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

The data are clear: The boys are not all right

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#891

Post by throwaway46jt7 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #887
pcmoney wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I'm not surprised he said it on a throwaway. For one thing there are a lot of people from the rest of the world here. We all roll our eyes and sigh a little when we hear "America is the greatest nation on earth".

FYI I am not a native American. I am aware Americas foreign policy is evil and it goes to war with any nation for selfish purpose. But with all its flaws it promotes individual freedom and that like most of Asian country citizens I admire.

I also understand some of the European countries are great in terms of quality of life, safety net e.t.c. But they are weak and can not protect themselves in case of war and everything can change in a short period of time. America's strength lies in its founding principles based on freedom and that is something every nation looks up to.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#892

Post by ikt »

sundarurfriend wrote: post #640
ReactiveJelly wrote: post #419

> we must stop defining masculinity as necessarily toxic I know "toxic masculinity" is a dumb academic term that never should have become a slogan, but Andrew, Mr. Yang, that's not what it means. It's like "async functions". Not all functions are async. It's okay if a function is sync. Adjectives modify nouns to make them refer to a specific subset. It's fine to be masculine. I don't know what it means to be masculin…

When a woman engages in a stereotypically gender-conforming behavior in a harmful way, it's called "internalized misogyny". When a man engages in a stereotypically gender-conforming behavior in a harmful way, it should have been called "internalized misandry". Instead, because academia is not free from biases of its own, a condemning, shaming, loaded term was coined for this side of things.

> Instead, because academia is not free from biases of its own, a condemning, shaming, loaded term was coined for this side of things.

I don't believe it started with Academia, it was a social term that came into use, I'd probably blame Twitter:

Coined in late 20th-century men’s movements, “toxic masculinity” spread to therapeutic and social policy settings in the early 21st century. Since 2013, feminists began attributing misogyny, homophobia, and men’s violence to toxic masculinity. Around the same time, feminism enjoyed renewed popularization.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1097184X2094325...

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#893

Post by odshoifsdhfs »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #785
javajosh wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Women, on the other hand, haven't been given the same advertising on the American dream that men have There is a documentary, "Born Rich" [0]. It's interviews with the children of very rich people, done by one of their peers. I noticed that in the film there is stark difference between the girls and the boys: the girls were all well adjusted, enjoying their wealth, happy, satisfied, seemingly well-aware of their goo…

It's a uniquely American thing. I studied abroad for a semester in England, and in one of the classes I took there the (Australian) professor asked us what socioeconomic class we thought we belonged to. It was a good university, but most of the British kids answered "working class." When he asked "Why?" they answered, "Because our parents work." That always stuck with me. In England, the aristocracy is alive and well…

Isn't this because British people see class a bit differently? Like you can win the lottery but don't consider yourself upper class because you weren't born in the right family/attended the right schools/whatever? Same as you can be down to your last penny, but you are from the Duke's family or whatnot and still consider yourself upper class?

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

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#894

Post by prawn »

dlsa wrote: post #335
frankbreetz wrote: post #5

>>Median wages for men have declined since 1990 in real terms. Roughly one-third of men are either unemployed or out of the workforce. I wonder how much of this is because more women are joining the workforce. If men are leaving the workforce by their own free will because their wife is working and they are staying home with the kids, both of these facts could be true, but seems like a win in both gender equality ter…

The picture is nowhere near this neat and tidy. Plenty of men can't get jobs. They want jobs but can't get them. Life circumstances are far more complex. Its not always solved by learning to code either. Not everyone can do that. Offshoring jobs was not good for societal structures at all. It was all about short term profit. Less men in employment is not a good thing. It isn’t some kind of passing the torch to women…

And probably people in an age bracket prone to acting out aggressively or against some perceived opponent.

