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

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#301

Post by arp242 »

carabiner wrote: post #256
MattGaiser wrote: post #2

> many young men don’t seek emotional support when they need it because they fear being perceived as weak and ineffective. I would be curious to see a study on what happens to those men who do seek it. As in every last case I anecdotally am aware of, that perception quickly became reality and those men regretted it.

Brene Brown studied it. It does not turn out well for men: > I was not prepared to hear over and over from men how the women — the mothers, sisters, girlfriends, wives — in their lives are constantly criticizing them for not being open and vulnerable and intimate, all the while they are standing in front of that cramped wizard closet where their men are huddled inside, adjusting the curtain and making sure no one see…

This is from her book Daring Greatly by the way, in case anyone else was curious.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#302

Post by dleslie »

lisasays wrote: post #132
motohagiography wrote: post #75

We don't need a critical theory of boyhood, we just need to stop institutionally empowering people who hate their dads. I know many good men, and the defining characteristic of every single one of them is that regardless of who their father was, they accept him, and by extension they accept themselves. If you are still mad at him or have contempt for him, I recommend considering how it's manifesting in your beliefs a…

Only problem is - objectively some dads are just no damn good. Are their children supposed to "accept" him regardless, and feel bad about themselves if they can't?

Often we hold on too long because we cannot accept that there will never be a "normal", healthy future for the relationship. Letting go, and cutting them off can be an expression of acceptance.

And it's important to accept those things we cannot change, lest they torment us.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#303

Post by pizzafeelsright »

znpy wrote: post #147
MattGaiser wrote: post #2

> many young men don’t seek emotional support when they need it because they fear being perceived as weak and ineffective. I would be curious to see a study on what happens to those men who do seek it. As in every last case I anecdotally am aware of, that perception quickly became reality and those men regretted it.

Eh, I’m gonna bite the bullet and give a quick answer, based on what’s I’ve seen growing up: Basically you get answers like: “Man up” “Grow a pair” “Boys don’t cry” “Life is harsh, get used to it” Last but not the least: “psychologists are for weak people with mental problems, not for you”. Two more observations again based on my life experience: 1. Weakness is generally accepted in girls/women, largely acknowledged…

I teach my son not cry. I teach him how to conduct violence. I teach him to treat people kindly, never equally.

We don't cry because we manage our emotions. We know words cannot physically harm us. If it's truth, acknowledge it. If it's a lie, it can be ignored and the liar pitied.

Teaching violence because it teaches respect, physical limits, and healthy lifestyle. We know how to be gentle because we are strong. We will kill bad guys. We will be good guys. Violence can lead to death. We love life and will protect it.

A child capable of this kind of violence needs to have their emotions in check. He gets hurt? Ask for a hug. Ask for advice how to win.

People aren't equal. We don't pretend. We don't go 100% against smaller or less trained. We don't expect everyone to behave as we do. We don't all value the same things. We can still be friends. We can ignore inequity. Sometimes we have more or can do more than others. We do not boast. Sometimes we have less. We do not whine or envy.

He is a man when he no longer has to obey me when he tells me he can be responsible for himself. Until then I get to discipline him and limit his freedom. We explore freedom along with the responsibility.

Life is harsh and wonderful.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#304

Post by darkerside »

aredox wrote: post #143
davidguetta wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> majority of the hetero/bi female dating pool selects in favour of features that are often red flags for toxic masculinity This is so insane. Anyone who's been enough a player of the dating game and treed to optimise your strategy known you will end up becoming or (in my case) pretending to be "toxic masculinity" because it work so much more on girls.

Maybe because you spend too much time with girls who are "players" on the dating "game". insert meme about selection bias here There's a whole world out there of fairly normal people who don't play those games. They are not in nightclubs. Try to live an actual life.

This doesn't line up with my understanding of human nature. I never really got into pickup culture and have ended up incredibly lucky, so don't read any bitterness in this comment. The pickup game didn't come from nowhere. It culturally evolved because these techniques are extremely effective hacks on the human brain. There are elements of it that you can ethically utilize, but if you go all in on it, you are manipulating people to your own ends. This isn't a game some people play and some don't.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#305

Post by somewhereoutth »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #291
somewhereoutth wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Men as a whole class will never be rounded up and slaughtered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

Um, two groups of men fighting each other? But for territory / political reasons, not because 'kill all men'

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#306

Post by motohagiography »

lisasays wrote: post #132
motohagiography wrote: post #75

We don't need a critical theory of boyhood, we just need to stop institutionally empowering people who hate their dads. I know many good men, and the defining characteristic of every single one of them is that regardless of who their father was, they accept him, and by extension they accept themselves. If you are still mad at him or have contempt for him, I recommend considering how it's manifesting in your beliefs a…

Only problem is - objectively some dads are just no damn good. Are their children supposed to "accept" him regardless, and feel bad about themselves if they can't?

Their children feel bad about themselves because they can't accept who their fathers were. In these offspring, that hate is always there somewhere and comes out in other ways, directed at other things, often outgroups. An antidote is Blaise Pascal's observation that, "To understand is to forgive," which has a lot of depth to it.

The animus in the culture right now is divided between those who have some acceptance of their fathers, and those who don't. It's not just a right/left thing either, as that animus decides whether someone chooses to be an unworthy person who blames, betrays, and justifies their own cruelty to others because of what they imagine they suffered themselves - or not. Understand who he was and consider that a lot of the anger at "The World," was really just pent up anger at him. Personally, I think a key role of a father is to moderate the urges for cruelty, vanity, conceit, self pity, and other vices that mothers often overlook and forgive, and mainly by example.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#307

Post by peteradio »

rainsford wrote: post #189
akomtu wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Aside from all the other problems with this that others have pointed out, the most obvious hyper-masculine adversary you might be referencing is currently proving to be embarrassingly inept at actual war. I would have expected western (particularly US) culture conservatives to stop complaining about the masculinity of our armed forces compared to our rivals once one of the rivals in question showed all the performati…

Now, I'm not sure where that comes from but I've heard this particular theory and it was China for some reason, not Russia.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#308

Post by somewhereoutth »

celeritascelery wrote: post #300
somewhereoutth wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a reason virtually every culture is patriarchal. It's because men are physically stronger than women. That's it. That's all it is.

Maybe in a society where leadership is based on challenges of physical strength (i.e. 1v1 combat for the right to rule). But that hasn’t been true of most cultures for millennia. It goes deeper than that.

You are saying that women are inherently 'less wise' or 'mentally weak' or some such? What are you saying?

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#310

Post by somewhereoutth »

lockhouse wrote: post #296
somewhereoutth wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a reason virtually every culture is patriarchal. It's because men are physically stronger than women. That's it. That's all it is.

I don't think it's that simple. The fact that women give birth, have periods, and have a hormonal cycle that has wide ranging impact upon their psyche and decision making processes also has probably had a major impact on most cultures trending patriarchal.

What do you mean by 'impact on their psyche and decision making processes'? They are less mentally capable in some sense? I'd like you to spell it out.
Post reply on HN