[HN Gopher] Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health r...
___________________________________________________________________
Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks
Author : lucasv07
Score : 131 points
Date : 2023-06-25 20:04 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wbur.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wbur.org)
| jl6 wrote:
| > New research shows that when fathers are present and
| emotionally invested in children's lives, they are more likely to
| develop a stronger sense of self-worth and excel in everything
| from school to relationships.
|
| Regardless of the debate on how tough (or not) love should be,
| the absent fathers issue seems like something concrete and
| impactful that we should be trying to address.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _absent fathers issue seems like something concrete and
| impactful_
|
| There is a general corruption of the concept of masculinity in
| American culture. It's similar to what's happened to the symbol
| of the American flag, but more insidious.
|
| When I say masculinity, or masculine values, what do you think
| of? When you think of someone who values their masculinity, who
| do you perceive? Now do the same for femininity. Which model is
| healthier?
|
| Men and women have, on average, physiological differences.
| These differences are pronounced in puberty. That's when these
| frameworks matter the most; they thus must be embedded in
| childhood. There is no right answer, I think, but there are
| right questions that boys dealing with a burst of testosterone
| should ask themselves. That we've ignored or even repressed
| that seems to link both failures in boy and fatherhood.
|
| It also seems to naturally extend to trans and non-binary kids,
| another situation we are culturally bankrupt in addressing.
| Boys understanding and speaking to their feminine sides is,
| ironically, a classically masculine strength in the way women
| understanding and acting on their masculine sides is,
| traditionally, a classical sign of motherhood and through that
| feminine strength. (The linking of feminine strength and
| motherhood is obviously dated, though as someone who lives in
| bear and moose country I can see why it was originally
| embraced.)
| jtbayly wrote:
| Can you think of anything feminine that takes more strength
| than motherhood?
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Among other things, that would require women to choose better
| mates. How many women are out there with three kids by three
| different fathers? The ultimate responsibility for whether a
| child is brought into the world still rests with the mother.
| Vasectomies are a public service. Custody laws typically place
| all the power in the hands of the mother unless the father has
| a rap sheet, and most mothers are fine with the father having
| minimal contact because it means increased child support for
| them.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| > the absent fathers issue seems like something concrete and
| impactful that we should be trying to address.
|
| Interestingly, only a few years ago, Bill Cosby himself made an
| impassioned plea to address these issues. He saw it a lot.
| otoburb wrote:
| Cosby's criminal conviction(s)[1] undermined much of what he
| championed.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_c
| ase...
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| I don't see it that way. You've fallen for a _tu quoque_
| fallacy. To say that Cosby was hypocritical doesn 't seem
| to devalue the merits of his message: that men need to step
| up, that fathers need to stop being absent, take some
| responsibility for the dignity of women and children.
|
| If anything, it makes it even more poignant. Haven't you
| ever seen a man in prison, pleading with his son not to
| turn out like him? Does the father's murder conviction
| undermine his admonition against violence?
| jimbob45 wrote:
| How do you even address something like that? Even if you paid
| each father $10k to stick around to age 18, that doesn't
| guarantee that they wouldn't become domestic abusers, suicide
| victims, or would even be good role models. It's possible that
| father presence for kids is only so valuable because the only
| fathers that stick around are the ones that care.
| maxerickson wrote:
| A good start is to not beg the question.
|
| Are you doing something other than assuming that 'caring' is
| the primary factor?
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| > It's possible that father presence for kids is only so
| valuable because the only fathers that stick around are the
| ones that care.
|
| Even if this would be the case, we should allow those fathers
| to spend _more_ time with their kids. For example, it is very
| difficult for a man to find a part-time job. Most companies
| take "I also want to spend some time with my kids" as "I
| don't really care about the work I do". You can care about
| the work without wanting to devote your _entire_ life to it.
| smileysteve wrote:
| You're looking myopically at the issue; absent fathers is
| less likely to be a choice, but an economic consequences of
| income inequality, along with the other economies that arise
| because of this.
|
| You're looking at the drug war, high school graduation rates,
| ability to find a job, attached to teenage pregnancy, lack of
| commute options, and below living wage - likely connected to
| public health issues including water treatment, sewage,
| inneficient or unsafe homes (hook worms, sceptic, HVAC)
|
| So instead of a 1 time $10k (which is delusional) think
| marijuana being legal, healthcare and childcare being
| affordable, public transport - or at least not a food desert
| in a walkable community, and $15+/hr 30+ hour weeks at a
| single employer.
| troupe wrote:
| > only so valuable because the only fathers that stick around
| are the ones that care.
|
| Last time I looked at data about this, it appeared that even
| a poor father who was present was better than no having a
| father in the home. If I remember right it was measuring the
| likeliness of a teenager to end up in prison. If there was a
| segment of fathers that were worse than not having a father,
| I don't think it shows up in any study I've seen.
|
| Gilder's Wealth and Poverty book cites a lot of studies and
| examples showing how society has changed in ways making it
| harder for dads to stick around with everything from how drug
| policies are enforced to the way that welfare resources are
| allocated.
| lmm wrote:
| > Last time I looked at data about this, it appeared that
| even a poor father who was present was better than no
| having a father in the home. If I remember right it was
| measuring the likeliness of a teenager to end up in prison.
| If there was a segment of fathers that were worse than not
| having a father, I don't think it shows up in any study
| I've seen.
|
| I think their point is that those bad fathers don't show
| up, _because_ they don 't care about their children.
| dpifke wrote:
| I think the "absentee father" issue would be easy to address:
| have the courts stop favoring mothers as custodial parents in
| divorces.
|
| Of the divorced couples I know with children, the mothers were
| awarded custody in _every single case_ , often over the
| strenuous objections of the fathers and other family members
| like grandparents (and in one case, even in the face of
| documented abuse by the mother).
|
| I feel like studies on the effect of children who grow up with
| a missing parent need to somehow control for couples who split
| because of mental health issues. Otherwise, it's studying not
| the effect of the absent parent, but the effect of the
| behaviors of the parent who was granted custody, and some of
| those behaviors may strongly correlate with not being able to
| maintain a marriage or other partnership.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Or are people who are not genetically inclined towards
| executing monogamy also not genetically inclined towards other
| "organization and self control" rooted behaviors?
| underlipton wrote:
| Without evidence, I'll suggest that this is an
| oversimplification. In a model where boys require masculine
| modeling from older, adult figures, "absent fathers" are most
| an issue when a boy's regularly-accessible social unit has been
| whittled down to the nuclear family. That seems to be a crisis
| in-and-of-itself. When I look at socially-successful men, they
| often have had multiple older men in their lives to model
| themselves after - usually grandparents, uncles, teachers,
| etc., on top of their father (or in lieu of). This is two-fold
| redundant, in creating fallbacks for both a central father
| figure and in skills or traits which that figure may lack.
|
| I think this is important because the "absent father" is often
| used as an excuse, when it rather represents the last breached
| line in a long list of failures of society, which have ripped
| boys from the men who would look after them.
|
| (I admit that there's likely some who won't like hearing this,
| as it cuts against the grievances of those who find pride in
| specific fatherhood ("I will raise MY child.") and see
| society's manner, or the dissolving of the nuclear family into
| a larger community unit, as working against that.)
