Live data from Hacker News

Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

wbur.org

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#991
post #513
post #470

What's interesting is that I recently watched The Red Pill Documentary. I recall when it was released that the director, Cassie Jaye a self professed feminist was pilloried absolutely everywhere for giving a voice to Mens Rights Activists. The actual documentary is quite milquetoast. What it is, is her engaging with the ideas around how in some ways men are disadvantaged in modern society. It's fascinating to me that…

That was not my experience. The message was bitterness, and there is a reason their lot is poorly perceived. Try /r/menslib for a healthier discussion that isn’t centred around blaming women for everything.

[dead]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#992
post #909

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The article isn't about how fathers are somehow prevented from being emotionally available to their sons; rather, it's about how fathers choose to be emotionally unavailable to their sons in the misguided notion that boys need to be trained from childhood to be "manly" and "strong". People here are explaining why fathers are being emotionally unavailable to their sons. It's not a mistake, and it's not neglect. The f…

> It's not a mistake I disagree. > The fathers aren't idiots or abusers. Well, a lot of fathers (and mothers, and non-parents) are idiots or abusers. There are no qualifications for the job other than having functional sexual organs. > It's to train the son to be able to function in a world that doesn't care and will never care about his feelings, his pain, his safety, or his life. A world where all acceptance and lo…

Sadly, it's not something that can be taught just by talking, because must be taught at a very young age. Boys need to learn to be strong as young schoolchildren, in order to not suffer the consequences of being weak. Social interaction patterns start early and persist. Fathers know this, so they must start early, so the son is prepared for the cruelty of the schoolyard.

You're right about the lack of talking. It's not literally talking, it's conditioning/training. I was using the expression "the talk" to link it to something else you might understand.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#993

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your thoughtful and heartfelt reply. I can relate so much to what you're saying. I too am depressed, deeply lonely, and struggling with poor self-esteem. I've dealt with chronic illness, PTSD from watching a few people die badly and one living death [worse], poverty, and frequent homelessness. On "Men suck!" I can understand how hurtful could be, but it never personally bothered me. Oppressed people let…

> The fact is that waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many men do suck... Rapey, dominating, violent, criminal, oligarchic, etc. People who have been harmed by such men have an absolute right to vent. It's true that some men are rapey, dominating, etc. Those men have deeply hurt many people. This is a real problem. The victims of those men have a right to vent about those things, and society needs to listen and hold the thos…

Thanks for the great links. I've just read Aaronson's piece, Penny's response, and Marcotte's diatribe.

I do not see the misandry you suggest is here. Penny's response is remarkably compassionate to Aaronson. ["Hi there, shy, nerdy boys. Your suffering was and is real."] Marcotte's, while brutal and snarky, makes some insightful points. It is not misandry to be unkindly criticized for your ideas, even when you're being honest and confessional about a traumatic time in your life.

Like Aaronson and Penny, I was also a nerd who took refuge in nerdy pursuits as a way to deal with social and sexual awkwardness. I too grew up terrified that someone might find out I might be attracted to them. But this wasn't because I was afraid to be called a "creep" but because I was afraid they might become physically violent. This isn't an idle fear, since I've been gay bashed a few times, once that required hospitalization, each time contributed to my crippling PTSD.

Laurie Penny suffered nerd sexual anxiety like me and Aaronson did. But her fear was being called "crazy" and "slut". She says, "we were terrified, just like you, and ashamed, just like you, and waiting for someone to take pity on our lonely abject pubescence, hungry to be touched. But you did not see us there."

On top of nerd sexual anxiety, Penny had to deal with misogyny, while I had to deal with murderous homophobia. And yet Aaronson claims, without a hint of irony, "But I suspect the thought that being a nerdy [straight] male might not make me “privileged”—that it might even have put me into one of society’s least privileged classes..." LOL, Wut!? Hello Scott, we're right here. He doesn't see that we're dealing with the same shit PLUS an Imperial Fuckload that is SO extra. But unlike Aaronson, I do not blame my problems on feminism. I'm as shocked as Marcotte that this dude literally thinks he's at the bottom of society's totem pole because he has to figure out how to talk to women in a time of changing social mores.

