127 ms·

Ignoring boys' emotional needs fuels public health risks

• xdennis 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • leodler 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      > 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 3y ago
        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 3y ago
        The “assault forces” are male because of rather outmoded rules, the military is a slow beast to change even when getting invaded
        • hparadiz 3y ago
          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.
          • GenericPoster 3y ago
            >When an artificial womb is invented that can allow a baby to grow to term the dynamic will be forever changed. Can you elaborate on this and what impact this artificial womb will have?
        • NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
          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 3y ago
        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 3y ago
      What are those passages saying, scientifically?
    • Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
      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 https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression
      • KptMarchewa 3y ago
        Diagnosed, estimated, and so on.
  • Barrin92 3y ago
    >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 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • ravenstine 3y ago
        > 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
      • Barrin92 3y ago
        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.
  • ravenstine 3y ago
    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.
• MattGaiser 3y ago
  > 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.
  • usea 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      > perceived as
      • usea 3y ago
        > that perception quickly became reality
    • MattGaiser 3y ago
      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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
  [flagged]
• dauertewigkeit 3y ago
  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.
  • icegreentea2 3y ago
    Emotion support is showing loving, care and/or empathy. Mentorship and emotional support can have significant overlap.
    • j-bos 3y ago
      Is that how it was defined in the article?
      • number6 3y ago
        No you should buy the book
  • Tade0 3y ago
    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 3y ago
    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-important-role-in-childrens-lives/ 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.
• jl6 3y ago
  > 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.
  • jimbob45 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      A good start is to not beg the question. Are you doing something other than assuming that 'caring' is the primary factor?
    • troupe 3y ago
      > 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 3y ago
        > 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.
• rich_sasha 3y ago
  My impression is, men are stuck in a world where they are told not to be men. Toxic masculinity is perhaps a thing, but boys are told endlessly how they shouldn't behave and how their nature is flawed. Girls on the other hand, all is well.
  • gumby 3y ago
    > Girls on the other hand, all is well. This is also far from the case.
    • tivert 3y ago
      >> 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).
      • red_admiral 3y ago
        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 3y ago
          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.
• joemazerino 3y ago
  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.
  • ravenstine 3y ago
    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.
    • joemazerino 3y ago
      Absolutely! As if women and men are biologically wired a certain way.
    • codr7 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        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.
• caditinpiscinam 3y ago
  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.
  • joemazerino 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • dang 3y ago
      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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
  • hkt 3y ago
    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.
    • Natsu 3y ago
      >> 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?
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• rr808 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    How are men treated there? I'm not sure what your point is. Most of us haven't lived in Ukraine or Russia.
    • hotpotamus 3y ago
      [flagged]
    • fatherlessthrow 3y ago
      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 3y ago
    What, exactly, are you trying to say. Have you been to Ukraine?
• corinroyal 3y ago
  In the nineties I joined a men's group retreat where we circled up and listened to each other's struggles, gave lots of support, and lots of hugs. Then we did some consciousness raising around circumcision and it's barbarity. We took our cue from the Feminist movement. They were getting their shit together and so could we. Gary Snyder read his gorgeous nature poetry, Peter Berg sold us on a green cities concept that would make our urban areas more livable. Later, the monstrosity called the "manosphere" completely gutted our movement and turned it into a grievance fest against feminism. They stole our issues but instead of working on them, they weaponized them against feminists, especially against us feminist men. Domestic violence by and against men, paternal rights, genital mutilation, psych support, male fragility and toxic aspects of traditional masculinity, etc. But then they never did anything about any of these problems but bitch and bash feminists with them. As if it's womens' job to clean up our mess. Step one to improving the situation for men is to destroy the right-wing MRM. "Let men be men again!" is the cry of the regressive who sees the problems and plugs his hears screaming "Naaaaaah!" No progress is possible from that position. If you bother to look, the MRM does absolutely nothing to confront the problems men face in this world. Why? They don't want to. They do not care about men's problems, they only care about protecting men's ability to rape, dominate, and abuse. Take a look at this thread. For so many commenters their problem is with acknowledging the problems. Pointing out the toxic aspects of traditional masculinity is seen as an attack rather than an attempt at resolving the issues. How the hell are things supposed to improve if we can't acknowledge problems or ally with the movement [feminism] that did the first work to outline such problems? Feminists have been pointing out toxicity of the "man up" attitude for decades. So have queers. Feminists and queer men are natural allies in this struggle to improve men's lives. But we've let proto-fascists hijack the conversation. My greatest fear is that reactionary men join across class and race lines to form a united front for fascism. That's certainly the goal of the MRM. We must stop them. Let's go back to a Men's movement that forms alliances, rather than buries heads in the sand. If we did that, we could have men's domestic violence shelters, an ACLU for paternal rights, education policy makers that tackle bullying and lack of emotional support for men, and so much more. But we don't because too many are lured in by propagandists who would gladly destroy democracy to protect the status quo.
  • throwanem 3y ago
• goodpoint 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • dang 3y ago
    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 https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• motohagiography 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      "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.
• ineedasername 3y ago
  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.
