5 ms·

Could you expand specifically on what you find disingenuous?

mariusor 4y ago
We are comment on an article which is built upon studies that are most definitely not brushing the issue aside and saying "who cares". I consider myself a pretty seasoned user of the internet and I have yet to stumble in online spaces that are framing the issue in terms of “we just need a way to reproduce without men”, or “everyone can just use IVF and still have children”. Most of all I have an issue - as a male of an age where thinking about the next generation is a thing to be done - with claiming that if similar issues would happen to women they would be taken more seriously. Framing the issue as a men vs women one is not, like I said, constructive in any way. The parent is conflating the decreasing sperm count with decreasing testosterone levels, mostly because they seem so closely related as to be the same issue - but which is not mentioned in Scott's article or in the studies he discusses, and presents that as a problem that affects young boys and prevents their development. If this is indeed the case I would like to see some substantiating to the claim.
- yucky 4y ago
  Do you feel the same about all of the coverage dedicated to issues that affect women more than men? That the framing in those cases is not constructive? Or in matters of issues presented as impacted one race more than another?
  - NineStarPoint 4y ago
    They weren’t claiming that they had an issue with the article talking about an issue that affects men. They were taking an issue with the framing of the commenter that changed the framing into a “mens issues vs womens issues” thing, which is very distinct from just talking about an issue that only affects a certain subsection of humanity.
    - yucky 4y ago
      So a popular example would be with discussion around BLM, which revolves around black people dying at the hands of police, despite the fact that far more white people are killed by police. The argument is based on per capita vs total, and so is definitely discussed in terms of how it affects one group more than the other. You also see it around gender discussions that revolve around crime rate victimization - since men are more likely to be victims of violent crime. The point is you see it framed that way all the time, and yet it's only an issue in instances like this. Anything that frames the wrong group as a victim is a no-no.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > We are comment on an article which is built upon studies that are most definitely not brushing the issue aside and saying "who cares". The question is: how representative are those studies? Sure they're evidence that there exists some researcher living under some academic rock who cared enough to do a study, however they're not evidence of widespread cultural concern (which is usually driven by mass-media concern). > ...and I have yet to stumble in online spaces that are framing the issue in terms of “we just need a way to reproduce without men”, or “everyone can just use IVF and still have children”. I've definitely seen the former. It was almost certainly half-serious nasty snark, but that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to setting the tone, especially when it goes unchallenged by the "right" people. The later reads like textbook, "I don't want to care, so I'm going lazily think up some half-ass idea on the spot to justify not caring."
- lumb63 4y ago
  Just to be clear, the “we just need a way to reproduce without men” comment was a paraphrase from another comment, here on HN [0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34833340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34833340
  - trafficante 4y ago
    Disturbing parallel to the MGTOW crowd thinking the solution is artificial wombs and s*x bots. Something something horseshoe theory
phphphphp 4y ago
I don’t know if I’d describe it as disingenuous because perhaps the parent commenter sincerely believes what they said… …but it is a ridiculous comment. There’s dozens of examples where women are disadvantaged and mistreated by healthcare systems all over the world, in ways that men don’t experience. Study after study has shown that black women are especially vulnerable to a disregard for their pain, so much so, black women have a much higher risk of death during childbirth! I can buy in to someone being concerned about testosterone levels and the impact it’s having on men, it’s totally fair and valid, but to suggest that this is an example of men being mistreated by the healthcare system and that the healthcare system prioritises women over men doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. Fertility is actually a fantastic example where women are disadvantaged compared to men. Consider how harmful birth control can be, consider how menopause can be an awful experience with very little medical support available. Ask a woman how easy it is to get a hysterectomy, or their tubes tied, ask a woman how they’re treated when getting a birth control implant…
- trafficante 4y ago
  > black women have a much higher risk of death during childbirth Found the NY Times reader. Fwiw, that article takes a somewhat flawed study [1] and decides the only possible explanation for wealthy(!!) black women dying in childbirth at a higher rate is systemic white racism. It then compares white vs black rates of infant mortality, also chalking that up to so-called ”white supremacist culture”, except the research study clearly shows both Asians and Hispanics having lower infant mortality rates than whites. To give the NYT the absolute smallest bit of credit, they do briefly admit to this way down the article. Differences in group outcomes always have to be racism/bias and can never be a result of any biological/cultural differences. Can’t discuss obesity rates, prevalence of hypertensive diseases, Vitamin D deficiency being heavily correlated with low birth weights [2] and black mothers being SIX TIMES more likely to be Vitamin D deficient at birth compared to white mothers [3] - you apparently aren’t even allowed to control for age! And thus the NY Times tells its unquestioning readers that Systemic White Supremacy is literally killing rich black women and also mysteriously elevating the Superior Asian Baby high above the rest. It’s nonsensical post-truth garbage that would be laughable if it weren’t being taken seriously and used as part of the rationalization superstructure used to justify increasingly ineffectual and, frankly, dangerous policies. [1] https://matthewgreen.substack.com/p/nyt-article-says-that-landmark-study https://matthewgreen.substack.com/p/nyt-article-says-that-la... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4662754/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4662754/ [3] https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/137/2/447/4664564 https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/137/2/447/4664564

