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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#871

Post by JustBreath »

zkelvin wrote: post #830
naasking wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about some minimal coaching so that all parents are aware of the state of the art in child psychology and techniques to do better as parents. 1. We don't know as much as people think we do about what constitutes "good parenting". At best, we know some behaviours which are typically harmful (molestation, violence), but everyone already knows that, and the people exhibiting those behaviours need therapy themselve…

Is childbirth an innate human right? Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them?

Pretty much.

Unless you've worked out how to obtain consent from someone that doesn't exist either we create kids without their consent or society ends.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#872

Post by teddyh »

lapcat wrote: post #853
teddyh wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is true, and the term could reasonably be interpreted that way, but it’s often a motte-and-bailey tactic. When the term is criticized, your definition is waved, forming an easily defensible motte. But in casual use, the term is very commonly used in its most obvious meaning, i.e. “men are toxic” (forming the bailey).

I don't think there's One True Definition of "toxic masculinity", and of course different people sometimes use it in different ways. However, I do think that defensiveness is the wrong response to the linked article, which clearly explains how men's own attitudes toward masculinity are harming young boys by ignoring their emotional needs. It's not about "bashing" men, it's about helping boys, who are in obvious need…

The comment about “bashing men” (not by me) was obviously not referring to the article, but to society at large.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#873

Post by belorn »

space_fountain wrote: post #820
rich_sasha wrote: post #769

This comment will probably be lost but hey maybe someone will read it: We inherited a world where for many generations, men were hostile to women. It was unfair and needed rectifying. But increasingly, we fixed it by normalizing hostility to men. Overemphasis on "toxic masculinity", hyper focus on promoting outcomes for girls while doing nothing of the sort for boys. Plenty of various "Women in X" supporting each oth…

Imo I think this comment would have had more weight behind it for me before recent political events and before Roe vs Wade was overturned. I don’t believe in easy answers and I don’t claim to be able to experience life from the other gender, but cat calling is still common in the US. Women still get payed significantly less than men. Women still have much higher risks of sexual assault. We just decided to roll back c…

All those issues has equality issues that impacts both genders, and solutions that would benefit both men and women generally ignored. Roe vs Wade could be changed into a human rights discussion where every person has a right to demand consent to parenthood before being forced into it. The asymmetry of child birth has up to today dictated different amount of rights for men and women, both before and after birth. Unifying those into a single right, a human right, would bring those issues closer to each other and change how policy is created around them.

Women still get payed significantly less than men, and men work significantly more hours than women and at more dangerous jobs. Those two inequalities also hang together with inequalities related to non-paid work like parenting, and also that men are twice as likely to not have children than women (sometimes refereed to as reproductive inequality). Solving those require a lot of different initiatives that all work in unity to reduce inequality for both men and women.

Women are also at much higher risks of sexual assault, and men are at very higher risk of assault. Reducing sexual assault and assault involves solutions that are fairly similar, ie higher cohesion in society, more trust, and stronger social connections, social networks and social support among the population. Inequality in social economic status is also a strong indicator of high amount of sexual assaults and assault.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#874

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #850
commandlinefan wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> men were hostile to women Were they really though? I mean, yes there always were and always will be some abusive men, but men _as a group_ have been more associated with protecting and caring for women than being hostile to them. Until very recently in human history, women actually couldn't physically survive without men - it's only been in the past few generations that the nature of work has changed to where women…

> I mean, yes there always were and always will be some abusive men, but men _as a group_ have been more associated with protecting and caring for women than being hostile to them. As much a slaveowner has been "protecting and caring" for his slaves.

You could easily equate that statement to a “mother protecting and caring for her children”

It’s pretty trite and meaningless to boil every dependent relationship into one of slavery.

In the past, most women had to pick between marriage with an established man so she can have many kids starting young, versus working for herself and having no or few kids.