  • foogazi 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • mattdeboard 3y ago
      So would you say that the commenter you’re replying to needs to stop complaining and just fix his own problems? And that in general men need to quit talking about feelings of sadness and disappointment (aka throwing a pity party)? Because, my guy, lol. The irony is absolutely impeccable.
      • MyShawdowySelf 3y ago
        [flagged]
      • foogazi 3y ago
        They are complaining but didn’t participate in the planning and therefore surrendered all agency Only thing left is complain why they didn’t think of him when he wasn’t around
        • mattdeboard 3y ago
          > didn’t participate in the planning and therefore surrendered all agency > > Only thing left is complain why they didn’t think of him when he wasn’t around Which is a totally valid complaint man. That’s what the whole fuckin article is about. That’s what all this is about. A man is allowed to feel disappointed people didn’t think of him when he wasn’t around, and he’s allowed to express that disappointment out loud. You’re literally perpetuating the cycle by enforcing toxic ideas of masculinity, this idea that you either fix your own problems or shut the fuck up about them. It’s a self-defeating way to live. Edit: your comment is god-tier irony because “not being thought of when you’re not around” is like the core of a lot of men’s emotional wounds. As in, a child’s experience of emotional neglect is the caregiver not thinking of the child when they’re not around, so the fact you are holding up the idea of complaining about that for ridicule is so on-the-nose it is actually hurting my soul on your behalf.
• version_five 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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.
    • anon291 3y ago
      > Boys and men need nuanced male role models (even modestly flawed), not one dimensional grifters All individual people are nuanced and flawed people when you interact with them one on one (even Tate I imagine). What's toxic is social media and it's ability to portray a life that doesn't exist.
    • selfmodruntime 3y ago
      Tate fills a gigantic void that exists because rational people in that space are haunted and shouted down
  • enragedcacti 3y ago
    > 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.
• stainablesteel 3y ago
  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.
  • enragedcacti 3y ago
    Were you expecting this 1000 word piece to address all social, emotional, mental, and physical needs of a child? I don't see anything in the piece that contradicts the developmental needs you list, except of course treating the need for emotional support as inherently a feminine trait, which is very well addressed by the piece.
    • im3w1l 3y ago
      Men have a need to feel like men, which means different from women. As emotional support is considered a feminine thing it might be better to use a different framing without necessarily changing much of the substance.
  • qwery 3y ago
    Painting what as an emotional needs problem -- the issue of boys not being raised with sufficient regard to their emotional needs? How are they (the boys?) being characterised as women? Who is claiming that men need to be treated like women? Why are you so concerned by femininity?
• wrp 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • Connor_Creegan1 3y ago
    [dead]
  • arp242 3y ago
    https://scribe.rip/s/powertrip/metoo-will-not-survive-unless-we-recognize-toxic-femininity-6e82704ee616 https://scribe.rip/s/powertrip/metoo-will-not-survive-unless...
    • wrp 3y ago
      Thank you for the reference. I had not read about this before. The rapid cancelling leaves me wondering whether it's because people think it's irrelevant to the topic at hand or just don't accept that not only men's behavior needs discussion.
• yarg 3y ago
  The world crushed my spirit, and erased the remnants with SSRIs. I'm frequently told that I have no right to treat my own depression with mushrooms, with my depression and its consequences held as proof that I don't know what I'm talking about and should have no decision making autonomy. The long term destruction of self that resulted from only three months of that is difficult to comprehend if you haven't been there.
  • dumpsterdiver 3y ago
    > I'm frequently told that I have no right to treat my own depression with mushrooms What a bizarre thing for them to say. In my experience, psilocybin mushrooms are absolutely amazing for mental health. I think that everyone should take mushrooms at least once a year to clear out the cobwebs.
    • yarg 3y ago
      They saved my life, I'm still depressed, but I don't want to die (still don't care too much if I do, but little steps). There's not a single conversation that I've had where my subjective experience has been relevant to the other person's opinion or position, both with family members and medical professionals. Casually discounting my internal understanding and experience in conversations pertaining to the internal emotional state of my mind. It's fucking infuriating. One of the weirdest parts has been the way that mental health practitioners react whenever I bring up mushrooms. They don't say anything - just look at me and wait for the topic to change. This has happened several times, and with several different people. The most ridiculous example was a woman who dismissed my need for mushrooms and then chastised me for refusing to slip back into SSRI induced asexuality. Wouldn't it be better? Well it wasn't for the first twenty years, so I'm gonna run with no.
      • dumpsterdiver 3y ago
        I hear you. SSRI side effects are frustrating. Don't let anyone give you flack for medicating with mushrooms. Don't even bother explaining it to them if they don't just get it.
• throwaway22032 3y ago
  [flagged]
• foogazi 3y ago
  > Fathers are also more likely to sing to and soothe their toddler daughters at night when they cry. 100 years ago father’s wouldn’t even talk to their kids. I don’t think dads even went into the delivery room Dad’s didn’t get time off from work to be with their wives when the baby was born or get bonding time Things are definitely getting better on this front
  • theoldlove 3y ago
    I was recently wondering about who was typically in the delivery room 50+ years ago. So when I saw my elderly grandmother last week, I asked her whether my grandfather was there when my father was born in the late 50s. She was a little offended by the question (itself interesting), but said it was just her and the medical staff. No other support people. She thought my grandfather was at the hospital, but wasn’t sure.