| pyuser583 wrote:
| It isn't either/or. It's cumulative.
|
| Joseph Campbell emphasized the idea of the "second father." A
| mentor who takes a young man further than his father can.
|
| A father has to love you, but the second fathers love has to
| be earned. Think NCOs in the military, coaches, sensais in
| martial arts.
|
| We aren't just missing fathers, we're missing second fathers.
|
| Not many people would describe a gunny sergeant, or football
| coach, or the guy who runs the local Karate America as a
| second father.
|
| If you include foremen, clergy, and union bosses as second
| fathers, a man living in 1960 could expect to spend his
| entire life under the tutelage of second fathers.
|
| Traditionally masculine institutions like the military,
| workplace, and churches have renounced their "second family"
| status, and tried desperately to feminize to appeal to women.
|
| What sorts of institutions offer "second fathers" to young
| men now? Predatory ones, like far-right groups. And some
| sports.
|
| Edit: there are plenty of institutions that market themselves
| as second families - tech companies for example. But they
| tend to eschew masculine gender roles.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| > What sorts of institutions offer "second fathers" to
| young men now?
|
| Must it be institutionalized? Can't this be encouraged
| without some one-sized-fits-all framework? I learned from a
| lot of guys in church related groups, yet with so much
| garbage messaging it made me hate myself. Also encountered
| some very good guys in school, forums, and LAN gaming, and
| without the religious strings attached.
| geff82 wrote:
| Maybe, as a culture, we should emphasize MORE the health of the
| family, of the duty and honor it brings to raise kids and less
| on the "perfect" romantic relationships of the parents?
| Shouldn't we promote a less Hollywood-like picture of long
| lasting relationships? I have the feeling that we are trained
| too much to think that our "romance" and sex life should last
| forever. When - in reality - a good relationship transforms to
| something that is more similar to a good companionship (yes -
| you should like each other a lot, sure... but be less seeking
| for the thrill you might have had in the first year). Kids need
| stability - not parents living in their own unrealistic world.
| InexSquirrel wrote:
| I've never understood why there is a dichotomy presented in
| relationships like that - sure, 10 years into your marriage
| you might not be going at it like rabbits as you were in the
| first year, but there isn't any reason why parents can't
| provide stable environments for children _and_ have strong
| romantic relationships still. It takes very little to carve
| off some time for one another, and that continued investment
| in bonding with another in and of itself long term provides
| the stability children need.
| vidanay wrote:
| As someone who grew up on shitty side of that research, I make
| it a point in my life to be the exact opposite for my son.
| version_five wrote:
| This sounds like they're not really taking into account boys
| needs, with the idea that we shouldn't be "gendered" when
| relating to them.
|
| This made me think of Andrew Tate, who is a douchebag, but has a
| huge following with young men, apparently because he has found a
| way to appeal to them emotionally. Anyone who is looking at how
| to push boys in the right direction should look at what appeals
| to them and meet them where they are, not try to push some idea
| of emotional help that will only preach to the choir, which is
| what I see society doing. I definitely agree this role is best
| filled by fathers.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| AFAICT there is nothing good in Tate's message, except perhaps
| that one doesn't have to be ashamed of strength.
|
| Yet Tate seems to promote strength, power, and confidence as
| silver bullets for all ones problems -- mixed with a lot of
| get-rich-quick BS that boils down to "pay me to teach you to
| selling teaching to others". And this from a guy who got rich
| pressuring women into camming and taking a huge cut.
|
| Boys and men need nuanced male role models (even modestly
| flawed), not one dimensional grifters.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > This sounds like they're not really taking into account boys
| needs, with the idea that we shouldn't be "gendered" when
| relating to them.
|
| I'm not really sure how you got that from the article,
| practically the entire piece is citations of how boys are
| different from girls, just not in the way that we think they
| are culturally.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| [flagged]
| dauertewigkeit wrote:
| [flagged]
| gumby wrote:
| > Girls on the other hand, all is well.
|
| This is also far from the case.
| tivert wrote:
| >> Girls on the other hand, all is well.
|
| > This is also far from the case.
|
| Yes, all is not well with girls, but I don't think they have
| to deal with an analog of the condemnation of "toxic
| masculinity" and messages that "their nature is flawed." I
| believe their problems are frequently blamed on external
| actors (e.g. beauty magazines, social media, etc).
| klyrs wrote:
| No, women are subject to ridiculous double standards from
| everything from body shame (too skinny too fat too ugly too
| pretty too grown too immature) to their clothing, manner of
| speech, grooming, and on and on.
|
| "Toxic masculinity" is a problem because of cultural
| standards where it is seen as manly to harm others. I know
| lots of very manly men, who are secure in their manhood
| where that isn't the least bit toxic. I don't think that,
| for example, cat-calling is manly. But I would describe it
| as toxic.
| goodpoint wrote:
| You can just look up the definition instead, and how it's
| been distorted by some:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity
| red_admiral wrote:
| Depending on the place and time, girls have to deal with
| being called too fat, too thin, not caring enough about
| their appearance, caring too much about their appearance,
| being too prude, being too slutty, and many other things.
| There is definitely a facet of "your nature is flawed" in a
| lot of them.
|
| You might be right that the question of who exactly is
| sending and spreading these messages has many answers and
| external (f)actors definitely come into it. But that too
| could be said about the claims of toxic masculinity.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| That's true actually. I put the "toxic masculinity" bit
| in a different pigeonhole to the whole "what women should
| be like". I can see an analogy.
|
| One difference is that, I get the impression it's
| actually women doing a lot of not most of the "too
| fat/too skinny" bit. Sure, boys/men can be horrible to
| girls/women but tend not to get hung up on details. The
| details of "too slutty" etc seems to come from women,
| peer female friends, women's magazines etc.
|
| In that respect I guess it's different, because it's a
| narrower critique. And it's, hmm, self-inflicted for lack
| of better word. Whereas with boys, it seems to come from
| women all around, and woke men too. Girls won't be told
| by their teachers (you'd hope!) that they are too fat or
| too skinny, but it's open season to tell boys they have a
| flawed nature they will have to spend the rest of their
| lives fixing.
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| I think it depends on your culture, but generally women's
| appearances matter way more than men's appearances and are
| considered a personal responsibility thing. Simply becoming
| older and being visibly older is considered a failure of a
| woman to "age gracefully" or whatever it is that means.
|
| But also, I think most of the HN crowd are men, and I don't
| think we're broadly the populace to discuss with any
| serious authority whether or not women are raised to blame
| themselves in some way lol.
| Timon3 wrote:
| I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of
| toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because it
| _directly hurts boys_. Toxic masculinity isn 't a
| description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of the
| social image of masculinity that are toxic. Stuff like
| "boys shouldn't cry" or "boys should suck up their problems
| and not talk about them". You don't improve boys' emotional
| needs by resuming this kind of messaging.
|
| Masculinity itself is a wonderful thing and necessary for
| men to (at least partially) embrace - but not the parts
| that stunt their development and keep them alone! Instead
| it should be aspects like reliability, trustworthiness,
| empathy, confidence, emotional strength - what comes to
| mind when you think about what makes a good man.
