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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#631

Post by Guthur »

orasis wrote: post #606
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…

You don’t learn how to parent, you learn how to live, in a wholehearted way, and you model that for your children. Good parenting is foremost about growing up before your kids do.

Wholeheartedly agree, the thought that we can school our way out this seems overly simplistic. And I'd go as far as to say the schooling philosophy is part of this pathology.

Society decided to dump most doctrinal support but unfortunately this has left a significant portion of the masses with little direction. But also many have little inclination or time to work it out for themselves. And even if you did start to read Jung, Nietzsche, Hegel, Hiedeger or whichever philosopher you chose there's a myriad of directions one could take it and it's a heady mix. I've started to read these philosophers but I bring it a traditional Creator grounding and it's still pretty wild.

Ultimately I don't think we have a clue what we're doing and we are prone to getting very scared and taking it out on those around us or in our care.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#632

Post by d--b »

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…

This is a great idea.

One of the things that Finance people do is force employees to have short computer-based trainings every year. They seem stupid and bother everyone, but I think they are fairly effective (and they've been going on for years, so they must have proven some level of effectiveness).

Health insurance providers could be forced to have parents do a yearly 1-hour training on how to handle kids to enable benefits.

You're not going to solve the biggest problems, just like SEC trainings don't prevent money laundering, but whateveer moves the needle a little bit may be worth doing...

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#633

Post by ZephyrBlu »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #559
screye wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't having enough children. Every extra hurdle is going to reduce the number of people who end up parents. > Potentially break the cycles of bad parenting You can't break cycles of bad parenting, because they are 2nd order effects of cycles of trauma. And cycles of trauma have been a fundamental part of human civilization since we've existed. We absolutely should teach compassion, good parenting 101s and ba…

> People aren't having enough children. By what metric? Economics? Economics, ironically, is the reason I don't have more kids. My family is doing, what I would consider, "quite well", but we'd still be pretty fucked with one more mouth to feed, the need for a larger car and possibly larger house. I truly don't know how people that aren't that far below us on the resources / income scale have any hope of comfortable…

It's interesting that when people talk about having another child there is almost always the implicit assumption of maintaining at least the same lifestyle.

I was quite amused that in your comment you explicitly talk about expanding your lifestyle to have another child: "the need for a larger car and possibly larger house".

Poor people have more children than well off people until you hit top >1% incomes. Economics is not the thing stopping people from having kids, reduction in lifestyle is.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#634

Post by thriftwy »

folli wrote: post #617
skinkestek wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also you were a bit lucky. Over the years there has been an insane amount of bad advise from "health specialists". I was born in a time when kids were supposed to sleep with their backs up and mothers were supposed to wash their nipples using antibacterial before breastfeeding...! Sometime before that there was a time (at least around here) were kids were supposed to eat sour cream porridge from early life. Of course…

I'm not at all disagreeing with you, but your examples also demonstrate that a lot of parental advice rely and reflect the era's zeitgeist. How do we make sure that what you call 'correct advice' is not again a reflection of today's zeitgeist and 50 years from now will make fun of these suggestions in a similar way as of applying antibacterial before breastfeeding?

We don't, and that's why we should encourage parents to diversify their approach as opposed to doing the same set of things mandated from the above.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#635

Post by jadamson »

zb3 wrote: post #630
jadamson wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Does that disqualify their problems? I don't get your sentiment.

MensLib is overflowing with the kind of male feminist who will sling around "incel" as an insult for even the most milquetoast of takes.

And since the Red Pill documentary (bad name, middling content) was mentioned, I'll also point out that one of the feminists who featured in it was later outed as a sex pest, despite desperately trying to position himself as One of the Good Ones™:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kimmel

At best, MensLib types are annoying sycophants. At worst, they're wolves in sheep's clothing. In both cases, it's comedy.

That's not to say that Andrew Tate et al. aren't issues as well, but at least they're dressed appropriately.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#636

Post by myshpa »

antigonemerlin wrote: post #479
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…

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…

I've read somewhere that just buying a parenting book, even without reading it, can make some people better parents or have a positive influence. Simply thinking about how to be a better parent and showing an interest in improving can lead to self-reflection and conscious consideration of parenting approaches.

While reading the book (attending the course) would likely provide more benefits, just the intention to be a better parent and the willingness to reflect on one's parenting practices may still be valuable step leading to an improvement in parenting abilities.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#637

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#638

Post by hef19898 »

nprateem wrote: post #489
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…

[flagged]

That was tried, in various forms already. Now I let you guess by whom.

Honestly, people in Germany are freaking out because the AfD won the county equivalent of a mayors election for the first time. In Germany's second smallest county (it is a Landkries, a county is as close a thing as possible). What bothers me much, much more is to see all this Nazi-eugenics derived ideas slowly but surely finding their way again into mainstream discours. Freaking scary actually.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#639

Post by kgwgk »

anon291 wrote: post #390
theoldlove wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was recently wondering about who was typically in the delivery room 50+ years ago. So when I saw my elderly grandmother last week, I asked her whether my grandfather was there when my father was born in the late 50s. She was a little offended by the question (itself interesting), but said it was just her and the medical staff. No other support people. She thought my grandfather was at the hospital, but wasn’t sure.

The concept of the delivery room is a historical aberration. For most of history women would give birth at home accompanied by female friends and family.

Having more than 99% probability of surviving is also a historical aberration.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#640

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

snehk wrote: post #528
nicbou wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> that isn’t centred around blaming women for everything. Without clicking the link, I just know it's gonna be the patriarchy/masculinity, right?

> I just know it's gonna be the patriarchy/masculinity, right?

I don't think a single person blames masculinity for mens problems. Did you by any chance hear the word toxic masculinity and assume all masuclinity was under attack because that is not the same?

Also, ngl your comment reads like "ohh why am I bleeding, without checking with a doctor I am gonna guess the answer is the knife lodged in my back, right?" Like the sarcastic tone is there but the answer is still right. Post-sarcasm is a 10 year old concept but damn your comment is almost museum worthy.

Post reply on HN