    • WalterBright 3y ago
      In the times when I was born, the father waited in the waiting room.
      • oblio 3y ago
        À la Mad Men. Heck, I had similar expectations a few years ago and then I was set straight about modern reality :-))
    • anon291 3y ago
      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.
      • Faaak 3y ago
        And for most of history, maternal mortality was double of what it is today
• lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  It is absolutely true that boys have been neglected. But the contempt of men is a recent phenomenon. Feminism has a great deal to do with it, demonizing masculinity by construing all men as brutes and promoting the false doctrine that men are unnecessary, that women are self-sufficient, that the patriarchy is some kind of evil oppressive thing. All of that is false. Men and women are complementary, which is to say they differ in ways that complete the other in some way. They need each other to help realize and become who they are. This doesn't necessarily mean every man and woman will marry or can marry or must marry, only that in the great social scheme of things, men and women have their unique genius to offer and range of roles to play in service of the other and the common good, even if it is remote. Boys have different needs than girls. Treating boys like girls will not do them any good. All children need fathers, but boys are perhaps especially sensitive in this regard as men help model for boys what masculinity means. We see how the absence of a father translates into higher rates of various pathologies and delinquency in single mother households. Father also have an authority no mother can have, an authority that helps boys, and children in general, achieve the kind of moral formation need for adulthood. There's a reason virtually every culture is patriarchal. Patriarchy exists in service of the common good, beginning with the family unit. It provides the structure and order that enables everyone to flourish. Can things go wrong? Sure. But that's true of every social order or arrangement. You don't abolish something because it can go wrong or goes wrong sometimes. This is like solving poverty by exterminating the poor, or cutting everyone's hands off to "solve" theft. A healthy masculinity, the via media between effeminacy and brutishness, is sacrificial and it is good not only for men, but all of society, including women. The common good depends on it.
  • somewhereoutth 3y ago
    > There's a reason virtually every culture is patriarchal. It's because men are physically stronger than women. That's it. That's all it is.
    • lockhouse 3y ago
      I don't think it's that simple. The fact that women give birth, have periods, and have a hormonal cycle that has wide ranging impact upon their psyche and decision making processes also has probably had a major impact on most cultures trending patriarchal.
• 93po 3y ago
  I'm mid 30s now and my childhood is full of instances of me being treated with contempt for being a boy by my teachers and female peers. Like, outright mocking in ways by teachers that in retrospect I would consider nearly traumatic and abusive. Maybe public, unashamed contempt is more recent?
  • thevagrant 3y ago
    Indeed. It isn't a new thing. I worked in a place a long while ago, being the only male in that department. Everyone was nice and we did our jobs. Over time I discovered 'rumors' about me from people outside the department. I'll call these people, the observers. They had no interactions with our team, aside from seeing who worked in our office as they walked past. It was quite concerning that people would assume the situation meant anything but myself working with a team of peers.
  • roflyear 3y ago
    Can you give some examples?
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • brandall10 3y ago
    I didn’t experience this in my childhood in the 80s (I’m 47) in Los Angeles. The only shocking moment I had was taking a Women Studies course in my sophomore year of college… as I felt my childhood lacked this tension, it would be helpful to uncover blind spots. In particular I remember we had a 2 day discussion on the harmful impact of the Cosby Show on society (both race and gender relations) and the other male member of the course piped in with what I felt was a well reasoned comment. He was eviscerated in such a manner that it was apparent our presence was not welcome. I kept my mouth shut the rest of the course. It was certainly educational.
    • bobsmooth 3y ago
      >the harmful impact of the Cosby Show Could you expand on this?
• 93po 3y ago
  It's become clear to me in my mid 30s that I was very emotionally neglected as a child. I had literally no idea because I had nothing to compare it to, and the behavior of my parents feels relatively normal for when I was growing up. It's my belief that this neglect has had a big role in the insecurity, lack of vulnerability, lack of self-esteem, and lack of honesty throughout my entire life. I don't blame my parents and I own my mistakes. But it's freaking wild to me that it's only now in my 30s that I'm going through emotional development that I can look back on and see people I knew in high school who had already done this sort of growth. After having read Running on Empty I started asking people about the dynamics with their parents growing up, and it really solidified how uncaring my childhood was in many ways.
  • bergerjac 3y ago
    My childhood conditioning was also something which recently unraveled for me. The first time I had a heart-to-heart with my father, the center of my chest felt viscerally tender. Mother stole a car and sold it to pay for a cocaine addiction. Father was such a workaholic that he simply marked her behaviors as "strange"... like her taking phone calls into a closet. After the divorce my father had custody and remarried to continue his absence. (Normally left before I awoke, and I went to bed before he returned. He was even normally late for family dinners on holidays. When he was home, he was sleeping or watching TV) Sometimes stepmother would return from work and vomit anger onto me and my stepsister. (Only about 2 years ago I realized it was Verbal Abuse) Re-encoding memories was crucial for my awareness, and mental-emotional progress. It's challenging at first, but after processing a few traumas, now when a deeper layer surfaces, I know I can immediately bring it to a therapeutic resolution. "It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
  • Neil44 3y ago
    I have a similar experience. I went to some counselling in my early 40s and we talked a lot about my childhood and family dynamics. It was one of the best things I've ever done in terms of my capacity for happiness (and the happiness of those around me).