I look at the variety of protests (of all sorts) and wonder how many people are there for a cause and how many want something to be part of, and a bit of motivation and thrill.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#895

Post by edmcnulty101 »

clutchdude wrote: post #446
orange_joe wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People work 10% fewer hours now than in the 1960s, but the obesity rate has gone up from 13% in that time period to 36%. The obesity crisis is IMO more related to what we eat, and an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG

Total hours worked in the US has DOUBLED since then. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B4701C0A222NBEA And more work is done part-time(usually by those are unable to work full time jobs) https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/series?seid=B4701C0A222NBEA&ut...

thanks for the follow-up.

I've been scratching my head since orange_joes post because it didn't make sense from what I've been seeing.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#896

Post by majani »

onion2k wrote: post #870
kortilla wrote: post #866

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Musk has, but he's South African. Musk is a US citizen and he did all of this in the US. The point is about the opportunity provided by the country, not about where you were raised.

He moved to the US when he was 19. He didn't grow up with "the American Dream".

He moved to the US after reading a lot of tech publications and realizing that that's where all the action was

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#897

Post by TrackerFF »

jbay808 wrote: post #85
uejfiweun wrote: post #64

Probably unpopular opinion: men having it tough is actually a good thing for men, if you make the most of it. Yes, in modern times as a man, you pretty much don't have any programs specifically designed to benefit you. And yes, men get shat on by pretty much every corner of society. But it's still possible to succeed in these conditions, and some people most definitely do. And those who were able to find their way an…

> I am very confident in my ability to solve a problem / achieve a goal on my own, and I don't need some special program or exception to the rules in order to succeed. Picture a distribution, like a bell curve or something. The programs are meant for the side of that distribution that need it. You can talk about how the other side of the distribution doesn't need the help, but don't lose sight of the fact that many d…

Not too different from the "I earn $xxxk/year, and don't need any help from welfare programs. Why do we even have them? They make people lazy" crowd.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#898

Post by Taurenking »

_bkr9 wrote: post #679
Teknoman117 wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget the incel subculture, media - traditional, social, or otherwise has been feeding us that for decades as well. If you're not thin and "beautiful", your romantic prospects are zero so why even try. Admittedly, it's also partially one's own fault for buying into it, but being fed a continual stream of the best looking people from a young age seriously alters one's perspective. I spent my entire teenage and young…

Please don't take anything I wrote as an attempt to dissuade you from what sounds like a good idea. As others have pointed out, perhaps a lot depends on just how "overweight" one is. Also, do it for yourself -- the rest is incidental. I'm 6'3"; was 190 lbs at age 19 (university); was 210 pounds at age 21 (could afford to eat out for lunch); was 245 lb at age 40 (depressed + about to be divorced); now back to 220-230…

No post body was provided.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#899

Post by twayt »

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #874
bradlys wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case anyone doesn't know: > If you are in the Bay Area, you are at a distinct disadvantage. The male-female-ratio This is just true in the entire USA under age 35. If you're a man - you have a distinct disadvantage. More men (107:100) are born than women. This evens out around age 40 because men killed themselves at a much higher rate than women have. (Think about that - women kill themselves too but 7% of men hav…

Practically speaking, you're going feel the gender ratio of your geographical region/metropolitan area. Sure, men will be at a ratio disadvantage more often than not in the US, but there are definitely zones where the ratio is inverted. I spent half my 20s in NYC and half in SF and the wow was the difference glaring.

What were the main differences you observed?

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#900

Post by tpxl »

piaste wrote: post #880
tpxl wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not only are many things in the economy zero-sum, in the case of labor, even if the economy is humming at 150%, it's trivial to imagine a scenario where the man and the woman are both earning 75% of what they would have without the other sex in the labor force. Both are worse off, yet the capital owners are better off and it gives the illusion that everything is going great. Can you elaborate further on this please…

Women entering the workforce en masse did double the supply of labor, regardless of any other merits of that change. And increasing the supply reduces prices.

Unless it halved the prices (which I doubt greatly) it's a positive sum.
Post reply on HN