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| If you want to reduce the pressure on boys to do X, then
| calling X an "(adjective) masculinity" is exactly the
| wrong way to go.
|
| Things that are bad, just call them collectively "toxic
| behavior", without reminding the boys that this is the
| stuff that they are not supposed - but also kinda
| supposed - to do. You may also include some toxic
| behaviors stereotypically attributed to women, to make it
| obvious that we are criticizing bad behavior in general,
| not just a specific sex.
| goodpoint wrote:
| No. "poisonous tree" does not mean all trees are
| poisonous. "toxic relationship" does not mean that all
| relationships are toxic. This is basic grammar.
| tivert wrote:
| > I think you're gravely misunderstanding the concept of
| toxic masculinity. It's good that we condemn it, because
| it directly hurts boys. Toxic masculinity isn't a
| description of masculinity itself, it's about parts of
| the social image of masculinity that are toxic.
|
| Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure you're accurately describing a
| particular meaning of that term in some jargon, but that
| jargon doesn't control the meaning of the term.
|
| There are certainly people who view masculinity itself as
| toxic, and I wouldn't be surprised if "toxic masculinity"
| has been borrowed to describe that view. It's a pretty
| straightforward application.
| gemstones wrote:
| If you want a term to be used the right way, it helps to
| pick a term that won't be immediately confused to mean
| something else.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| That may be so, but it is totally not the popular image
| of "toxic masculinity". That would be more like, boys are
| aggressive, horrible to women, insensitive and their one
| mission in life is to not act in accordance with their
| flawed nature.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > how their nature is flawed. Girls on the other hand, all is
| well
|
| I really doubt this describes the experience of 90% of people
| on this planet.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| With shrinking recess time and PE disappearing from some
| schools, boys with normal needs for physical activities are
| increasingly labelled as "sick" and medicalized for completely
| normal behavior by the taxpayer funded school system. Energy
| has to go somewhere so it ends up manifesting itself in
| behaviors that are deemed "disruptive" (really, not sitting
| still and being unable to concentrate on tasks). That's the
| beginning of the slippery slope toward "toxic" masculinity
| traits (such as healthy competition).
|
| Maybe it's something that female administrators and teachers
| fail to understand. Or rather, willfully ignore trying to push
| a certain (extremely liberal) agenda on captive boys.
|
| It would also explain the current epidemic of ADHD and
| especially ADHD medication prescribed to young boys.
| red_admiral wrote:
| Baden-Powell famously said "A boy is not a sitting-down
| animal." One might dislike a lot of other things about the
| man, but he got this one right.
| GolfPopper wrote:
| I am not a behavioral psychologist, but both the above
| posters' comments seem more appropriate as a general
| critique of America's factory schooling model than how it
| treats young males specifically.
|
| I have a niece and nephew who are being home-schooled (both
| testing in the top 10% of their respective peer before and
| after moving to home schooling). While their home schooling
| encompasses quite a bit more, they cover the traditional
| material for their age (everything covered by standardized
| testing), including drills, practice worksheets, and other
| typical "homework" in about 10% of the time they were
| previously spending in school.
|
| While there are obviously other aspects to school,
| including social interaction (which their parents are
| making certain they do get), watching the whole process as
| an extended family member has really driven home how much
| of current American schooling is just kid-warehousing.
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| The factory schooling is not an exclusively American
| thing. But I agree that sitting the whole day is not
| necessary to getting education. You can also discuss
| things while walking outside, or allow kids to walk from
| desk to desk and observe what their classmates are doing.
| NeoTar wrote:
| Perhaps 90% of my acting out in childhood was people trying
| to stop me doing 'sitting down' activities. All
| generalisations hurt someone.
| thriftwy wrote:
| People seem to disregard that a disproportionally large part
| of autism spectrum is also made up by boys.
|
| Nothing would make me more miserable than shoving PE up my
| throat on account that I got to 'need' it. It was the worst
| part of my school and uni days, which in turn was the worst
| part of my life, period.
|
| The assumption that boys are all extroverted, physically
| active and agressive is a big part of the problem.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> Girls on the other hand, all is well. _
|
| Girls, on the other hand, get told their body is flawed. Gotta
| constantly be on a diet, and spend like an hour a day on beauty
| stuff.
|
| We are all victims of society.
| znpy wrote:
| Uh, boys get told that too.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Do you think millions of gym rats are thinking something
| different? I think it's weird that you present this as
| feminine problem when it's men who on average participate in
| more sports.
| michaelt wrote:
| Honestly, yes. I exercise to have fun, be healthy, and
| maybe look a bit better. But I know for sure I can succeed
| in business, in programming, in academia, in comedy, even
| in pornography with only a few minutes of grooming every
| day.
|
| Oh I know there are _some_ men who struggle with body image
| issues. But do you shave your legs or wear make-up? Read
| beauty magazines? Me neither.
|
| We men have a wealth of role models showing we can succeed
| regardless of appearance. Nobody gives a shit about Elon
| Musk's BMI, or how Richard Stallman dresses, or whether
| Donald Trump has a six pack.
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| Surprised to see this downvoted. Both men and women are
| told that their bodies are wrong. Maybe using different
| words, but still.
|
| That said, gym and sports (typically recommended to men)
| seem healthier to me than starving (typically recommended
| to women).
| [deleted]
| rubicon33 wrote:
| I think it actually is far deeper than that. I believe our
| entire school system is setup to offer success to women, and
| failure to boys.
|
| Take as one point the fact that boys brains develop slower and
| later into life than women. Should then boys be competing
| against women of the same age given what we know?
|
| Take as another point the decline in physical activity in
| schools and the reduction is recess time. Does this negatively
| impact boys more than girls? I think so, but it hurts then both
| to be sure.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| > I believe our entire school system is setup to offer
| success to women, and failure to boys.
|
| And that's why most entrepreneurs/successful people are men.
| System was rough to them since the start, putting them down
| during every occasion and most boys have learnt how to stand
| up back on their feet again since early age. The system
| offered them failure and gave them resiliency.
|
| Girls were carried around and when real life come around and
| they fall down, they now have no idea how to get back up.
| api wrote:
| I can't tell if this is a troll or serious.
| Viliam1234 wrote:
| > Should then boys be competing against women of the same age
| given what we know?
|
| In a perfect world, education would not be a competition at
| all. Everyone would proceed at their own pace, differently in
| different subjects.
|
| And maybe at the end, where would still be a certification of
| people who mastered something versus people who didn't. But
| we would not freak out so much about whether someone
| understood something e.g. at the age of 12, instead of 13 or
| 14. The important thing should be that at some age they did.
| closeparen wrote:
| Isn't the paragon of masculinity in American culture all about
| "improvise, adapt, overcome"? The idea that men have a fixed
| nature and can't thrive outside a particular environment is...
| not very masculine.
|
| Something I think people miss sometimes is that there's a big
| market for messages loudly affirming girls' identities and
| choices because things are not, in fact, going that well.