  • ainiriand 3y ago
    I have near 0 emotional intelligence because of that. Only small part I have it is due to my wife efforts on teaching me how to feel about others and my own feelings.
• adamleo 3y ago
  Boys not only need emotional support, they need a strong role model, a leader, that provides guidance.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• skinpop 3y ago
  [flagged]
• _8j50 3y ago
  It is not a father's job to be the person a child goes to for emotional support. A father is indeed supposed to pass down masculinity and how to manage it and how to become a socially functional and acceptable man. Mothers on the other hand are supposed to be the primary person that provides emotional support and care. But, the immediate community is supposed to provide that support as well. This is how human society has functioned through history. This is how we naturally function. Fathers being emotional support, mothers being distant and the community being a cold and harsh distant group of people does not work. Teachers and social workers are not "the community". Children don't need psychoanalysis and being taught to think of themsleves as victims if their parents are too busy to attend their school presentations and sports activities and all that, because you have the community right there embracing you and supporting you. "It takes a village to raise a child" not paid employees of schools and governments and psychoanalysts helping politicians draft policies. The entire context of how this question is even being asked is wrong imo. "A child that is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth" Asking masculine fathers to be emotional or telling children the entire burden of their successful upbringing is on the shoulders of their parents is not only incorrect, it reminds me of the proverb "don't grade a fish on its ability to climb a tree". If it is unnatural for a father to support a child a certain way and it is natural for a mother, what is wrong with that?
  • corinroyal 3y ago
    Be careful not to confuse nature with nurture. Naturally humans have a high degree of variation. The traditionalist system you refer to is a construction, if a long-standing one. We can critique the success of this system like any other human construct. To argue that stoic fathers tend to produce better sons requires evidence. We might ask, "Better for what?" Better to be a disposable cog in a rich man's machine, perhaps? There's quite a bit of evidence that stoic fathers produce sons with emotional problems. There is quite a bit of evidence that expecting fathers not to express intimacy with their sons is destructive for both. There's quite a bit of evidence that men who don't understand their emotions and have not been supported in expressing them safely tend to act out in dangerous ways. Yours is a recipe for an exploitative, dangerous world. Intersectional feminism offers a path toward a safe, loving, and moral world.
• steve76 3y ago
  [dead]
• hgs3 3y ago
  Kids in general are neglected because having a stay at home parent has become a financial luxury. Kids used to grow up with a parent present, now they grow up watching TikTok until their parents come home. This is a real problem that no one wants to talk about it.
  • ryanwaggoner 3y ago
    Lots of people talk about this. They’ve been talking about it for decades. Three or four decades ago, when I was a kid, we even had a name for it: latchkey kid.
  • pram 3y ago
    How far back is "used to" because both of my fathers parents worked, and he was born in 1955 lol
• dang 3y ago
  All: obviously this topic brings up strong feelings (it does for me too), but if you're posting under the influence of someone's comment provoking you, please wait until that activation subsides before posting. We want curious conversation here, and this thread is veering too much into flamewar. Please make sure you're up on the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
• dayvid 3y ago
  I spent a summer teaching at a high school with separate gender classrooms. One thing that stuck out was that the women were motivated from hearing them out and how they felt first and men were motivated by giving them a challenge. To some extent, society is becoming more effeminate. This is a good thing in giving more opportunity for women, but there seems to be less space for men to grow or learn to be men. The main options seem to be Boy Scouts, martial arts classes, military, frats, father/older friends etc. or your out of luck and looking up to online grifters.
  • vinyl7 3y ago
    Unfortunately Boy Scouts was commandeered by women and now allow girls to participate. So it's no longer a place for boys to be boys.
  • dumpsterdiver 3y ago
    While I agree with your take about society, I disagree that boys have less space to be boys. Boys will be boys, no matter what the world does. There will never be a shortage of boys who want to throw rocks and jump in mud until their feet get stuck.
    • nightowl_games 3y ago
      > Boys will be boys, no matter what the world does. This seems wildly overstated and naive. Things are rapidly changing. Forget the world, a mother alone has a massive influence on whether a child will engage in the behaviour you are describing. Yes, some children will shine through all odds stacked against them, but to put all your chips into nature over nurture isnt even close to reasonable.
      • dumpsterdiver 3y ago
        > to put all your chips into nature over nurture isnt even close to reasonable It sounds like you're saying that "what we are" is less instrumental than "what we are told to be". We can agree to disagree.
    • 3y ago
• wonder_er 3y ago
  My only credibility to make a reliable book recommendation on this topic: 1. Have experienced some of what's discussed 2. Has historically read quite a lot The following book, and others by the author, have proven to be the most efficient filter for 'compressing' sometimes challenging life experience into something manageable: 'The Tao of Fully Feeling: Harvesting Forgiveness Out of Blame', by Pete Walker. https://www.amazon.com/Tao-Fully-Feeling-Harvesting-Forgiveness/dp/1515079767?ref=d6k_applink_bb_dls&dplnkId=aeb9ec95-60c3-4101-bb62-31e10cc35154 https://www.amazon.com/Tao-Fully-Feeling-Harvesting-Forgiven...