We are comment on an article which is built upon studies that are most definitely not brushing the issue aside and saying "who cares". I consider myself a pretty seasoned user of the internet and I have yet to stumble in online spaces that are framing the issue in terms of “we just need a way to reproduce without men”, or “everyone can just use IVF and still have children”. Most of all I have an issue - as a male of an age where thinking about the next generation is a thing to be done - with claiming that if similar issues would happen to women they would be taken more seriously. Framing the issue as a men vs women one is not, like I said, constructive in any way. The parent is conflating the decreasing sperm count with decreasing testosterone levels, mostly because they seem so closely related as to be the same issue - but which is not mentioned in Scott's article or in the studies he discusses, and presents that as a problem that affects young boys and prevents their development. If this is indeed the case I would like to see some substantiating to the claim.

yucky 4y ago
Do you feel the same about all of the coverage dedicated to issues that affect women more than men? That the framing in those cases is not constructive? Or in matters of issues presented as impacted one race more than another?
- NineStarPoint 4y ago
  They weren’t claiming that they had an issue with the article talking about an issue that affects men. They were taking an issue with the framing of the commenter that changed the framing into a “mens issues vs womens issues” thing, which is very distinct from just talking about an issue that only affects a certain subsection of humanity.
  - yucky 4y ago
    So a popular example would be with discussion around BLM, which revolves around black people dying at the hands of police, despite the fact that far more white people are killed by police. The argument is based on per capita vs total, and so is definitely discussed in terms of how it affects one group more than the other. You also see it around gender discussions that revolve around crime rate victimization - since men are more likely to be victims of violent crime. The point is you see it framed that way all the time, and yet it's only an issue in instances like this. Anything that frames the wrong group as a victim is a no-no.
tablespoon 4y ago
> We are comment on an article which is built upon studies that are most definitely not brushing the issue aside and saying "who cares". The question is: how representative are those studies? Sure they're evidence that there exists some researcher living under some academic rock who cared enough to do a study, however they're not evidence of widespread cultural concern (which is usually driven by mass-media concern). > ...and I have yet to stumble in online spaces that are framing the issue in terms of “we just need a way to reproduce without men”, or “everyone can just use IVF and still have children”. I've definitely seen the former. It was almost certainly half-serious nasty snark, but that doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to setting the tone, especially when it goes unchallenged by the "right" people. The later reads like textbook, "I don't want to care, so I'm going lazily think up some half-ass idea on the spot to justify not caring."
lumb63 4y ago
Just to be clear, the “we just need a way to reproduce without men” comment was a paraphrase from another comment, here on HN [0]. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34833340 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34833340
- trafficante 4y ago
  Disturbing parallel to the MGTOW crowd thinking the solution is artificial wombs and s*x bots. Something something horseshoe theory

phphphphp 4y ago

I don’t know if I’d describe it as disingenuous because perhaps the parent commenter sincerely believes what they said… …but it is a ridiculous comment. There’s dozens of examples where women are disadvantaged and mistreated by healthcare systems all over the world, in ways that men don’t experience. Study after study has shown that black women are especially vulnerable to a disregard for their pain, so much so, black women have a much higher risk of death during childbirth! I can buy in to someone being concerned about testosterone levels and the impact it’s having on men, it’s totally fair and valid, but to suggest that this is an example of men being mistreated by the healthcare system and that the healthcare system prioritises women over men doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. Fertility is actually a fantastic example where women are disadvantaged compared to men. Consider how harmful birth control can be, consider how menopause can be an awful experience with very little medical support available. Ask a woman how easy it is to get a hysterectomy, or their tubes tied, ask a woman how they’re treated when getting a birth control implant…

trafficante 4y ago
> black women have a much higher risk of death during childbirth Found the NY Times reader. Fwiw, that article takes a somewhat flawed study [1] and decides the only possible explanation for wealthy(!!) black women dying in childbirth at a higher rate is systemic white racism. It then compares white vs black rates of infant mortality, also chalking that up to so-called ”white supremacist culture”, except the research study clearly shows both Asians and Hispanics having lower infant mortality rates than whites. To give the NYT the absolute smallest bit of credit, they do briefly admit to this way down the article. Differences in group outcomes always have to be racism/bias and can never be a result of any biological/cultural differences. Can’t discuss obesity rates, prevalence of hypertensive diseases, Vitamin D deficiency being heavily correlated with low birth weights [2] and black mothers being SIX TIMES more likely to be Vitamin D deficient at birth compared to white mothers [3] - you apparently aren’t even allowed to control for age! And thus the NY Times tells its unquestioning readers that Systemic White Supremacy is literally killing rich black women and also mysteriously elevating the Superior Asian Baby high above the rest. It’s nonsensical post-truth garbage that would be laughable if it weren’t being taken seriously and used as part of the rationalization superstructure used to justify increasingly ineffectual and, frankly, dangerous policies. [1] https://matthewgreen.substack.com/p/nyt-article-says-that-landmark-study https://matthewgreen.substack.com/p/nyt-article-says-that-la... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4662754/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4662754/ [3] https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/137/2/447/4664564 https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/137/2/447/4664564