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| [flagged]
| MattGaiser wrote:
| > 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.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Right, I think the article would completely agree that society
| as it is right now is not a broadly accepting place for males
| to be open about their emotional needs. Which is why the call
| to action isn't for males to be emotionally open in general,
| but for fathers to try to have more positive and supportive
| interactions with their sons about emotional needs.
|
| And why the article's guide point is 'Encourage them to share
| their struggles -- with you, of course, but also with other
| trusted adults, a therapist or even friends.', not 'Encourage
| them to share their struggles with all their acquaintances'.
| joemazerino wrote:
| Men don't need to become weak men to persevere. They need to
| become stronger men. Strong men don't stand around, crying
| about their struggles. They adapt and overcome.
| bitwize wrote:
| What boys need in order to become men are coping skills.
| I... didn't really get these growing up. I was simply
| taught that "men don't cry" and there are consequences for
| having been seen to cry. I started covering up the times I
| cried, and then I learned there are consequences for lying,
| too. I had to figure out a lot on my own, and it took
| longer than it should have.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Sharing your struggles doesn't make you weak. Asking for
| help doesn't make you weak. You are struggling, and you
| look for help because you are in a situation where the
| challenge is beyond your means. Sharing and asking for help
| can be part of adaption and part of overcoming.
|
| If one man has the resources within themselves to
| eventually learn to adapt and overcome to any situation,
| imagine how much stronger and how quickly you can become
| strong by combining the resources and understanding of many
| men.
|
| Sharing your struggles and asking for help is NOT the same
| thing as "standing around crying about their struggles".
| lmm wrote:
| > Sharing your struggles doesn't make you weak. Asking
| for help doesn't make you weak.
|
| In the western paradigm of masculinity it absolutely
| does. (And if you want to tear down the western paradigm
| of masculinity, I'd suggest making sure you have a better
| replacement ready first)
| worthless-trash wrote:
| You misunderstand societies view on men, by both men and
| women. Not "your" view on it, but how people generally
| see it.
|
| Asking == crying.
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| Actually I think a man who doesn't seriously acknowledge
| their own self as an emotional being is the opposite of
| adapting and overcoming. There should be nothing weak about
| acknowledging when you're too upset to handle a situation.
| My professional life would be vastly improved if the men
| around me had the emotional intelligence to realize they're
| getting worked up about a code review or something and to
| take a walk for 10 min instead of assuming their anger is
| always logically justified somehow.
| znpy wrote:
| 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 and supported. Can't say the same for boys/men.
|
| 2. Often times I've been said the above phrases either by
| girls/women of my same age or by people like
| teachers/educators.
|
| Basically you end up appearing weak, sometimes get mocked, and
| in general you're better off shutting up and keeping stuff
| inside. Over the years I've developed quite a cynicism, that I
| acknowledge and that (sadly?) works fairly well.
| usea wrote:
| Are you saying that (in your experience) young men who seek
| emotional support become weak and ineffective? Or am I
| misunderstanding what you've written?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > perceived as
| MattGaiser wrote:
| I am saying that young men who are seek emotional support
| then get treated as and viewed as weak and ineffective by
| those they have sought support from or those around them who
| know they have sought support, with all the repercussions of
| that.
|
| The men are the same, whether they seek emotional support or
| not. However, seeking emotional support gets them treated
| very differently verses not seeking it and it is rarely in a
| compassionate way.
| skyechurch wrote:
| A lot of "problem solving" involving kids means "making the
| problem go away from the adult's life". E.g. a situation I see
| played out is kids being told to respond to bullying by acting
| like they don't care (good advice as far as it goes). If the
| bullying continues, we hear it isn't a problem because the kids
| says he doesn't care - which is what we told him to say, true
| or not. In any case, the problem is solved from the adult's POV
| - the bullying complaint has disappeared, ticket is moved to
| resolved. The bullied child now faces his problem alone.
| Receiving this kind of "support" discourages reaching out for
| help.
|
| (I'm not saying this is specific to boys, don't read too much
| into pronouns.)
| s5300 wrote:
| [flagged]
| corinroyal wrote:
| [flagged]
| throwanem wrote:
| Before this comment gets downvoted to hell by the shitshow that
| invariably characterizes HN discussion of men's issues, just to
| say I appreciate the historical context here in particular, and
| the confirmation that just because the fascist right owns the
| topic today doesn't mean it was ever thus - or that it needs to
| stay that way.
| corinroyal wrote:
| Thank you. The history of the feminist men's movement was the
| first target of the MRM. They are very good propagandists.
| Even the name Men's Rights Movement sets up the opposition
| with feminism perfectly. But let's never forget that we were
| and can be allies.
| bmarquez wrote:
| > But let's never forget that we were and can be allies.
|
| Can you share some examples? Honest question, I've never
| seen this happen in modern day America (it's usually just
| one side taking and taking instead of give and take).
|
| Based on what you wrote the men's circles you talk about
| were probably influenced by Sterling Institute, Mankind
| Project, and the mythopoetic men's movement. I've attended
| related events in the distant past but I was much too young
| to "get it" (and honestly still don't get some of it coming
| from an immigrant family viewpoint).
|
| Men's rights have been denigrated to the point my younger
| male (Western) friends are Andrew Tate fans because there
| isn't anything else left.
| joemazerino wrote:
| The reality of the world dictates that men require a smidgen of
| "toxic masculinity" to power through. Try telling a sewer cleaner
| to feel more, or share his feelings. He instead should embolden
| himself and power through it.
| hellotomyrars wrote:
| I've been knee deep in everything people flush down a toilet
| and more fixing a broke sewage lift station. I deal with human
| bodily fluids in my work all the time, as do many women in the
| same field (medical) Shit and piss and puke and pus.
|
| That doesn't mean I'm a robot without feeling. Doing your job
| isn't "toxically masculine".
|
| Growing up I was raised in all the bullshit about not crying or
| never appearing "weak". It turns out bottling all your emotions
| isn't a super healthy thing. Even worse when you don't gain the
| meaningful perspective of understanding the implications of
| them because you're conditioned to pretend to ignore them.
|
| Men are emotional creatures whether some of them want to admit
| it or not because they're human.
|
| Cleaning human shit for a living or part of your living doesn't
| change that no matter who you are.
| ravenstine wrote:
| Even if the material world didn't require this, it's required
| by a substantial portion of women, romantically speaking. Many
| women express their concern that "he never shares his
| emotions", but when he finally does express his emotions and
| what truly bothers him she finds herself unusually dry and
| loses respect for him. Some men never have to learn this the
| hard way, and they're fortunate. It's common enough that it's
| not hard to find such stories online.
| codr7 wrote:
| The funny thing is many women seem to prefer exactly the kind
| of men everyone is complaining about, and not because they
| really like them either. Nice guys are always treated like
| trash.
|
| I can count the number of healthy relationships I've seen in
| this life on one hand.
|
| I don't know exactly how we ended up here; but unless things
| get better fast, over population will be the least of our
| troubles.
| ravenstine wrote:
| I think part of the issue is the misunderstanding men have
| in terms of what a "nice guy" actually is.