  • halkony 3y ago
    His CPTSD book was very enlightening to my childhood.
• mark_mc 3y ago
  I highly recommend I Don’t Want To Talk About It by Terry Real or The Will To Change by bell hooks (which extensively cites the former) on this topic. We don’t talk enough about the harm patriarchy inflicts on boys and men through emotional neglect and detachment.
  • hayst4ck 3y ago
    Can you write a paragraph on what patriarchy is and what the harm it inflicts on boys is? Preferably without referring to emotional neglect or detachment but explaining the underlying mechanism itself? Ideologies are not something you are, people are not patriarchy-ists. Ideologies are something you do, which means people act in a patriarchal way, likely based on ideological reasons, often without ever consciously thinking about the underlying ideology. To better understand patriarchy, what are some examples of people "doing" patriarchy? How do I test if something is patriarchy?
    • danbolt 3y ago
      > Ideologies are something you do, which means people act in a patriarchal way, likely based on ideological reasons, often without ever consciously thinking about the underlying ideology. I think the emotional neglect and detachment you mention (and are mentioned in the comments of this post) are a symptom of the underlying ideology of patriarchy. We don’t always recognize the hidden biases we hold men to, leaving them in a place where the feel trapped and untrue. It’s much in the same way women might have been denied their athletic ambitions because of a destiny prescribed to them. [1] Be it a cruel friend or a selfish lover, I think a lot of men in our lives have a piece of their individuality and humanity supplanted by an ideal that only works in theory. I can’t claim knowledge of a perfect patriarchy test. That said, since making the distinction between a “good man” and a good person who happens to be a man, I see a lot of my friends feel pressure to be something they’re not. And the thing they truly are often isn’t a bad thing in the first place. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-womens-ski-jumping-was-banned-2014-1?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/why-womens-ski-jumping-was-b...
  • raxxorraxor 3y ago
    Sometimes Birkenstock Andrew Tate isn't the answer either.
• jacknobody 3y ago
  Yes, neglect destroyed my health and social life too, and the men I meet in the places I meet them are very often from the same kind of background. Our childhood needs were not met, hence we lacked the common lovedness that draws social groups together. In later life we find it difficult to form good relationships and find it difficult to function as part of a team. I believe that neglect is the single most important cause of health issues. Neglect is however almost impossible to diagnose, because it is a lack, and not a thing in itself.
• FreshStart 3y ago
  It's not just a health crisis it's also a insurgency recruitment pool. Anyway history has a way to do away with dysfunctional cultures.
  • oblio 3y ago
    No, it doesn't. History, just like nature, is almost completely random and "unfair".
    • Nemrod67 3y ago
      Nature is absolutely not "almost completely random", it follows the path of least resistance in any and all things. Thus making it "Fair" if we had all the variables
      • oblio 3y ago
        In an obtuse sense nature isn't random, since it follows natural laws. Small consolation for the dinosaurs when the asteroid hit...
• seige 3y ago
  Bell Hooks "The Will To Change" is as astounding body of work for folks who are interested in this further.
• noname2021 3y ago
  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, detention centers, jails etc. How about some minimal coaching so that all parents are aware of the state of the art in child psychology and techniques to do better as parents. Potentially break the cycles of bad parenting that have been running in families for a long time (I write this as one such person). I expect it will be hard (nay impossible) to institute a parenting license (like a driving license) in a democratic society. So instead have a strong incentive in the way of a financial grant for every parent who clears a parenting curriculum sometime before their child turns 1 (or some appropriate marker). Keep the freebees /incentives piling on during the kids childhood so parents are motivated to undertake "continuing education" Parenting is truly important stuff - for many parents it is the most important responsibility we'll ever have in our lives- but we seem to leave it to chance to get the right outcomes.
  • novok 3y ago
    High School class?
  • hadlock 3y ago
    The daylight between instituting a parenting license and eugenics is not very much.
    • monkeywork 3y ago
      that's a hell of a leap - saying take some basic classes (likely not that much unlike how catholic churches require couples classes prior to marrying folks) to understand how to properly care for a child is nothing like eugenics and gene manipulation.
      • somenameforme 3y ago
        All eugenics requires is reducing to fertility of a target undesired population to below sustenance. It's actually extremely easy to do because of how 'invisible' it is. Imagine there was a society where literally every single woman had an average of 1 child. It'd be quite weird to claim they were being driven extinct as everybody loads up on diapers, yet that society's population would indeed be trending towards 0 at an exponential rate, but with an 80 year 'lag' in the first wave of deaths that would mask the impact. And country after country has demonstrated how relatively easy it seems to be to reduce fertility. Iran is a not so well known example. Back in the 80s Iran started to feel that their fertility was a problem. Their population was growing far faster than they had the resources to sustain, so they instituted birth control availability and mandated 'marriage classes' [1], not entirely unlike what's being suggested here. And in these classes they worked to try to reduce overall fertility. It succeeded far beyond any expectation. Their fertility went from 6+ to 2 in less than a decade. And then it just kept dropping. Today it's down to below 1.7 and it keeps falling. They've long since tried to reverse this trend and started an equal but opposite pro fertility program, but like China also showed - it's far easier to reduce a population's fertility, than it is to bring it back up. These sort of programs work as a perfectly viable proof of concept of a practically invisible eugenics program, and that's quite dangerous. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_Iran
• hknmtt 3y ago
  not going to read it. i know how it always ends up: "men suffering...women most affected"
  • bergerjac 3y ago
    The effects onto men are more internal. Whereas effects onto women are normally more external. For example, a man could allow himself to be triggered into rage. And afterwards there will be no visible signs it happened within him. But his wife could've been around him, and now she has purple bruises. External signs are more easily measurable, and therefore reported more, therefore readers assume the most affected. If the man had internal bio-signals measured, such as HRV, blood pressure, etc, you'd see the effects even BEFORE that of a beaten wife. (Of course there are also long-term health issues for being a slave to rage/anger/frustration)
    • tsss 3y ago
      In the western world 75% of all suicides are men and over 90% of all homeless people are men.
