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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#921

Post by bmarquez »

qsdf38100 wrote: post #828
Decabytes wrote: post #777

I believe this is one of the reasons for the rise of people like Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Lex Fridman, et al. They act as strong male role models for the myriad of young men who don't have one. They are intelligent, wildly successful, and usually due some sort of martial arts or workout. Men (not just young ones) see this and want to be like them, so they latch on to their messages. This is nothing ne…

Andrew Tate is intelligent ?

Intelligent enough to create a grift selling subscriptions to the "Real World" featuring rehashed low-quality dropshipping/crypto/copywriting content, sure. That's not even how he made his money but teaching how to launder money through casinos and adult webcam businesses probably wouldn't work out legally. I have younger friends who are into him so had to do research to see if they weren't getting fleeced.

I wouldn't put him in the same category as the other three men mentioned who deliver value for free.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#922

Post by EligibleDecoy »

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…

Something I don’t think many people know about is that marriages licenses, (yes you need a license to gain some tax benefits) often have an incentive to do pre-marital counseling. Tennessee, for instance, at least halves the price of the marriage license if you got any premarital counseling. Which they very broadly define, so you could get it from just about anyone a reasonable person could call trained in counseling.

Something along those lines, such as cheaper hospital stays or government covering part of childcare or some incentive like that could support what you are thinking. Not required, but a financial incentive. This is especially useful because it targets lower income families, hopefully reducing the correlation from parental income and career/health/etc outcomes.

PS: Smart of you to wear your nomex, this thread is a conflagration.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#923

Post by WalterBright »

anotherman554 wrote: post #836
WalterBright wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blondie, Honeymooners, Flintstones, Family Guy, Simpsons, King of the Bronx, Bewitched, Munsters, Jeffersons, All in the Family, Married with Children, etc., are all the same premise: Oafish bumpkin of a husband, the wise and understanding wife always coming to the rescue.

I don't think that's quite right... Married with Children is more like the husbands and the wives are constantly fighting, and its a battle of the sexes. (Granted I've not seen the whole show.) I Love Lucy also had that formula of men vs women, where Lucy and Ethel are plotting a prank or scheme against Richy and Fred or vice versa. I don't think the Munsters is about the wife rescuing the husband. The humor is often…

Herman was even described as having "the mind of a child" in one of the episodes. The plots often revolved about some childish scheme that Lily tried to put a stop to.

MwC was definitely the oafish husband, again with the childish schemes, much like Ralph in the Honeymooners. It's just a raunchy version of the Honeymooners.

ILL is a rare exception - a reverse Honeymooners.

P.S. I still enjoy watching these shows. Especially the Munsters. Herman always makes me laugh.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#924

Post by EligibleDecoy »

This article breaks my heart. As a (now) adult man who received very little “emotional scaffolding” from my parents - I can’t understand how anyone can think that all children don’t have to learn about how to manage (not just ignore) their feelings.

It is hard to take a step back and empathize with your children when just getting through the day seems like a victory. I needed counseling to understand these things and that is a problem because not everyone has access to that.

I don’t know how we fix something that most people don’t acknowledge is a problem. How many of us acknowledge the trauma our parents endured and what that did to us? Hopefully articles like this help get schools, groups, etc to shift this trend in a better direction.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#925

Post by anon291 »

Faaak wrote: post #607
anon291 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And for most of history, maternal mortality was double of what it is today

That is mostly due to the development of germ theory, and before that was developed, hospitals had worse outcomes than midwives, who due to 'tradition' would do things like sanitize their hands before touching the laboring mother.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#926

Post by anon291 »

tgv wrote: post #493
anon291 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What utter rubbish... Where did you read this? Or get this impression? My grandfather was the epitome of "manliness". Blue collar worker. Hunter. Army service. My mother and her sisters have vivid memories of him singing to them. Something is honestly sick with so many families in this country. Men have been caring for their children for millennia. It's what separates humans from the lesser beasts.

If this matters, its effect in society is going depend on the number of fathers who behave like this. If that number were much smaller 100 years ago then it is now, etc.