|
| If a man is told by a heterosexual woman he's not in a
| relationship with that he's a nice guy, he should take that
| to mean she's not attracted to him. But this is confusing
| because the majority of men's advice about women comes from
| _women_ , and the messaging they've received is that they
| should be a "nice guy." And being nice at a surface level
| is antithetical to things like assertion, which is a
| quality many women look for in men. Until the advent of
| YouTube, my impression and experience is that elder men
| have failed to teach men anything useful about how to
| interact with women, including what it means to be nice. I
| know of no men my age in real life that received any wisdom
| from their fathers besides "wear a condom."
|
| So called "nice guys" are treated like trash, not because
| they're nice, but often the opposite. If a man is a
| pushover, lacks confidence, doesn't seem like he knows what
| he wants out of life, and is willingly subordinate to
| women, but he is superficially very nice, that signals that
| his behavior comes from immaturity or to get laid. Women do
| actually like guys who are nice, but a scant number of them
| are into men who lack a spine or _need_ women in order to
| feel complete. A man can be nice but also be assertive,
| confident, and not be needy.
|
| And sure, plenty of women are into bad boys, but that's
| their prerogative, and a man may not want to be with those
| women anyway.
| dauertewigkeit wrote:
| My experience is that they do not mean it. What they want is
| for the man to make her feel loved. What they do not want is
| for the man to express his deepest insecurities and make her
| feel insecure by proxy because she depends on him.
| hkt wrote:
| Style of communication matters. There are different modes
| of interaction and being a caregiver/care-receiver is one
| of them that doesn't mix well with being desired sexually.
| You can, however, switch between modes. This is in fact the
| basis behind the therapeutic approach of Transactional
| Analysis:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis
|
| Personally I've encountered the thing you've described, and
| think where it went wrong was falling into a persistent
| parent/child dynamic instead of returning to an adult/adult
| one. I'm a bit wiser now and can confirm that once you
| recognise the modes you're falling into, you can shed the
| (toxic) ideas like "nice guys finish last" and start having
| deeper relationships.
| mock-possum wrote:
| I mean turning dependency into codependency isn't exactly a
| step in the right direction is it
| dauertewigkeit wrote:
| Not even joking: isn't that was a romantic relationship
| is? What is this fear of becoming dependent on your
| partner? If I didn't need a partner then I would remain
| single. Isn't love a form of dependency?
|
| I think this very modern fear of being dependent on your
| partner emerged of late because of the way sexual
| liberalism eroded the security of romantic relationships.
| Nothing means anything anymore and your partner can leave
| you at any moment, therefore you have to somehow remain
| completely independent while leading a relationship.
|
| But at the same time, to truly open yourself and love
| someone you have to become somewhat dependent on them.
| dahwolf wrote:
| I remember an anecdote by a guy that shared to his family how
| he was feeling depressed and exhausted, mostly work-related.
|
| It was a "deer in the headlights" experience. His family
| indifferent if not annoyed by his revelations. He had
| nervously prepared for the moment but the message was plain
| and clear: you can't fail.
|
| I think it serves as an example of how cold and loveless men
| perceive this world to be. You need to deliver without fail
| for life. Fail and nobody cares or you're cast aside as
| trash.
|
| So if the messaging is that nobody loves you for you and
| you're judged by utility only, we shouldn't be surprised by
| men's growing issues.
| joemazerino wrote:
| Absolutely! As if women and men are biologically wired a
| certain way.
| lisasays wrote:
| Is the ability to embolden one's self and power through stuff
| now considered "toxic" -- or intrinsically masculine?
|
| If so, then we're in trouble.
| dauertewigkeit wrote:
| Can somebody define what "emotional support" even is? I have no
| clue what they are talking about.
|
| From reading the article I would say men might need mentors who
| give them good advice and wisdom. That is what I felt I needed at
| times, anyway.
| Tade0 wrote:
| I don't what they mean by "emotional support", but to me it
| boils down to asking "how are you doing?", but meaning it.
| joshuahaglund wrote:
| FTA: "The manning-up of boys begins in the cradle," says
| Tronick. Fathers and mothers use far more emotionally rich
| language with toddler-aged daughters than sons, for instance.
| Fathers are also more likely to sing to and soothe their
| toddler daughters at night when they cry.
|
| And "Praise them when they ask for help. Encourage them to
| share their struggles -- with you, of course, but also with
| other trusted adults, a therapist or even friends."
|
| And the article is full of links like this:
| https://www.irp.wisc.edu/resource/involved-fathers-play-an-i...
|
| which suggests:
|
| - Positive engagement: Involved fathers directly interact with
| their children in positive ways, including caregiving such as
| changing diapers and shared activities that involve play.
|
| - Accessibility: Involved fathers are available to their
| children even when not directly interacting, such as cooking
| while the child plays nearby.
|
| - Responsibility: Involved fathers take ultimate responsibility
| for their child's welfare and care, including participating in
| decision-making regarding child-rearing and ensuring that
| children's needs are met.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Emotion support is showing loving, care and/or empathy.
|
| Mentorship and emotional support can have significant overlap.
| j-bos wrote:
| Is that how it was defined in the article?
| number6 wrote:
| No you should buy the book
| goodpoint wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| Ok, but please don't respond to that by posting a bad comment
| yourself. This only makes things worse.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| stainablesteel wrote:
| tbh its not just ignoring their emotional needs, painting this as
| an emotional needs problems just characterizes them as women and
| basically claims that men need to be treated like women, which is
| not true. its ignoring their developmental needs
|
| you need some kind of expertise to feel like you can make even
| the most basic of professions out of
|
| you need responsibility
|
| you need role models that you can choose and can talk with, and
| practice having complex and sophisticated conversations with
|
| you need a meritocratic environment
|
| you need physical development, and to embed the need for building
| physical and mental habits that guide you through your life in a
| sane and stable way
|
| you need an environment that encourages kindness, hard work, and
| neither babies nor feminizes you. you need to, specifically,
| avoid idiotic environments that promote violence as part of the
| social hierarchy of peers.
| [deleted]
| xdennis wrote:
| [flagged]
| leodler wrote:
| It's unfortunate that you're (willfully?) uninformed to such a
| degree that you perceive these passages as slighting your
| identity or something, but what they're saying isn't
| controversial scientifically.
| xdennis wrote:
| > slighting your identity
|
| I'm not a strong male, so it's not slighting anything.
|
| But I don't like it when basic truths are denied. If you look
| at Ukraine, pretty much all of the assault forces are made of
| men, the sex this paper considers fragile and vulnerable.
|
| Societies which publish such papers are lucky they are not
| under attack because they wouldn't last long if they put in
| front the sex THEY consider stronger.
| hparadiz wrote:
| The assault forces aren't men because they are "stronger"
| but because society shames men for not fighting. I've had
| frank discussions with women on this topic and it always
| comes down to "fuck that I don't want equal rights. I don't
| want to be drafted in a war" - direct quote from a ex. The
| shame that comes down on men from women during wartime is
| intense.
|
| See the White Feather movement in the UK during WW1.
|
| To be fair I've seen quite a few women fight in Ukraine but
| they are outnumbered by men something like 1:100. Even in
| Israel where women are drafted and have compulsory service
| they still are shielded from the real meat grinder
| operations.
