bottom line with fresh souls to work the checkout counter?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#790

Post by langitbiru »

no_time wrote: post #706
globular-toast wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not artificial wombs. But you can have children through surrogacy.

https://www.thefp.com/p/motherloading-inside-the-surrogacy

Post reply on HN