Aaronson states that his nerdy anxiety was so severe that, "My recurring fantasy, through this period, was to have been born a woman, or a gay man, or best of all, completely asexual..." This statement is mindblowing in it's failure of solidarity and imagination. He so fervently craves the empathy he denies to people like me and Penny. He acts like it's only straight male nerds who have ever feared rejection. WTHF!? It must have been nice ONLY to have feared being rejected or being called a creep and not say, rape, gay bashing, or racially-motivated violence. Aaronson suffered a common experience of fear of rejection, and since the objects of his affection were women, he twisted his anxiety into an indictment of feminism as a way to protect his privileged-as-fuck male ego. This would never have occurred to me to do, since the targets of my affection were men. I never had any problem figuring out what feminists meant by consent. It was the same as my own. I never had any trouble figuring out that Dworkin was a dismissable reactionary. I get the feeling that Aaronson read feminist writers with the intent of cherry picking whatever confirmed his fears.

It's hard to imagine anyone labeling Penny's piece as misandrist, so I assume you're referring to Marcotte. But while uncompromising and uncharitable, her critique of Aaronson's letter matches my own. She writes:

"There are many women out there who are also crippled by social anxieties who would prefer to hide in their hobbies and interests. The difference is a) they can’t blame the entire opposite sex instead of themselves for their mental health issues and b) when they actually try to turn those interests and hobbies into professions, they are told by various social forces, both explicitly and implicitly, that their femaleness means they will always be second-rate at best. Being able to hide in mathematics is, in fact, a privilege, because it is one that has long been and continues in many ways, denied to women."

Aaronson loudly decries the notion that he has male privilege, but both he and I were able to take refuge in our nerdiness, while women nerds are constantly getting tossed out of the tree fort. This notion that only dumb alpha males are sexist and that enlightened nerds are somehow sexism-free is absurd. It's like the straight geeks don't even realize we gay geeks have been in the same rooms. We see you. Yes, you're very often being creepy and sexist. Do you see us? We have had to negotiate the same fraught terrain as you have. We managed to do so without resort to blaming feminism for our suffering. Maybe learn from us?

If the extent of the misandry you've suffered is hearing that "men suck" from people who are unreasonable or deeply wounded or both, then that sounds remarkably tame to me. Perhaps my experience isn't typical, but problems for me are things like homelessness, poverty, trauma, queer bashing, and incipient fascism. I'm a man too. Hearing "men suck" doesn't even move the needle.

I was ready to accept that you've suffered misandry, but I'm absolutely not seeing it from what you've posted. What was your reaction to Penny's writing? Were you not impressed with her empathy and nerd solidarity?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#994

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…

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. >U…

Let's stop with this nonsense. Women are not inherently better people than men in any general way. That is some serious propaganda going on there. If for some reason they don't abuse others physically then they do it emotionally. However, it turns out they actually do it physically.

Taken from someone else:

"Men are the biggest abusers."

No. In fact, women initiate domestic violence more than men.[1]

    “Analyzing data gathered from 11,370 respondents, researchers found that “half of [violent relationships] were reciprocally violent. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more that 70% of the cases.” Out of all the respondents, a quarter of the women admitted to perpetrating the domestic violence and, when the violence was reciprocal, women were often the ones to have been the first to strike.

    Reciprocal violence was more dangerous for the victim, both men and women, than was nonreciprocal violence. In fact, men in relationships with reciprocal violence were reportedly injured more often (25.2%) than were women in relationships with nonreciprocal violence (20.0%); this is important as violence perpetrated by women is often seen as not serious.[2]
"Oh, but reciprocal violence is because women are only defending themselves against men!"

    Reciprocal partner violence does not appear to be only comprised of self-defensive acts of violence. Several studies have found that [in cases of reciprocal violence] men and women initiate violence against an intimate partner at approximately the same rate.
"That can't be right. Everyone knows women are less violent than men."

    Women are at least as likely as men to kill their children—more so if one counts killings of newborns—and account for more than half of child maltreatment perpetrators.[3][4]
"What about the fact that it is well known that most violent crimes are committed by men?"[5]

    But, whatever explains the higher levels of male violence—biology, culture or both—the indisputable fact is that it’s directed primarily at other males: in 2010, men were the victims in almost four out of five homicides [6] and almost two-thirds of robberies and non-domestic aggravated assaults [7]. Family and intimate relationships—the one area feminists often identify as a key battleground in the war on women—are also an area in which women are most likely to be violent [8], and not just in response to male aggression but toward children, elders, female relatives or partners, and non-violent men, according to a study published in the Journal of Family Violence.
How will your typical new age western feminist react to this?