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| The "assault forces" are male because of rather outmoded
| rules, the military is a slow beast to change even when
| getting invaded
| hparadiz wrote:
| Comes down to biology really. 1 guy can get 100 women
| pregnant. 100 men and 1 women? Your population dies out
| in two generations.
|
| When an artificial womb is invented that can allow a baby
| to grow to term the dynamic will be forever changed.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| I'm not sure what you consider as outmoded, but
| considering the biology of men and women, it makes
| perfect sense to send the men off to sacrifice in war
| while women stay home.
|
| Women can bear children: this is a valuable advantage on
| the homefront and a huge liability on the front lines.
| Women get raped in wars, there's no getting around it.
| Women can stay home to bear children and care for the
| small ones and foster hope for the future.
|
| While it is plain that fathers are good for children and
| having them around is a benefit, if a man must go to war,
| then it is better than a woman going to war. A man can
| procreate a child with his wife before shipping out. A
| man is unlikely to be raped or bear children when
| captured on the front lines. A society that has lost a
| significant portion of its fighting-age men is more
| likely to recover than one which has lost many child-
| bearing women, or both.
|
| Furthermore, if you want to build a cohesive fighting
| unit (or a department in business or education or
| industry or whatever), you build it entirely of one sex.
| It is more efficient that way (no expenses on women's
| bathrooms or other facilities) and there is less conflict
| and drama (troops gonna have sex and women gonna get
| pregnant, and then they're both sent home?)
|
| These are inherent biological factors and they have
| nothing to do with human rules, they are God-given and
| unchanging. These factors have been true for millions of
| years, and they are the basis for human rules on why men
| fight and women stay home.
| corinroyal wrote:
| The wrong here, it burns! Feminists fight to integrate the
| military (while developing an critique of militarism),
| powerful traditionalist men fight to keep them out.
| Feminists are winning and now the US military is ~18% women
| and growing. In sexist Ukraine and Russia, the percentages
| are much lower. So tell me again how women are too weak for
| combat?
|
| It's not feminists calling for powerful men to send
| disposable poor men into the grinder. It's not feminists
| calling for men to "man up" and pretend they don't have
| emotional needs or fears. That's all on traditionalist men.
| Sexist men don't get to both enforce such traditional roles
| while decrying them as unjust.
| rosmax_1337 wrote:
| What are those passages saying, scientifically?
| Vt71fcAqt7 wrote:
| The quoted paper in the article is from a psychiatrist with a
| PhD in philosophy debating to himslef whether "maleness is a
| genetic disorder." He spends the whole article talking about
| how boys get sick more often than girls, which is only true
| until puberty at which point the opposite is true. He then
| shifts to life expectancy and suicide. So if we define being
| "fragile" as "shorter life excpectany" then "the human male
| is, on most measures, more vulnerable than the female," as he
| says. By all sensible messures, however, the claim is
| otherwise false. For example, "the prevalence of major
| depressive episode was higher among adult females (10.5%)
| compared to males (6.2%)"[0]. Of course, males are also
| stronger than females.
|
| [0]https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-
| depression
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >It contradicts even the most basic of common sense
|
| It doesn't do that at all. The most obvious example of this is
| unemployment. When men lose jobs, they are at much higher risk
| to slide into social isolation, drug use and even suicide.
| Anti-social behavior among women in those situations is much
| less common.
|
| Young men without perspective likewise are much more likely to
| turn towards extremism, violence and so on. Most 'incels' or
| shut-ins are men. Most violent criminals are men, most gang
| members are men.
|
| Men, especially young men are much more vulnerable to exhibit
| maladjusted behaviors and that's both backed by common sense
| and data.
| xdennis wrote:
| [flagged]
| Barrin92 wrote:
| The polar bear _is_ more vulnerable and sensitive than the
| gazelle literally, that is why they 're almost extinct. You
| seem to be confused about what people are talking about.
| Nobody is arguing whether polar bears or big hairy men are
| muscular and STRONG, we're talking about their resilience
| in the modern world and how well they have adapted. It is
| actually a good comparison but not in the way you thought
| it was.
|
| There's nothing cherry picked about this, men do worse
| these days and are more vulnerable than women on a lot of
| very substantial metrics. It doesn't get more real and
| objective than looking at the rate of deaths of despair and
| the gender disparity there. I don't understand why you
| apparently perceive this as an attack om men.
|
| This inability to acknowledge the vulnerability of men is,
| as the article points out as well, one of the reasons why
| there is comparatively little help for men.
| dang wrote:
| Could you please stop posting to HN in the flamewar style?
| You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not
| what this site is for, and destroys what it is for, so
| we're trying for the opposite.
|
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking
| the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be
| grateful.
| ravenstine wrote:
| > But that's exactly what I'm referring to. It cherry picks
| some examples to make men look "fragile", "sensitive", and
| "vulnerable".
|
| It also ignores that women, generally speaking, have
| greater support networks than men. Men in America have
| generally been expected to handle far more things on their
| own. Plenty of women I know in their 30s and beyond still
| ask things of their parents whilst I don't know of nearly
| as many guys in my cohort who rely on their parents in any
| way.
|
| In a sense, this is all victim blaming. Majority of
| homeless people are men? I guess they should have been as
| strong as women! /s
| ravenstine wrote:
| It reminds me of when I was a 10 year old and all the times my
| younger sister annoyingly told me things like "I can beat you
| at [insert sport or game] but I don't in front of you because I
| don't wanna."
|
| Like, yeah, maybe you could, but the evidence is lacking.
| caditinpiscinam wrote:
| As a black guy I don't remember a friend ever saying "black
| people suck" to my face. But I've heard people I'm close with,
| both women and men, say that "men suck" countless times. I think
| a lot of people who don't see themselves as "biased" still carry
| a lot of bias when it comes to gender, and it has an impact.
| hkt wrote:
| Totally. When my kid was young and I was out with him the other
| parents (invariably women) treated me as an oddity and assumed
| I would be incompetent. Yet, many don't like the fact they're
| saddled with the majority of childrearing.
|
| Dating is much the same: the majority of the hetero/bi female
| dating pool selects in favour of features that are often red
| flags for toxic masculinity. This gets better as one gets
| older, mercifully, but gender is a verb as well as a noun, and
| men and women alike aggressively gender one another and
| unwittingly punish people who deviate from the rules.
|
| Still, at least we're talking about it. Previous generations
| succumbed badly to gender essentialism - "men are from Mars"
| and that stuff - and as ever, left a mess for the next
| generations.
| davidguetta wrote:
| > 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.
| aredox wrote:
| 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.
| screye wrote:
| Where are these normal people you speak of ? University
| and highschool dating pools are heavily gendered, as
| women themselves will profess to dating toxic dudes
| through college. Once at work, dating apps and bars
| become the only accepted dating avenues, both of which
| are heavily gendered. There are other soft-dating venues
| like Co-Ed sports and workplaces, but non-traditionally
| attractive people often do not have the "charisma" to
| read "signs". So they run the risk of being considered
| creeps.
|
| I will be the first to say #notAllWomen, but every number
| is heavily skewed in a direction that promotes toxic
| masculinity.
| veave wrote:
| Gee, it's almost as if women were biologically programmed
| to like powerful men and "toxic masculinity" was just an
| invention to denigrate men for being men.