It’s no surprise many women chose marriage.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#875

Post by coolhand2120 »

oblio wrote: post #537
danenania wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The really hard thing is finding the right balance. “Don’t be a baby” isn’t good, but over-compensating too far in the other direction doesn’t do a kid any favors either. There are times when being a good dad can mean (kindly) pushing kids out of their comfort zones or tempering excessive self-pity. I’m currently trying to teach my 4 year old daughter to swim, so this is very front-of-mind for me. If it was up to her…

> If it was up to her, she would just splash around in the shallowest part by the steps without trying anything she’s afraid of, and she would never learn to swim. It is a very fine line but this part is probably not true. She's 4 years old and doesn't need to learn to swim, unless you really want an Olympic swimmer. If she keeps going swimming in the shallow end, do you know what will happen? She will get bored and…

Seems like preventing drowning is a key reason to start early. That is why I started early for both of my kids. Too many stories about kids wandering into pools and dying to not take it seriously.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#876

Post by Jommi »

bigie35 wrote: post #794
rich_sasha wrote: post #769

This comment will probably be lost but hey maybe someone will read it: We inherited a world where for many generations, men were hostile to women. It was unfair and needed rectifying. But increasingly, we fixed it by normalizing hostility to men. Overemphasis on "toxic masculinity", hyper focus on promoting outcomes for girls while doing nothing of the sort for boys. Plenty of various "Women in X" supporting each oth…

I dont have data to support this, but I can't help but feel that increasingly America has a habit of "pendulum" swinging around societal issues. That is, we severely overcorrect (often time a little too late) that also has the nasty effect of leading to unintended casualties. On equality, I find it highly disturbing the current policies have amounted to a zero sum game.

This is probably just a human nature thing more than America

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#877

Post by lapcat »

teddyh wrote: post #872
lapcat wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's One True Definition of "toxic masculinity", and of course different people sometimes use it in different ways. However, I do think that defensiveness is the wrong response to the linked article, which clearly explains how men's own attitudes toward masculinity are harming young boys by ignoring their emotional needs. It's not about "bashing" men, it's about helping boys, who are in obvious need…

The comment about “bashing men” (not by me) was obviously not referring to the article, but to society at large.

How is it obvious that the OP's top-level comment on the article thread was not referring to the article? Why even bring it up in the context of the article?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#878

Post by mihaic »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #850
commandlinefan wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> men were hostile to women Were they really though? I mean, yes there always were and always will be some abusive men, but men _as a group_ have been more associated with protecting and caring for women than being hostile to them. Until very recently in human history, women actually couldn't physically survive without men - it's only been in the past few generations that the nature of work has changed to where women…

> I mean, yes there always were and always will be some abusive men, but men _as a group_ have been more associated with protecting and caring for women than being hostile to them. As much a slaveowner has been "protecting and caring" for his slaves.

I spotted the American!

Seriously though, it does absolutely no good to anyone if you make such a snide remark. Even if you'd be right, what's to be done next from that statement?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#879

Post by cbolton »

jadamson wrote: post #700
Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just know it's gonna be the patriarchy/masculinity, right? I don't think a single person blames masculinity for mens problems. Did you by any chance hear the word toxic masculinity and assume all masuclinity was under attack because that is not the same? Also, ngl your comment reads like "ohh why am I bleeding, without checking with a doctor I am gonna guess the answer is the knife lodged in my back, right?" Like…

Name a positive masculine trait, something which men tend to have and women tend not to (should go without saying - it's not a "masculine" trait otherwise). I look forward to your rendition of 4'33".

The following seem positive to me, and more commonly possessed by men:

Strength, self-confidence, wealth, position of responsibility.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#880

Post by raxxorraxor »

phil21 wrote: post #829
raxxorraxor wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teachers, mentors and friends are of course very important, but I would believe this not to be the case. There is no society or commune to take care of the immediate needs. There can be large families that offer a very good and secure support network and there are families that form clans. In that it seems to be a very neutral influence. > I admit that there's likely some who won't like hearing this You have to adver…

> Father that take pride in parenting will get much better results You need both. Fathers that take pride in parenting their own kids, and the random neighbor kids, and their sister's kids, and their friend's kids when they happen to be around. And other parents that support said fathering. A totally disinterested father cannot be replaced by a broad functional community. A functional community cannot be replaced by…

I don't expect something like that to form anywhere aside from very remote villages where people tend to stay for most of their lives. In a modern city interactions are probably too fleeting, people change location too often. Strong relationships need time to form.

So people leave and only the closest family members and friends remain in contact. Even with Facebook. I believe this is a main driver for why you generally don't see large families in the western sphere anymore.

Post reply on HN