Live data from Hacker News

Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

theconversation.com

291–300 of 304 posts

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#291
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a nephew with bipolar. He has chosen to “go public” about it, on LinkedIn. His reasoning, is that it helps remove the stigma. He seems to be doing fine, but he also has a very good background, and a lot of advantages, not available to others (I come from a fairly Ivy League family, and my sister has a lot of resources). For myself, I have been in Recovery from drug addiction, for over 45 years. I was once a Ve…

Have you seen a change in these attitudes?

Sorta/kinda.

In the US, yes, but not overseas.

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#292
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was certainly quite a bit of deep talk about "integrity" and "character" in our grandfathers' generation, that was ultimately relating to issues we would now comprise under so-called 'mental health'. It's not clear to me that this medicalized framing ("...health") is necessarily and consistently better than a more traditional one focused on developing a well-adjusted character.

Some other old-fashioned-y terms in this context: "strength" and "fortitude". Men generally process negative emotions in private so others don't worry about them. This has led to the incorrect common viewpoint that men don't process these emotions at all, and attempts to make men process them like women do.

exactly, men process emotions just like how women rip massive dimensional tearing farts - so discretely as if it never happens

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#293
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a brilliant comment. I'd like to elaborate on something you touch on briefly: > I'm asking people without any ability to help me with it to just take it and work it out with me, and that's not helpful. > that somebody needs to be somebody with the appropriate skills and abilities to help them with it. I think there's an important line to walk here. I think it's important everyone (men and women) are able to t…

Being frustrated with something at work and having somebody to rant about it with is one of the pillars of any friendship. Your friends can do the work of listening, empathising, reassuring and then helping you get past it and enjoying the beer, game or barbecue you're at. That's cool, I agree. Having deep feelings of inadequacy and bringing that to the friendship at every opportunity is asking that friend to help yo…

> Sometimes, when we talk to people about problems, we're "giving them the problem", as in, we want them to tell us what to do about it, or to actually do something about it. They often can't or won't do that - it's your thing. Therapists won't take it either, but they'll help you manage it as your thing.

I actually think that, most of the time, people just want someone to listen. But there's something in our culture that injects that need to "give advice" instead of "just listen."

> if the ask is just to listen

We need to swap this default around. People should need to request advice/help, not request that they listen.

> But there's a lot of stuff people go through where that isn't enough, and asking those same people to do more is probably not going to work.

Certainly - but in my experience just talking about those things can be hugely beneficial, and sure, it would be great if they'd go to a therapist for those things - but as discussed, therapy still has a ways to go toward being accessible to everyone. In the meantime, if someone needs to vent about something, we should be here to listen*

* - up to a point, of course. There's a lot of nuance and lines to walk here that I feel I'm not addressing properly, but

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#294
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are men expected to do so? Male anger is more tolerated then female anger. Also, if you look at men who are popular or get far, they are super emotional - Trump, Musk, Tate heck even Vance and Hengensberg. Emotions driven males are cultural and political leaders literally now.

> Male anger is more tolerated then female anger That's only one emotion. What about all the rest?

In the context of "males are expected to show emotional resilience and self-control first" this is absolutely the primary thing that matters.

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#295
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pure misandrist nonsense. You could have picked Hitler or Stalin to at least have half a point. Napoleon spread enlightenment values that benefitted generations that came after. Julius Caesar took civilization across a continent. Deng Xiaoping was leader during Tianenmen Square but brought more people out of poverty than anyone else in history. Being great means being able to do some things others do not like because…

Sounds to me more like the winners writing the history. In other words, bullshit.

Napoleon or Julius Caesar won?

One was exiled, the other assassinated. They were in no position to write history.

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#296
post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Male anger is more tolerated then female anger That's only one emotion. What about all the rest?

In the context of "males are expected to show emotional resilience and self-control first" this is absolutely the primary thing that matters.

Only if not directed where society wants.

Fighting a war? Absolutely. Defending your family? Absolutely. Getting in an argument with your spouse? Not at all.

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#297
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do they mean by "vulnerability" here? There is this constant redefinition of words. In mainstream usage, "vulnerability" is not a good thing as it means you are open to problems and can easily be attacked. They presumably mean it in the sense of being "open to your own emotions" or tender. Silly misuse of words for a serious subject.

It’s not a misuse - it’s exactly the intended meaning and it is perfectly common in mainstream usage. Allowing yourself to be vulnerable means you are indeed open to attack. But it is also a large part of emotional connection. The alternative is being a fortress - with all the relationship problems that entails. The very fact that you see vulnerability as “bad” is a perfect example of what that language is intended t…

I've been vulnerable in that sense a number of times. It was not a good or pleasant thing. Why would I wish to celebrate that?

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#298
post #63
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are under attack, vulnerability is bad. Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason. Because in many situations, it works. Despite the complaining. And being less ‘emotionally connected’ is valuable when people use that connection to exploit or hurt you. A very common experience for many men. That people (especially women) then complain you won’t open up to them is a riot in those situations because it…

> Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason. What are you talking about here. "Historic male persona" differs between periods and places, but anger, friendships and happiness are basically always parts of it. Odysseus "weeps" and "cries". The whole romantic era was about overly emotional, passionate and sensitive guys.

Repressing emotions is bad. Letting them stop you finding a solution is worse. I've found myself in bad situations a number of times. Sensitivity has its place but sometimes it is a hindrance.

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#299
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women value sharing and emotional vulnerability, but typically not from the males in their lives. There is a significant disconnect between average women and genuine male emotions, and males are expected to show emotional resilience and self-control first and foremost precisely to bridge that gap and then allow the 'sharing' to occur unimpeded, though still in a somewhat controlled way.

Are men expected to do so? Male anger is more tolerated then female anger. Also, if you look at men who are popular or get far, they are super emotional - Trump, Musk, Tate heck even Vance and Hengensberg. Emotions driven males are cultural and political leaders literally now.

Anger like any other emotion has its place. But it is better to channel it into something productive.

Trump and Musk are men who were born into wealth, and were boosted by mass media for decades, so I don't think they really count. Musk's main tactic has been to take credit for others' R&D.

Re: Arthur Conan Doyle explored men’s mental health through Sherlock Holmes

#300
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take is you've got the right reasoning but the wrong conclusion, I agree with your contextless definition of vulnerability and with the use of it in this context, vulnerability makes people vulnerable, by definition. From my experience, the reason you'd risk being vulnerable is there are some things you can't achieve without doing so, it'd be like trying to do surgery with a scalpel on someone wearing platemail, o…

> I think it's sad that performative emotions & vulnerability seem to be a popular thing to have to signal for acceptance. You only think it's performative because you think people are signaling. They're not and performative anything is not required for acceptance, but people are not accepting of others who deal with their social interaction in these terms and your very language betrays where you stand. These imagina…

Sometimes people do signal. I know people who do not cry and maybe need to, and others who can and do to try and get what they want. Some emotions are performative — look at the performative grief over Evita, Diana or even Stalin.
Post reply on HN