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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#941

Post by mrguyorama »

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…

>But increasingly, we fixed it by normalizing hostility to men

What evidence do you have of this? All my friends who want healthy views of women consider me a valid human being, deserving of respect and care, even though I have a penis. Sure, lots of young men are glomming onto this absurd train of hatred, that women or "femoids" actually naturally enjoy rape and other horseshit, but they are being told this stuff by adult men, who clearly and overtly do not consider women to be equals, or deserving of anything but nonconsensual sex.

How the hell do you blame the toxic masculinity problem, caused by assholes like Jordan Peterson, Andrew tate, Nick Fuentes, "Fresh and fit podcast" etc, on women asking to be treated like people. It is not women driving the hatred against women, it is morally bankrupt individuals quite literally profiting off boys who were never told that they shouldn't be trying to pressure their girlfriend into sex, or kids who have no idea how to treat women being told "here's a simple mental model" that surely explains all their problems, they just have to be fit enough or attractive enough and then they will get the sex they "deserve".

Meanwhile, all these "Manosphere" influencers seem to be really against anyone being gay, or anyone being trans, and also for some reason are great friends with actual neo-nazis, and I don't remember those people being very pro-women's rights.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#942

Post by mrguyorama »

haswell wrote: post #908
space_fountain wrote: post #892

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with much of this especially the lack of zero sum games, but a problem is this conversation takes oxogen away from bigger issues. We’re literally commenting on an article talking about how we still treat boys and men like they don’t or shouldn’t have emotions and thus don’t need emotional support and all the top comments are about how attacking toxic masculinity has gone too far? Like the problem here is seei…

> a problem is this conversation takes oxogen away from bigger issues Is it? This doesn't seem like an obvious conclusion to me, and isn't this just another way to frame "zero sum" thinking? i.e. there's only so much oxygen, and it's better used over there on that other issue instead of here on this issue, with the implication being that using oxygen here detracts from other things over there. Another way to frame th…

Millions of young men are knee deep in the "incel" and "manosphere" community. This community is transparently hateful towards women, views them as objects who have no free will and follow very simple rules, and they only exist so you can sleep with them and then they parasite off you forever.

Where is this supposed man hating community?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#943

Post by naasking »

mrguyorama wrote: post #936
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…

>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.

> 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!

The effects of corporal punishment are small compared to the effects of molestation and physical abuse. If corporal punishment were our only "issue", we'd be much better off. I wouldn't even classify this under "the very basics".

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#944

Post by DirkH »

itsoktocry wrote: post #726
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…

> to say "I don't know" and listen to the experts Seeing this repeated in this thread. Who are these "experts"? What makes them "experts"? Is there some kind of track record I can look at?

My parents read child psychology and based on that changed their mind on whether spankings were something good for your kids.

They updated their views based on expert peer-reviewed evidence instead of relying on their own armchair theories. I laud them for that. I used to be pro-spanking since I turned out OK and was stunned to later learn my parents regretted it all after what they subsequently learnt. They earnestly wish they had learnt sooner it wasn't necessary.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#945

Post by mrguyorama »

commandlinefan wrote: post #815
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…

> 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…

In recent memory, 40% of cops ADMITTED to physical violence towards their wives.

But sure, tell me that men forever were actually so nice and good to everyone and slapping your wife or threatening her harm for basic things wasn't normal, or that women had the freedom to do what they wanted like every innocent human deserves, or that there weren't explicit societal pressures to be subservient to men, not by choice.

>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 could actually perform it.

This is just wrong. The vast majority of women are as physically capable as the vast majority of men. There are only differences in the extremes

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#946

Post by mrguyorama »

leokennis wrote: post #648
robertlagrant wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The director did a good Tedx talk[0] if anyone would like a tl;dr. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY

Just FYI, TEDx is no guarantee at all about the credentials or worthiness of a talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_(conference)#TEDx > TEDx are independent events similar to TED in presentation. They can be organized by anyone who obtains a free license from TED, and agrees to follow certain principles. TEDx events are required to be non-profit, but organizers may use an admission fee or commercial sponsorship to…

TED proper is just rich people playing gentlemen science again. There's been a lot of pseudoscience and self help gurus in those talks.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#947

Post by dogleash »

corinroyal wrote: post #57

In the nineties I joined a men's group retreat where we circled up and listened to each other's struggles, gave lots of support, and lots of hugs. Then we did some consciousness raising around circumcision and it's barbarity. We took our cue from the Feminist movement. They were getting their shit together and so could we. Gary Snyder read his gorgeous nature poetry, Peter Berg sold us on a green cities concept that…

> Step one to improving the situation for men is to destroy the right-wing MRM.

Step one is building the future you want to see. Step one isn't waging a cultural battle.

A well articulated alternative might even sap the wind from it's sails. But if you want to wage war without anything else to offer them... you'll just be entrenching the status quo.

Connecting to men might require discussing sore cultural subjects with a bit of impropriety. The problem for you, is that all the people willing to say "fuck good taste" aren't following it up with the message you want.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#948

Post by singleshot_ »

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…

Or we could recognize their utility and not move away from them… wouldn’t this make more sense?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#949

Post by bradlys »

_xnmw wrote: post #918
bradlys wrote: post #899

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I say this as someone who spent a month visiting Poland and seeing many native people of the area…

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#950

Post by thatfunkymunki »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #561
dayvid wrote: post #394

I spent a summer teaching at a high school with separate gender classrooms. One thing that stuck out was that the women were motivated from hearing them out and how they felt first and men were motivated by giving them a challenge. To some extent, society is becoming more effeminate. This is a good thing in giving more opportunity for women, but there seems to be less space for men to grow or learn to be men. The mai…

Society isn't becoming more effeminate. Society is losing some of the toxic masculinity because women are achieving leadership positions and have legal remedies available to them when men behave inappropriately. Parents are attempting to intervene appropriately. Besides, the default state of raising a boy in the United States is to abuse the child. Feelings? Not valid. Keep them to yourself. (This is how I ended up w…

i totally agree with this, and if you haven't read "For Your Own Good" and "The Drama of the Gifted Child" by Alice Miller you would likely enjoy them.
Post reply on HN