| GavinMcG wrote:
| Thing is, men _are_ men--can't help it, really--
| regardless of what behaviors they display. Being toxic
| isn't "being men" because plenty of men aren't toxic.
| mikrl wrote:
| I won't dismiss the part about evolutionary pressure
| favouring those hypermasculine traits, but toxic
| masculinity is more about critiquing aspects of
| masculinity that are improper or inappropriate in a
| societal setting.
|
| I saw a meme that summed it up nicely:
|
| "You're not a gladiator or a spartan warrior who needs
| war, you're a middle manager who needs therapy"
| Natsu wrote:
| >> I think a lot of people who don't see themselves as
| "biased" still carry a lot of bias when it comes to gender,
| and it has an impact. ... > toxic masculinity
|
| Maybe we could make progress by tabooing words that frame
| being male as a bad thing?
| version_five wrote:
| I found the post you replied to very incongruous, because
| as I read it started with the idea that men are casually
| discriminated against (responding to the "men suck" thing)
| and then skewed into something that may be an issue but is
| completely in a different spirit (men defying stereotypes
| by being primary child carers) and then committed exactly
| often offence the original post was pointing out "toxic
| masculinity". It's almost like a weird simultaneous attempt
| to find victimhood while still toeing the "men bad" line.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| Toxic masculinity means something very specific, i.e.
| surpressing emotions other then anger and rage.
|
| I don't think it's fair to equate that to "men bad".
| BurningFrog wrote:
| That makes some sense.
|
| Then again, how would a similar "Toxic Blackness" concept
| fly?
| version_five wrote:
| The post said "female dating pool selects in favour of
| features that are often red flags for toxic masculinity".
| I took that to be a pretty expansive definition, typical
| "men that women like over me are toxic" vibe, at least
| that's how it comes out.
| opportune wrote:
| Toxic masculinity is absolutely a thing, think things like
| refusing to admit you're wrong, being overly aggressive and
| escalating situations, being overly boastful, being
| reluctant to show emotions other than anger. A lot of
| people are just triggered by the term for whatever reason.
| You could just as easily replace "toxic masculinity" with
| the word "machismo" if it makes you feel less threatened
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| I've come around to replace 'insert group name' with the word
| Jews and see how it sounds.
| klik99 wrote:
| Yeah exactly. I let this kind of thing slide because obviously
| the problems facing minorities/women as groups are far worse
| than the problems facing men as a group, but just shifting the
| conversation from "I think group A of people is the problem" to
| "I think group B of people is the problem" is creating
| downstream problems. And there are very real issues facing men
| - suicide rates are dramatic enough to indicate that. I think
| the goal should be reduce social/economic/criminal expectations
| based on what group(s) a particular individual is lumped in,
| because we are all simultaneously part of, victims of, and
| perpetrators of a system that damages people, though obviously
| some groups are hurt way more than others.
|
| Public opinion oversimplifies things to good vs bad and works
| like a pendulum, and I just hope it doesn't swing too much in
| the opposite direction. If people saying "men suck" is a
| temporary by-product of addressing systemic gender inequality
| then that's a price I'm willing to pay. I've benefited plenty
| from the power of average white male mediocrity.
| FeistySkink wrote:
| There's a 5:1 male:female suicide rate in my home country.
| This has been going on for decades. "Temporarily" saying "men
| suck" doesn't help.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| Men also commit 98% of homicides.
| the_jesus_villa wrote:
| This is a perilous line of thinking! Let's try it with
| race - "Black homicide rates are seven to eight times
| those of whites".
|
| And yet, here in Latin America, there are posters in
| every major city decrying the crisis of "femicidio"
| (murder of women). Not because they are
| disproportionately victims (quite the opposite), but
| because that's what's interesting to the American NGOs
| that decide what political issues are trendy and
| important.
| svnt wrote:
| I am not excusing homicides, but can you imagine that
| perhaps being emotionally illiterate and constantly put
| down might cause someone to be more likely to become
| violent?
|
| When they cannot defend themselves in all of the social
| discussion, bargaining, and gossip that is used for
| control of their lives, the feeling of helplessness can
| become overwhelming.
|
| And if a confrontation becomes violent, probabilistically
| the bigger, stronger one will most likely win. In a male-
| female dynamic where death is the outcome, the origin of
| the conflict is rarely considered.
|
| In many countries girls and women still need education
| for reading and written communication. I think in every
| country boys and men should receive education for
| emotional self-understanding and communication.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| ..and what percentage of men commit homicides? And who
| are the primary victims of homicides?
| znpy wrote:
| Do you also have stats about the victims too?
| [deleted]
| Panzer04 wrote:
| What makes you say the problems facing people other than man
| are far worse? I'm genuinely curious, because often
| conversation around these topics will go along the lines of
| "well, women have to worry about getting beaten up" (or
| (sexually) assaulted, etc), but men have problems too!
|
| The above attitude I feel like minimises men's problems - the
| implicit assumption is that everyone else has it worse,
| whether that attitude was intended or not.
|
| I've done literally no research into the problems these
| groups face comparatively, but I find it interesting that
| above case is usually assumed.
| akomtu wrote:
| If you expected a war with a powerful nation in a decade, it
| would be wise to kneecap the enemy with a skillfully designed
| dogma, so its generation of soldiers would be non functional by
| the time the war begins. How would you push such a dogma to
| your enemy's ranks? By offering its education institutions
| large grants if they agree to hire the right ideologists.
| That's what I believe is happening now. Many of those small
| minded creatures that demoralize boys do so because they
| earnestly believe in the dogma, they are doing the work for
| free. What's surprising is there is no visible response to
| neutralise that dogma.
|
| Edit: with this comment I'm also nudging HN to escape the
| narrow and boring boundaries of this discussion.
| gemstones wrote:
| Interestingly, this is a plot point in a very popular
| Chinese-language sci-fi novel called Death's End. Humanity is
| deliberately nudged to take on more feminine qualities to
| make them a less effective fighting force against a
| colonizing species.
|
| The author had to run his book by the CCP - you get the sense
| this hints at an accepted strategy in the Chinese mainland.
| It's an interesting read.
| ix-ix wrote:
| Lol this is Alex Jones crap. "The globalists are making
| their plans public in popular media".
| Terr_ wrote:
| > What's surprising is there is no visible response to
| neutralise that dogma.
|
| Perhaps because your exceedingly-vague conspiracy theory is
| full of holes? For example:
|
| 1. Which foreign governments are you accusing? Do you even
| know, or are you just assuming _somebody_ must be doing _the
| thing_?
|
| 2. Exactly what mechanism of foreign "grants" is being used
| to force the hiring of certain staff or educators, and where
| are they being hired?
|
| 3. What makes those individuals "demoralizing" actors, and
| why do you believe they have a significant effect on "young
| men"?
|
| 4. On what grounds can it be anything but noise, a tiny
| droplet in the heaving cultural _ocean_ that is "current
| gender roles and expectations"?
|
| _____
|
| Truly nefarious foes would probably have much better results
| (for less money) just pumping out catchy songs with
| demoralizing subtext and hoping one gets popular. Heck, maybe
| they even spread a dogma of powerlessness by funding US
| Christian Radio stations, constantly telling people they are
| nothing without Jesus.