Based on my own familial experience (hard to get many others), my grandfather was not an aberration. Actually, if we look at cultural products of various times (songs, poems, etc), it seems quite clear that it was expected that a good father would be playful and intimate with his children.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#927

Post by red-iron-pine »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #788
somenameforme wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A simple question for you, what exact measurable and quantifiable differences would you expect to see in, for instance, the children of psychologists of the sort this article appeals to, and those of e.g. Joe [demographically equivalent] Normal's children? And this naturally somewhat leads into, and what factors, as a society, should we prioritize? To me it seems quite trivial to create unfalsifiable arguments, for n…

> measurable and quantifiable differences would you expect to see. Amount of psycological trauma and repression, neuroticism, insecurity. Suicides. All easilly measurable.

define trauma. sometimes kids need to learn hard lessons. where is that line?

define repression? given that this is HN I'd imagine the definition will be different than from someone who was from, say, Malaysia or Saudi.

what does neuroticism mean? at some level we can agree what "crazy is" but where do you draw the line? ditto for insecurity.

most of this is NOT easily measurable, outside of suicides, which are discrete events. definition of things like sexual assault, child abuse, or repression vary by state, and even more so by country.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#928

Post by anon291 »

jmopp wrote: post #624
anon291 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as an extended family unless there are strong nuclear families to begin with. this concept is lost on so many people... But it's simply easier to raise your kids with their grandparents aunts and uncles if grandma and grandpa had a good relationship and aren't divorce to begin with. Divorce is ultimately at the root of so many social ills but it's verboten to even mention

> There is no such thing as an extended family unless there are strong nuclear families to begin with. I disagree on that point. It takes a village to raise a child, and a large enough extended family has space for all sorts. Not everyone is called to the married life: I agree that divorce is a problem, but divorce rates would go down quite a bit if those for whom marriage is not compatible with their personality did…

Again, I grew up in an extended family, being taken care of by grandparents, aunts etc. Singleness is not the problem. Single people are not opposed to a nuclear family. Divorce is. Divorce with children takes a family and breaks it apart. To compare divorce to singleness is disingenuous.

> but divorce rates would go down quite a bit if those for whom marriage is not compatible with their personality didn't get married in the first place, and there was a space for them to thrive within the family/community.

Being single is as socially acceptable as ever (in fact, it is slowly but surely becoming the default) and I see no sign of things improving.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#929

Post by anon291 »

xedrac wrote: post #433
anon291 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as an extended family unless there are strong nuclear families to begin with. this concept is lost on so many people... But it's simply easier to raise your kids with their grandparents aunts and uncles if grandma and grandpa had a good relationship and aren't divorce to begin with. Divorce is ultimately at the root of so many social ills but it's verboten to even mention

I'm not sure it's quite that simple, as some marriages are toxic to children. But the general dissolution of the nuclear family is not a positive trend, and will have grave consequences for future generations.

> I'm not sure it's quite that simple, as some marriages are toxic to children.

Some marriages are, certainly, but all divorces are.

Re: Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

#930

Post by wmidwestranger »

wmidwestranger wrote: post #715
Khaine wrote: post #470

What's interesting is that I recently watched The Red Pill Documentary. I recall when it was released that the director, Cassie Jaye a self professed feminist was pilloried absolutely everywhere for giving a voice to Mens Rights Activists. The actual documentary is quite milquetoast. What it is, is her engaging with the ideas around how in some ways men are disadvantaged in modern society. It's fascinating to me that…

I feel the same about "The Red Pill" movie and couldn't see how the criticism aligned with the reality. What I do see often is that entrenched actors and groups will attack, with specially reserved ardor, any artist or production taking a position of understanding and shared interest between groups or actors that are meant to be at odds. With this movie, the critics could have said the filmmaker, Alex Lee Moyer, avoi…

Correction, thanks to dri_ft:

The film maker responsible for The Red Pill is Cassie Jaye.

Alex Lee Moyer was behind TFW No GF.

Post reply on HN