      • bergerjac 3y ago
        Exactly. All that (internal) emotion gets pent-up and he doesn't know how to release it, so he takes one final act.
• mu53 3y ago
  This is a huge problem, and I lack the faith that it will ever get fixed. People have talked about it for years, and the amount of investment and research is nonexistent compared to the talk about it. I have met many people in my life that virtue signaled using this issue. I opened to them assuming it was safe. They used any vulnerable moment to amplify my pain for their own enjoyment. It sounds insane, but this is a fundamental(could be instinctual) aspect of human societies. Look at prisons. Look at war. Look at how online spaces react to men vs women.
• Khaine 3y ago
  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 the fundamental issue in the red pill is, whenever someone tries to point out where society is failing boys and men no-one listens and they get shouted down. As pointed out by Corrine Barraclough, of the Australian tabloid newspaper The Daily Telegraph, who said in her review of the film that "the message of The Red Pill is compassion" and the film made her "wonder why feminists tried so hard to silence this crucial conversation."
  • nicbou 3y ago
    That was not my experience. The message was bitterness, and there is a reason their lot is poorly perceived. Try /r/menslib for a healthier discussion that isn’t centred around blaming women for everything.
    • guerrilla 3y ago
      They mean the message of the movie not the community.
      • Khaine 3y ago
        Correct. I am not and have not been involved with any of those communities. I saw the documentary was free on YouTube and was interested in watching it because I recalled the controversy over it.
        • nicbou 3y ago
          I will queue it up and see for myself
    • snehk 3y ago
      > that isn’t centred around blaming women for everything. Without clicking the link, I just know it's gonna be the patriarchy/masculinity, right?
• radicalriddler 3y ago
  I'll never forget the night that I was crying for some reason or another, and my Dad came in and said I was nothing like himself or my big brother, and was more akin to my depressed alcoholic mother (obviously he didn't say this, but he said I was more like my mum and that's how I perceive her to a point). Unfortunately I was raised by two people so opposite on the emotional scale that I still have no idea how to regulate my emotions so I just don't show any.
  • tacocataco 3y ago
    The thing that helped me was accepting that we live in a damaged world. It's okay to be damaged yourself. To expect otherwise is to expect a fish not to be wet. Take care.
• zo1 3y ago
  I really hope more of this specific discussion is had here. It's the type of conversation we should be having instead of what's being shouted around in social media.
  • zo1 3y ago
    This topic has me oddly emotional, not in an angry way. A bit sad, but also, happy-sad that perhaps these things can maybe be discussed in a sane way and we can just help people that need help. Although I don't agree with everyone here, I see a lot more nuance and reasoning behind a lot of the discussion here. It overrides the overall MSM/social-media picture that says there is only one right answer and all who question it are evil.
• newacct3 3y ago
  I don't get this thread The article is saying that I, as a man, need to jump through a bunch of hoops to become "emotionally mature"? The comments in this thread are saying that I, as a man, am being persecuted? Okay. Cool. Too many stereotypes for me personally. Can't say I've gained anything from sifting through all the political signaling and angry baggage
• Mat3777 3y ago
  There is a vast overrepresentation of women in education
  • Der_Einzige 3y ago
    Most don't know just how bad it is: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/young-men-college-decline-gender-gap-higher-education/620066/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/young-men-... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/10/08/the-male-college-crisis-is-not-just-in-enrollment-but-completion/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/10/08/the-male-... https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-university-fall-higher-education-men-women-enrollment-admissions-back-to-school-11630948233 https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-university-fall-higher-... Women are now more dominant in universities today than men were in the 1950-70s There's an article I can't find that specifically documents how douchy fratboys are having the time of their life due to the surplus of women and dearth of men in college now.
    • trelane 3y ago
      True, though I think the parent was discussing the dearth of male teachers, not students. E.g. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/02/the-explosion-of-women-teachers/582622/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/02/the-ex...