| [deleted]
| xwdv wrote:
| Don't know why you're being downvoted (actually I probably
| do) but what you say does make perfect sense.
|
| People seem to forget that our rivals are _ancient_ compared
| to us, and carry out strategies on vast timescales that are
| difficult for any one individual to relate to with their
| comparatively short lifespan.
| WithinReason wrote:
| So we're up against the Bene Gesserit?
| Terr_ wrote:
| Don't be ridiculous, those are from a book... Obviously
| it's Lizard People.
| lovemenot wrote:
| No need to posit a conspiracy. Why not just refute those
| premises you disagree with?
| AverageDude wrote:
| How is this conspiracy, I am curious. I can literally see
| it happening.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Misandry is normalized in society. Whenever you encounter a
| baseless attack on men just reverse the roles and you'll
| realize that there'd be pitchforks for treating women as
| anything other than paragons of virtue.
|
| Entire entertainment genres are built around portraying men as
| inept fools who can be looked down upon by the opposite sex.
| _Seinfeld_ is one of the few sitcoms where a female character
| is as flawed as the men. You couldn 't even do that show today.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > Seinfeld is one of the few sitcoms where a female character
| is as flawed as the men. You couldn't even do that show
| today.
|
| So you observed a whole bunch of modern shows and judged that
| none met the same standard... Which one of them did you watch
| that was _closest_?
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > Seinfeld is one of the few sitcoms where a female character
| is as flawed as the men. You couldn't even do that show
| today.
|
| It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia? Succession? Yellow
| Jackets? The Righteous Gemstones? Beef? White Lotus? House of
| The Dragon?
|
| You could argue about percentages but it is in fact extremely
| easy to do a show with flawed female characters today.
| joemazerino wrote:
| The irony of mocking a gender that literally built and
| maintains their world has to be biting.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads into flamewar hell - gender
| flamewar or any other kind.
|
| That's particularly important when responding to a thoughtful
| comment like the GP. I know the issue is emotionally
| difficult but, as the site guidelines say, " _Comments should
| get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic
| gets more divisive._ " -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
| rr808 wrote:
| Its interesting how in Ukraine and Russia and countries which
| really need soldiers and heavy security how males are treated. It
| seems in Western comfortable countries there isn't any advantage
| in being male, women can do everything just fine. Until someone
| invades, then everyone wants the thugs to come out and do their
| thing.
| voldacar wrote:
| How are men treated there? I'm not sure what your point is.
| Most of us haven't lived in Ukraine or Russia.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| [flagged]
| fatherlessthrow wrote:
| Men have a place. They're necessary for the continuing
| existence of Ukrainian society, and the nation itself. Women
| know what a good man is, and search it out -- and so if you
| are a good man, you will be fine on that front. You can be
| terribly un-ideal by modern sensibilities, but if you are a
| reliable man that can provide for his woman, and the family
| -- you have done your job.
|
| The corollary is that if you do not fit into the men "mold,"
| you will not prosper. Most men in the Western countries would
| not have a place in Ukraine or any slavic country (except as
| an ATM) -- because the values needed to be internalized are
| at odds with more polite societies.
|
| This is true in much of Russia outside Moscow, St.
| Petersburg, etc. (the more metropolitan and "Western
| decadent" parts of Russia).
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| What, exactly, are you trying to say.
|
| Have you been to Ukraine?
| ineedasername wrote:
| This plays out at all levels. I felt extremely insulted just a
| few days ago when my youngest's preschool held a gathering to
| celebrate their "graduation" to pre-school.
|
| At least 4 times mothers were called on to step forward-- once to
| have a song sung to them, another to receive a flower, etc.
| Fathers were not mentioned at all.
|
| This prompted me to look around, get a rough sense of the
| distribution... Counting the kids & counting the male attendees,
| I can't say for sure that all were fathers but it roughly
| balanced the # of kids.
| motohagiography wrote:
| 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 about the world
| before even thinking about problematizing boyhood.
|
| Obviously I'm quite suspicious of adults talking about how to
| raise boys, but only because the only problem they should be
| trying to solve at all is how to be a worthy example, and
| anything else is a substitute for that essential element. But the
| "concern" about boys is just another form aggression against
| them, imo.
| fatherlessthrow wrote:
| Provocative notion, but I agree. n = 1 : no father, but had
| some stabilizing male influences in my formative years.
|
| People without good enough "father figures" turn out
| emotionally volatile. I see it in myself, and I see it in
| others. Sometimes, emotions should be observed and not yielded
| to. "Toxic masculinity" is just taking this to the extreme of
| disregarding all emotions. "Toxic femininity" is just yielding
| to all of one's emotions. It mirrors the narcissist:BPD
| relationships (absent, cold, and self-absorbed man; next to the
| hysterical, ever-present, and needy woman).
|
| A healthy person has cultivated both aspects of themselves in
| moderation (learning to listen to and identify one's emotions,
| and having the good judgement to know when they should and
| shouldn't be allowed to continue) -- this is usually best done
| by emulating others with this healthy outlook, most commonly
| with a healthy mother and father (but with the dissolution of
| gender norms, gender doesn't matter on the surface, so long as
| the people involved have nurtured both parts well).
|
| The best way to raise boys is in a village with all sorts of
| people to learn from. The worst way is to neglect them and let
| them figure out life for themselves.
| motohagiography wrote:
| "Toxic mascilinity" is a canard, and unless that father
| figure was an actual man respected by other men, they were
| probably just in search of a hit of narcissistic supply (or
| worse) from a child in need. Some agony aunt of whatever sex
| that's always around when the chips are down because it makes
| them feel needed is a just another predator.
|
| The best way to raise boys is to become a good man.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > I know many good men, and the defining characteristic of
| every single one of them is
|
| That would stand if you considered every guy talking shit about
| their father as "bad" men, regardless of how they behave
| otherwise.
|
| I agree having a settle relationship with one's father is
| better, but people with legitimate grief against their father
| and having objective disgust about what they did as human
| beings shouldn't be a disqualifying situation.
|
| I'm also a bit perplexed by the opposition between hating
| someone and accepting them. You can acknowledge what someone
| did for you, see where they come from and accept they are who
| they are, while hating their guts.
| lisasays wrote:
| 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?
| seattle_spring wrote:
| Err... what? So people with abusive or absent dads should just
| forgive and love them?
| lmm wrote:
| Love them, no. Make their peace with what happened, accept
| that they can't change it, and move on, yes.
| moron4hire wrote:
| That's not at all what GP said. They said "accept". For
| example, that could mean accepting that your father was a
| piece of shit and sloughing him off, out of your life. At
| some point, one has to stop letting the damages of the past
| continue to damage ones self.
| lisasays wrote:
| _They said "accept"._
|
| They said "accept _him_ ", as a direct object.
|
| Not "accept the fact that he had negative qualities", which
| is something entirely different.
| turrican wrote:
| I would agree with you. The most important person I hurt
| when holding a grudge is myself. Much better to do my best
| to forgive, maybe forget, and move on with my life (with or
| without that person).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-25 23:00 UTC)