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

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#911

Post by syncbehind »

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?

>Why don't you think you need your unborn child's consent before birthing them?

Is this satire?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#912

Post by hackinthebochs »

roflyear wrote: post #757
goodpoint wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Literally EVERYONE who is not a professional told us to smack our kid Respectfully, if that's true I urge you to find a new social circle.

Right? Kids are different, but honestly not that different from adults. Just more impressionable, because they are learning the world. And of course less knowledgeable and developed by definition. But they work a lot of the same ways. Would you make it practice to hit adults??? No? Why are you teaching kids that this is what happens? It makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense. Pain is the universal teacher. It's why every organism that can move under its own power experiences pain. We are extremely good at learning pain avoidance. We even used to hit adults (and far worse) to get them to behave. So yes, of course it makes sense. Whether it results in positive outcomes is the only legitimate question.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#913

Post by ttrmw »

Neil44 wrote: post #744
cies wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My daughter's teacher [...] it's not just me Maybe it was just her though. I'd talk to the school director over this.

You're not wrong but at the same time she otherwise seems to do a good job with my daughter which I'm keen not to in any way get in the way of by making this about me.

She is teaching your daughter that treating you (or other men) this way is acceptable. I think it's worth the intervention for that reason.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#914

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

jfengel wrote: post #902
swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Comparing it to children is not better. If anything, it's worse. Women are not children. They don't want to be protected, especially when they've chosen not to be. Women don't want to lose agency in the name of being cared for. Children don't have that option, because they're not adults. Adult women want to be treated as adults, and very much resent the implication that they need protection. Especially when that come…

As an adult you should understand the financial realities of a stay at home parent.

If the breadwinner (man or woman) needs to make enough to support the kids and family. If they don't, the marriage and kids suffer.

The stay at home parent (man or woman) also has duties to the kids and family and home. Otherwise the kids suffer. If either party wants to divorce for any reason, the kids suffer. That's the reality of parenthood.

Protection is antiquated but it's foolhardy to think a healthy man would suppress his instinct to protect his pregnant wife. You're right though women don't need protecting all the time.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#915

Post by jncfhnb »

haswell wrote: post #884
jncfhnb wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree. “Sensitive men” are acutely aware of the behavior of “toxic masculinity men”. It’s not a behavior that exclusively affects women. It affects everyone. I can’t say I’ve ever felt threatened by this concept as a guy. Semantics get messy and people can use terms however they want but the basic to me feels obvious and just. It is no surprise that such men don’t have their emotional needs met. But there are…

> I don’t agree. “Sensitive men” are acutely aware of the behavior of “toxic masculinity men”. It’s not a behavior that exclusively affects women. It affects everyone. I agree with this, and I'm not sure on which point you disagree. My point was that the broader cultural anti-male rhetoric that arose as an (understandable) response to toxic masculinity tends to have the least impact on the worst perpetrators, and the…

I don’t agree that it affects the worst perps less though. I think society has progressed enormously. I think strong men have significantly much less power than they did before, both with respect to how women are treated and with respect to how men interact with other men. There is work to be done, and it is hardly universal, but it is much better.

For example, you can’t just… grab and hump subordinate women in the workplace as a joke anymore in most areas. This is a kind of thing that is now so outrageous you will see people young people doubting that it was ever a normative thing.

Or cliche locker room bullies. You’ve got someone in this comment thread denying that this was real because it’s so far from their experience.

A large part of this is probably because being a strong white dude is not a good indicator of social power anymore because the economy is much harder. But narratives help.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#916

Post by theptip »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #494
theptip wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A simple answer (the one other developed countries tend towards) would be to emphasize / invest more in rehabilitation than in retribution/deterrence in the criminal justice system. Another set of approaches would be to fund pro-natal/pro-family initiatives such as child income tax credits, to make it easier for fathers to participate in family life; at the margin economic instability drives families apart among othe…

[flagged]

> I've had the argument online many times, but people are simply too stupid and/or wishful-thinking to understand how wrong they are.

This is a terrible way to conduct a discussion. Please read the site rules, in particular “be nice”. If you can’t comment without being triggered, don’t.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#917

Post by [deleted] »

bradlys wrote: post #899
k0k0r0 wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am polish, but was raised in germany. I can confirm the observation about eastern europe, at least regarding poland. Man are man, and Woman are Woman. In general, (non-trans, non-homo and somewhat binary people) seem to have a healthier relationship with their core-gender identity. People in western societies certainly should take an example when it comes to modern gender roles. I would not glorify the situation th…

I find this weird. My interpretation of Poland and of a decent amount of folks who came from Eastern Europe is that both sexes actually exhibit more faux-stoic and vaguely masculine behaviors than other western countries. There is an idea that many people in Eastern Europe are stoic but then the rampant alcoholism and other such behaviors would make it clear that they’re not actually stoic… whatever they’re dealing w…

[deleted]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#918

Post by _xnmw »

bradlys wrote: post #899
k0k0r0 wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am polish, but was raised in germany. I can confirm the observation about eastern europe, at least regarding poland. Man are man, and Woman are Woman. In general, (non-trans, non-homo and somewhat binary people) seem to have a healthier relationship with their core-gender identity. People in western societies certainly should take an example when it comes to modern gender roles. I would not glorify the situation th…

I find this weird. My interpretation of Poland and of a decent amount of folks who came from Eastern Europe is that both sexes actually exhibit more faux-stoic and vaguely masculine behaviors than other western countries. There is an idea that many people in Eastern Europe are stoic but then the rampant alcoholism and other such behaviors would make it clear that they’re not actually stoic… whatever they’re dealing w…

Can't judge a culture by its emigrants, especially when you don't speak their native language. The cold/stoic stereotype is especially false.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#919

Post by manvillej »

za3faran wrote: post #895
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…

> We inherited a world where for many generations, men were hostile to women. It was unfair and needed rectifying. Perhaps in an American/European centric view of the world. I would heavily challenge/reject that assumption across the globe.

Universally? No one can say that, but at large, men have been hostile to women in most cultures including most of the modern non-western societies: China, India, Korea, Japan, Middle East, South & Central America, Russia, etc.

There are exceptions, but to pretend that they are relevant to current public health crisis is a red herring at best.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#920

Post by za3faran »

manvillej wrote: post #919
za3faran wrote: post #895

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We inherited a world where for many generations, men were hostile to women. It was unfair and needed rectifying. Perhaps in an American/European centric view of the world. I would heavily challenge/reject that assumption across the globe.

Universally? No one can say that, but at large, men have been hostile to women in most cultures including most of the modern non-western societies: China, India, Korea, Japan, Middle East, South & Central America, Russia, etc. There are exceptions, but to pretend that they are relevant to current public health crisis is a red herring at best.

As a Middle Easterner, we reject that notion.
Post reply on HN