• _xnmw 3y ago
  OK, this is going to sound extremely controversial, but as a person who lived for many years in three different worlds: 1. The Western world (born/raised/educated in Canada) 2. The Arab world (lived for years in Jordan, have Muslim/Arab roots) 3. Eastern Europe (currently living in Ukraine for many years, now volunteering in the war) My observation is that 1. has an overly effeminate culture and harmfully stifles masculinity, or the other extreme 2. has an overly masculine culture and harmfully stifles femininity, 3. celebrates both feminine and masculine qualities in a mostly healthy way, and is the most "balanced" of the places I have lived. The one problem I would say that is way too common here in Eastern Europe is absent/cheating dads, but that is balanced by a strong and independent feminine (not feminist!) expression. For me it was a real awakening and a welcome cure to live in a place where men are men and women are women.
  • davidguetta 3y ago
    Interesting. I thought for 1 there was actually both : half men are effeminate and the other half basically ultra-masculine gym bros ^^. Eastern Europe looks interesting tho
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • zpeti 3y ago
      > basically ultra-masculine gym bros I don't think that's ultra masculine. At least people around me like that are self obsessed, appearance obsessed but ultimately fragile men. I also know because I was probably almost the same. I had a beard and looked like a lumberjack. Was I a real man? Not really. I'm not saying I now know what a man should be, but it definitely isn't an ultra masculine gym bro. It is someone who can create a stable, responsible, potentially loving environment for a family, someone who can endure a lot of strain and responsibility while still holding it together. It also helps if you have a goal in life other than "look good naked".
      • davidguetta 3y ago
• te_chris 3y ago
  A whole topic thread that seems to be navel gazing on various angles on culture war bollocks without actually talking about the parenting implications. I’ve got a 7 month old boy, I’ve done everything I can to read up about how to be a good parent - obviously time and attention is not infinite, I’ve definitely missed stuff. The best I’ve seen is the stuff around Emotion Coaching. Give kids (note, non gendered) a safe, loving environment and act as teachers/guides to learning to be comfortable with their emotional selves and hopefully they’ll sort the rest out from the solid foundations you’ve given them to allow them to be in the world. So much hair pulling pro anti feminism, Andrew Tate whatever itt and so little talk about the actual act of parenting.
• suction 3y ago
  [dead]
• ranting-moth 3y ago
  Yep. This is how you end up with young boys/men admiring the likes of Andrew Tate.
• whiddershins 3y ago
  This article is ridiculous and emasculating from the first paragraph. Old ways of educating boys existed for so long because they worked. If boys are extra sad nowadays, it is because of articles exactly like this one.
• RyanAdamas 3y ago
  [flagged]
• mathgladiator 3y ago
  They also need rough play. Last night, I was playing with my nephew, and I was just picking him up and tossing him on the couch. Then, I was choking him out, and he was just laughing and laughing. I think about what men need most, and I'm pretty sure it is brotherhood. People that you can go, hang out with, and not hold back with. I've thought about getting into men's health because I see the future in my nephew. I don't want him demoralized by the world... I want him to become strong, manifest virtue, and build a better world.
  • roflyear 3y ago
    Maybe something lost in translation here, but I don't think anyone needs to be choked out lol
    • mathgladiator 3y ago
      My nephew did. It was light choking until he tapped out.
      • roflyear 3y ago
        You'd be surprised how easy it is to cause serious harm to the throat. Be careful!
• thepasswordis 3y ago
  Look at the way that people attack Jordan Peterson. Jordan comes out and says, basically: hey men maybe yoj aren’t actually the worst thing in the world, eh? Maybe you have some things to contribute to society. And look at how he is attacked for that. Think of all the people who are warming up to type out how wrong I am and post some out of context clips of him saying something provocative. Here’s a guy who started seriously improving the lives of millions of men and look what was done to him for it.
  • qsdf38100 3y ago
    He is "attacked" because he started attacking communities that weren’t buying his views that men are oppressed. He started attacking feminists, then women in general, then anyone who doesn’t share his angry views, calling them "woke". His tone has become more and more aggressive, now he’s just a shadow of himself, drowning in hatred and paranoia. That’s sad because 10 years ago he sounded like a reasonable guy with sane advices. He was saying stuff like "the battle between his and evil starts in oneself. We all are capable of the worst and we must fight it inside ourselves." Now he just considers he’s 100% good, right on everything, he’s oppressed and his "attackers" are evil. What a letdown.
• rich_sasha 3y ago
  This comment will probably be lost but hey maybe someone will read it: We inherited a world where for many generations, men were hostile to women. It was unfair and needed rectifying. But increasingly, we fixed it by normalizing hostility to men. Overemphasis on "toxic masculinity", hyper focus on promoting outcomes for girls while doing nothing of the sort for boys. Plenty of various "Women in X" supporting each other, but try to sed s/women/men/ and you're a toxic macho. I think the outcome is unsurprising. Just to be clear, a lot of the initiatives for promoting women's success are good and necessary. But to me the emphasis should have been on promoting equality, not bashing men for the benefit of women.
  • dumdumchan 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • boringuser2 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • rich_sasha 3y ago
      Well, this I think is hard to argue against. Historically, women had much fewer options in life. Basically, marry someone they don't pick, give them babies and look after the house. Poorer women had to work super hard, wealthier women less so, but were subordinate to the husbands whims, physically if nothing else. Where voting was a thing, they couldn't vote. They were often not in control of their finances. They were cut off from education, office, "manly" hobbies. Then a very real glass ceiling - certainly a thing in 20th century. This is focusing on the negatives of course but it would be hard to argue they had equal rights.
