Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The male suicides: how social perfectionism kills

mosaicscience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–359 of 359 posts

Re: The male suicides: how social perfectionism kills

#351

Post by Nursie »

smorrow wrote: post #341
Nursie wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't think that the woman you are with has a high enough sex drive for you then you should probably discuss it with her or find someone more compatible with your needs. If you can't be satisfied with sex with only one woman the you are free to lead a polyamorist lifestyle if you wish. It's the generalisations across entire genders and the implied sexism that come across as childish. Not to mention your bizarr…

> It's the generalisations across entire genders Do you take everyone so literally? > horrific attitudes to rape. ... I'd roll my eyes, but I'm not American enough. What's being discussed is barely even rape at all, except in some broad, all-encompassing dictionary-style definition of the word. Something falling under the broadest possible definition of the word rape doesn't automatically mean that it's rape in the s…

I was talking about the attitudes to rape you displayed in the other thread further down the page, some of which have now been deleted they were so bad.

It's awful, you have a terrible attitude and a real lack of empathy.

I mean this - "Having sex with someone without their consent is rape, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing." - what the fuck? You clearly have no idea and I hope you're just young and stupid.

Re: The male suicides: how social perfectionism kills

#352

Post by gress »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #343
gress wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expressing emotions doesn't imply weakness or instability.

The problem is that socially it is seen as doing such even if it doesn't actually.

When society is wrong about something, we make progress when those who know better act to change things.

Re: The male suicides: how social perfectionism kills

#353

Post by facepalm »

bakhy wrote: post #348
facepalm wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thought on welfare moms: if you are a welfare mom, you still have your children to care for, which makes you useful. What does a man on welfare have to make himself feel useful?

Just stop, dude. This is not elementary algebra, these are people we are talking about. Go out and meet some.

The article was about suicide statistics. Your belief that welfare moms should be the most prone to suicide is probably false.

Re: The male suicides: how social perfectionism kills

#354

Post by facepalm »

bakhy wrote: post #350
facepalm wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It couldn't have anything to do with women risking their lives for 9 months carrying the child to birth in their bellies? Or that they tend to breastfeed their children for months after birth, which men simply can not do?

Sure, of course. It's probably both. But you do understand that men get discriminated in child custody trials even if the child is already well weened off the tit?

The point is that the situation is not created by patriarchy, but by biology. That women tend to be the caregivers is simply an extension of the beginnings (pregnancy, higher investment in bringing the child to life).

Personally I suspect that women being allowed to be the primary caregiver is actually a privilege they earn because their investment in having the children is so much higher. Feminism needs you to believe that being a stay-at-home mum is a horrible ordeal and a hallmark of oppression. The opposite is probably true, if you consider the average job. There may be jobs that are more fun than taking care of your own children, but most jobs aren't like that.

Consider a stay-at-home dad. He would be a very expensive babysitter (half of the mother's income). Why should women accept that?

Btw., I've heard that in custody trials men actually tend to come out quite well. But I think it has to be taken into consideration that fathers probably only go to court when they see a chance to win to begin with (mother is a crack whore or whatever). So that statistic alone is not telling much.

Re: The male suicides: how social perfectionism kills

#355

Post by sabaiamurai »

kaitai wrote: post #191
beachstartup wrote: post #21

look, men are disposable. and it's always been this way, biologically speaking. throughout most of history, mens' purpose was disposability - through soldiering, exploring, entrepreneurialism (the high risk / high reward activities), or just working your fuckin' ass to the bone in the fields of fealty or a in a grey cubicle (the low risk / low reward activities). let's define some terms. "meaning of life" (note i did…

Women have been disposable throughout history too. Even in societies that respected women, maternal mortality (death during childbirth) was pretty common (and still is in the US). In societies that didn't like having so many women, abortion or infanticide were/are common (see sex ratios in China and India today). Men get killed in wars and at work. Women get killed in wars and having babies. Both are exposed to diffe…

Do you realize how little sense your post makes?

You say maternal mortality was pretty common and still is in the US. It's actually quite rare in the US. Maybe slightly higher than other countries, but still incredibly rare. 28 our of 100,000. So where are you getting your numbers?