    For the most part, feminists’ reactions to reports of female violence toward men have ranged from dismissal to outright hostility. Straus [9] chronicles a troubling history of attempts to suppress research on the subject, including intimidation of heretical scholars of both sexes and tendentious interpretation of the data to portray women’s violence as defensive. In the early 1990s, when laws mandating arrest in domestic violence resulted in a spike of dual arrests and arrests of women, battered women’s advocates complained that the laws were “backfiring on victims,” claiming that women were being punished for lashing back at their abusers.
Some excerpts taken from: The Surprising Truth About Women and Violence [10]

Feel free to copy paste it whenever someone like the above poster posit that men are the biggest abusers.

[1] https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005...

[2] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&d...

[3] http://www.jaapl.org/content/35/1/74.full.pdf

[4] http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files /cb/cm2012.pdf#page=76

[5] http://users.soc.umn.edu/%7Euggen/Lauritsen_CRIM_09.pdf

[6] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/c...

[7] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf

[8] http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226871004_The_two_fa...

[9] https://web.archive.org/web/20140708085504/https://www.socio...

[10] https://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#995
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that (in your experience) young men who seek emotional support become weak and ineffective? Or am I misunderstanding what you've written?

> perceived as

> that perception quickly became reality

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#996

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without evidence, I'll suggest that this is an oversimplification. In a model where boys require masculine modeling from older, adult figures, "absent fathers" are most an issue when a boy's regularly-accessible social unit has been whittled down to the nuclear family. That seems to be a crisis in-and-of-itself. When I look at socially-successful men, they often have had multiple older men in their lives to model the…

It isn’t either/or. It’s cumulative. Joseph Campbell emphasized the idea of the “second father.” A mentor who takes a young man further than his father can. A father has to love you, but the second fathers love has to be earned. Think NCOs in the military, coaches, sensais in martial arts. We aren’t just missing fathers, we’re missing second fathers. Not many people would describe a gunny sergeant, or football coach,…

I would point out that most of your examples are only allowed to hold significant sway over a boy after they've become a young man, in the teen years and further. I'm also speaking to young childhood through the early teen years, when children are mostly going to be limited to their home and neighborhood. There are cultures where they'll regularly come into contact with "second fathers", who will have discipline privileges over/responsibility for them, over the course of their daily activities. This is not the case in America; the norm is the buck stopping with one's resident parents, and others have little authority or responsibility. So I understand if it's hard to conceptualize; we simply don't have much lived experience with it.

You're thinking institutions, when I mean uncles and grandparents who live down the street, or even with the family; trusted neighbors (perhaps distant relatives); teachers who can afford to live in the same neighborhood; local workers and entrepreneurs who are included in neighborhood life; and so on.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#997

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm going call bullshit on this. Almost every society is historically patriarchal because for thousands of years, human attributes tied to testosterone (strength, endurance, athleticism, aggression) were extremely valuable. The world is changing, and we need to change with it by developing a new, healthy society, not retreating into traditional structures and patterns that no longer serve us as a species.

I disagree. Things are the same today as they were thousand of years ago, and they'll be the same for the next thousands of years. Believing this period of unusual prosperity and extended peace in human history will last for long is delusional. The only thing that matters is that we're still biologically the same.

What a depressing worldview. I sincerely hope people like you fail to drag us back to our base instincts with your cynicism.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#998

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Inability to obtain consent does not imply consent.

Do you consider the continuation of our society to be more important than respecting consent?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#999

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's a legitimate question! Many people wish they had never been born. What right do you have to force such a person into existence without their consent?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#1000

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? That question is incoherent.

It's a perfectly coherent question! I'd kindly ask that you try to comply with Hacker News's guidelines about engaging in kind dialogue, and specifically the line "please don't post shallow dismissals".

Here's what I consider to be a simpler question to answer: do you think people have the right to give birth to a child whose existence would be only horrible, endless suffering before eventually succumbing to death?

This isn't just a hypothetical: people tend to agree that a parents who are at high chance of birthing a child with a terrible genetic disease probably shouldn't take that risk (or, at least, should protect against it with some preimplantation genetic testing).

But everyone suffers at least a little bit at some point in their life. If you don't think people have a right to birth children whose lives would be pure suffering, but you do think people have a right to birth children who would suffer at least a little bit in their lives, then how do you justify one but not the other? Is there some threshold amount of misery which you think is okay to inflict on someone without their consent?

There may be some other moral framework or argument which articulately justifies this, and I'm genuinely curious to see if someone has come up with an interesting answer to the question.

Post reply on HN