      • listless 3y ago
        Historically yes, but that was quite a while ago - none of that has been the case for quite a while. The real push against men started maybe ~10 years ago? Or at least that’s when I noticed women I worked with being openly hostile to “men” online. Said to say, they have had equal rights for a while now, but the rhetoric keeps amping up anyway.
• Decabytes 3y ago
  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 new, the mafia did the same thing, and the military does this to young men every day. But while I don't necessarily agree with the messages of all the above, I do think they have done one thing that seemingly everyone else has ignored. They understand that men have feelings, need a purpose, and need to feel useful, and they provide outlets for those feelings in a way society at large is not. The political culture in the United States has become so split that we can't even talk about these issues without someone being labelled an incel, or part of the patriarchy. It's a shame because it's causing a lot of men to feel disenfranchised, which causes them to seek validation from sources that are willing to provide it, which don't always have their best interests in mind.
  • qsdf38100 3y ago
    Andrew Tate is intelligent ?
    • bmarquez 3y ago
      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.
• lapcat 3y ago
  The HN commentary on this article is strange. The title is "The ‘manning up of boys begins in the cradle.’ But what boys really need is emotional support from their dads" (why is the HN submission title different from the article title, by the way?). Yet so many commenters here are arguing about men's rights and discrimination against men instead. The article isn't about how fathers are somehow prevented from being emotionally available to their sons; rather, it's about how fathers choose to be emotionally unavailable to their sons in the misguided notion that boys need to be trained from childhood to be "manly" and "strong". A telling quote: "Fathers are also more likely to sing to and soothe their toddler daughters at night when they cry."
  • jlawson 3y ago
    >The article isn't about how fathers are somehow prevented from being emotionally available to their sons; rather, it's about how fathers choose to be emotionally unavailable to their sons in the misguided notion that boys need to be trained from childhood to be "manly" and "strong". People here are explaining why fathers are being emotionally unavailable to their sons. It's not a mistake, and it's not neglect. The fathers aren't idiots or abusers. It's to train the son to be able to function in a world that doesn't care and will never care about his feelings, his pain, his safety, or his life. A world where all acceptance and love is conditional on being useful to someone else. The fathers understand that showing weakness or needing emotional help as a male simply makes people distrust, reject, abuse, and abandon you. We've all had this experience over and over. They care about their sons, so they try to teach them the easy way, before the world teachers them the hard way. It's "the talk" for boys.
    • lapcat 3y ago
      > It's not a mistake I disagree. > The fathers aren't idiots or abusers. Well, a lot of fathers (and mothers, and non-parents) are idiots or abusers. There are no qualifications for the job other than having functional sexual organs. > It's to train the son to be able to function in a world that doesn't care and will never care about his feelings, his pain, his safety, or his life. A world where all acceptance and love is conditional on being useful to someone else. The question is, to what extent are we just "preparing" boys for that world, and to what extent are we creating and perpetuating that world by brainwashing boys into this mentality? > The fathers understand that showing weakness or needing emotional help as a male simply makes people distrust, reject, abuse, and abandon you. We've all had this experience over and over. Speak for yourself, not for me. > They care about their sons, so they try to teach them the easy way It's not the easy way, though. Boys do have emotional needs, and neglecting those needs takes a hard, enduring toll on them. It's like throwing the kid into the deep end of the pool and forcing them to sink or swim. > It's "the talk" for boys. Except there's very little talking. Talking about it would be emotional availability. Again, "Fathers are also more likely to sing to and soothe their toddler daughters at night when they cry." That's not "the talk". You don't sit down and have a hard talk about the future with a toddler, who hasn't even learned how to speak yet.
• A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  My wife works in mental health field and, as she put it just yesterday, she had no idea none of it is rare. The stories she observes daily are truly sad it it clearly starting to take a toll on her to the point where is talking about changing her job. It is a hard subject, because you immediately wonder how you would deal with it. I have no real answer, but coming from old country in Europe, I do think that culture in US holds a lot of the blame.
• jraedisch 3y ago
  Parents should not have to earn money at all. They should all stay at home and take care of their children. At (pre-)school there should be no more than ten students in a class, taught by the best teachers earning the best salaries, 50/50 male/female across all subjects. What I want to say is: for me, this is mostly an economic debate, and boys vs. girls always seems like a red herring to me.
  • tsss 3y ago
    And pigs should be able to fly to the moon. Parents are already extremely subsidized by the rest of society. _Someone_ has to do actual work and make money.
    • jraedisch 3y ago
      I do not disagree. Let me rephrase: I think it is much more important to discuss how much we want to spend to raise our children or how and how much we need to work, than discussing boys vs. girls.
      • jraedisch 3y ago
        Of course singing more to your children is probably a good idea in general, and being sensitive on how you might (without a good reason) treat them harshly or differently, is also a good idea. But for that you need energy, and that energy will then be missing somewhere else, assuming things in general are efficient. And if they are not efficient, we should discuss why they are not.
• nanciewell 3y ago
  [flagged]
• giardini 3y ago
  The author's view is of obviously troubled boys (obvious enough to people around the boys to direct them to therapy). Non-troubled boys may have very different viewpoints.
• EligibleDecoy 3y ago
  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.