You also say that women get killed in wars and "having babies." Like I already showed you, women do not generally get killed having babies. And FAR more men die in service to their respective countries than women do. Laughably, ridiculously, far more men. Sure, an equal number of women and men die in bombings and civilian gunfire, but that's not the result of social or biological norms, that's just the result of random bombs and gunfire.

Finally, you say that men are exposed to violence in the street, and women at home? Actually, both men and women are exposed to violence in the street, and both men and women are exposed to violence at home.

You need to think more critically.

Re: The male suicides: how social perfectionism kills

#356

Post by marrs »

bakhy wrote: post #349
marrs wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really saying "all of society's problems exist because men run everything" whilst also saying "all of society's accomplishments are despite men running everything"? I don't mean to put words into your mouth but that is how your statements read to me. OK, having read more of this discussion, I don't think that's what you're saying. But what do you mean by patriarchy? What do you mean by its crimes?

My point has nothing to do with the specifics, I was merely pointing out that attacking patriarchy is not an attack against all men. That should be pretty obvious, but hey... I don't know if I can give you a quality definition of patriarchy, I am sure you can google that yourself, if you are actually interested. If you just want me to make some silly semantic mistake and then bicker about it, then this will get borin…

I'm not trying to attack you, I'm just trying to make sure we're using the word in the same way, because I couldn't attribute anything to a patriarchy in the way you do. I can't unpick the workings of society in that way. In a society where women stay at home and manage the household, they are the community builders, a business leader's first counsellor is his wife, and so on. Women are still a huge part of society. So the decisions of men could well be the decisions of women.

Re: The male suicides: how social perfectionism kills

#357

Post by smorrow »

Nursie wrote: post #351
smorrow wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the generalisations across entire genders Do you take everyone so literally? > horrific attitudes to rape. ... I'd roll my eyes, but I'm not American enough. What's being discussed is barely even rape at all, except in some broad, all-encompassing dictionary-style definition of the word. Something falling under the broadest possible definition of the word rape doesn't automatically mean that it's rape in the s…

I was talking about the attitudes to rape you displayed in the other thread further down the page, some of which have now been deleted they were so bad. It's awful, you have a terrible attitude and a real lack of empathy. I mean this - "Having sex with someone without their consent is rape, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing." - what the fuck? You clearly have no idea and I hope you're just young an…

I can't remember everything I've written, but I don't see that anything's been deleted.

I'm sorry if I can't accept it as an axiom that all rape is equally bad...

Are you. seriously. saying. that just because something falls under the broadest and most pedantic definition of rape, that that means it must automatically be violent, bloody, sadistic?

If you fuck someone awake in the morning, that fits that very same definition of rape, therefore it _is_ rape, but it's obviously not a bad thing.

If one such counterexample exists I don't see why a few more shouldn't.

Are you even AWARE that I'm talking about the WOMAN initiating here?

Re: The male suicides: how social perfectionism kills

#358

Post by rosege »

beachstartup wrote: post #254
myanonhnaccount wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often thought this, every now and then you get a guy that goes off (shooting spree, whatever) - one of these days, one of those people who go off the deep end may be an extremely technically gifted, it would be scary what sort of havoc that type of a person could wreak if they set their mind to it.

in other words, the unabomber.

or the norwegian guy

Re: The male suicides: how social perfectionism kills

#359

Post by smorrow »

smorrow wrote: post #357
Nursie wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking about the attitudes to rape you displayed in the other thread further down the page, some of which have now been deleted they were so bad. It's awful, you have a terrible attitude and a real lack of empathy. I mean this - "Having sex with someone without their consent is rape, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing." - what the fuck? You clearly have no idea and I hope you're just young an…

I can't remember everything I've written, but I don't see that anything's been deleted. I'm sorry if I can't accept it as an axiom that all rape is equally bad... Are you. seriously. saying. that just because something falls under the broadest and most pedantic definition of rape, that that means it must automatically be violent, bloody, sadistic? If you fuck someone awake in the morning, that fits that very same def…

and the reason I'm saying that is that the main argument against me on that subject seems to be: "rape is very bad because rape is very bad".

also: the posts were shadow-deleted. also: I can't even comprehend how sensitive people are that they feel the need to delete that. it isn't even hate speech or anything, not that speech in itself is a bad thing or that people can't just ignore it when they see it.

the only thing I can see accomplished by such deletion would be people assuming the absolute worst, on the basis of information they don't have access to.

Post reply on HN