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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#931

Post by [deleted] »

plewd wrote: post #289
seabird wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tate has a following because anybody more mild or less delusional will just get shouted down by vocal radicals who have no concept of why lost men gravitate toward people like Tate in the first place. Anybody that exists in the space he does will be called an incel-adjacent far-right radical regardless of how reasonable what they're saying is, and the only winning move there is to just say that detractors are agents…

I think Jordan Peterson is doing a decent job at this though, his stance on helping young men is quite similar to Tate's, albeit less delusional.

[deleted]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#932

Post by wmidwestranger »

prepend wrote: post #809
wmidwestranger wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same about "The Red Pill" movie and couldn't see how the criticism aligned with the reality. What I do see often is that entrenched actors and groups will attack, with specially reserved ardor, any artist or production taking a position of understanding and shared interest between groups or actors that are meant to be at odds. With this movie, the critics could have said the filmmaker, Alex Lee Moyer, avoi…

> couldn't see how the criticism aligned with the reality. I think it’s the same phenomenon of people skipping the article and going straight to the comments where they make statements based on the headline and their own existing contexts. By the time they learn the content, if they ever do, they dig in and try to defend their positions. I think this is caused by the incentive is for karma/whuffie/whatever rather tha…

Frankly, I'm beginning to succumb to the belief that even knowing the truth, or attempting to find it, is a lose-lose activity. First, I have to dig for it and evaluate the probabilities, credentials, incentives, and context until I'm confident. Second, I have to obscure my informed opinion.

While they're ignored up to the point they do blow their brains out, they're then a welcome addition to the number of gun deaths, which is often used interchangeably when referring to statistics describing gun violence.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#933

Post by ripvanwinkle »

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.

>> Good parenting is foremost about growing up before your kids do

This unfortunately is not a given and that's the crux of the discussion.

If every parent were able to achieve complete knowledge and wisdom about all things parenting before they had kids we wouldn't be talking of any of this.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#934

Post by itronitron »

iosystem wrote: post #705
itronitron wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Only problem with tax deductible is that it doesn't benefit lower income families as much.

I think a better reward would be the ability for someone having gone through the parenting program to have the ability to tell child protective services, or law enforcement, to fuck off straight to their face without any negative consequences.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#935

Post by isk517 »

commandlinefan wrote: post #838
prepend wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a similar sentiment. I remember growing up with jocks and bullies and really not identifying with the whole “group showers and snapping towels at asses” masculinity not pleasant and spent a lot of time getting beaten up or avoiding being beaten up. So at first I liked the pushback against toxic masculinity as I didn’t like jerk men. But then the concept expanded to everything. “Mansplaining” isn’t something un…

> not identifying with the whole “group showers and snapping towels at asses” masculinity Me, neither. And, in fact, I've never met anybody who did. Have you ever noticed how many of the movies we grew up watching were about a "shy, sensitive boy" who "wasn't like the jocks" who ended up getting the girl in the end? Ever notice how that trope appealed to almost everybody? That's because that's how everybody remembers…

When remembering my past I also try to remember that there were times that I was the villain of somebody else story. One of the reasons why there are always 'jerks' and 'bullies' is because most jerks and bullies don't view themselves as such.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#936

Post by mrguyorama »

naasking wrote: post #770
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…

> 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…

>we know some behaviours which are typically harmful (molestation, violence), but everyone already knows that

Horse crap, a huge amount of parents genuinely believe violence is a necessity for child rearing (including frequent repetitions of "spare the rod, spoil the child") to the point that they've even pushed to bring it back into public schools!

Even the very basics are not accepted as fact by many.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#937

Post by mrguyorama »

amerkhalid wrote: post #658
antigonemerlin wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's exactly what my father did. He took parenting classes at the library, because he wanted to learn more and didn't think that just because he considered himself successful in business and life, he would necessarily understand pedagogy. To that, I am eternally grateful to him. It's very hard for people to swallow their pride and admit humility, to say "I don't know" and listen to the experts. I have an immense amou…

I really wish schools taught humility. As a new parents we got tons of books as gifts on pregnancy and baby's first year or two. But then it ended. I continue to buy books on parenting, child psychology, etc. But sadly it seems once baby turns toddler, most parents are done with learning. One of the most common toxic phrase I keep hearing from these parents is I was raised this way, look I turned out to be fine. Of c…

Well schools can teach whatever, but if your parent raises you to think education is bullshit liberal brainwashing, you aren't exactly going to listen to it.

For example, plenty of schools teach media literacy, and yet the kids who desperately need it don't pay attention because they are not motivated to learn, nobody encourages them to learn, they and the people around them do not value education on it's own merits, and sure enough ten years later they are posting that Obama is a lizard person.

We have a giant amount of, essentially, knowledge skepticism. These people are convinced that studying something robustly for four years is valueless, and meaningless. Some of them are so "skeptical" they want to homeschool their kids expressly to just teach them the bible and nothing more.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#938

Post by laverya »

kortilla wrote: post #585
NhanH wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to imagine how to design such study: (close to) 100% of people that adopt kid WANTED to have kid, and planned for them. Some XX% number of people having kid via pregnancy wasn't planning for them, and some even smaller YY% number doesn't want the kid at all. Not to mention that unless the adoption of kids are done blind by parents, there has to be some biases there. As an example out of my ass, kids with behavio…

Compare adoptions of infants (handles the behavior issue) with parents who took blatant processes to improve pregnancy odds (IVF, etc). That gets you two categories of people do definitely want kids, and only one is subject to the classes, interviews, and checkups.

There's certain to be natal/genetic/etc differences in the kids, though. (Are infants put up for adoption more likely to have been born to mothers who are in poverty? Who smoke, drink or use drugs? Who are younger or older? Does IVF itself have positive or negative effects? Etc)

Really the ideal test would be, in order of preference:

1. randomization (some parents get the classes, some do not, chosen randomly)

2. geographic (parents in state/area A get classes, rest do not)

3. temporal (parents after year X get classes)

4. twins (parents of twin A get classes, twin B do not)

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#939

Post by sacado2 »

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.

"Preventing births within a group" is one of the definitions of a genocide.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#940

Post by codr7 »

ravenstine wrote: post #60
codr7 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is many women seem to prefer exactly the kind of men everyone is complaining about, and not because they really like them either. Nice guys are always treated like trash. I can count the number of healthy relationships I've seen in this life on one hand. I don't know exactly how we ended up here; but unless things get better fast, over population will be the least of our troubles.

I think part of the issue is the misunderstanding men have in terms of what a "nice guy" actually is. If a man is told by a heterosexual woman he's not in a relationship with that he's a nice guy, he should take that to mean she's not attracted to him. But this is confusing because the majority of men's advice about women comes from women , and the messaging they've received is that they should be a "nice guy." And b…

Plenty of assumptions there, and a somewhat defensive tone, might want to look into that.

I'm telling you, something's off; most women don't even want what they're looking for when they get it.

It's quite possibly a similar story for men, but I don't have the experience to judge.

Post reply on HN