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.
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.
A simple question for you, what exact measurable and quantifiable differences would you expect to see in, for instance, the children of psychologists of the sort this article appeals to, and those of e.g. Joe [demographically equivalent] Normal's children? And this naturally somewhat leads into, and what factors, as a society, should we prioritize?
To me it seems quite trivial to create unfalsifiable arguments, for near anything, using extremely nebulous terms like "reducing public health risks." It's not like anybody's ever going to say, "No way man - I really think we should work to increase public health risks!" But what separates science from pseudoscience is falsifiability. So it's only once you break things down into actual, specific, and measurable goals that the conversation can even begin.
---
As but one example, the most fundamental component for a society to perpetuate itself is fertility. And so, in my mind, a child's upbringing should absolutely be focused on ensuring this person will be able to both raise and support their own healthy family in the future. Yet of course even this simple goal is going to prove controversial because there's some conflict between it and certain cultural norms. And you'd need to reconcile this in some way that people, independent of worldview, can be generally happy with. I'm not sure this is possible.
It's exactly what my father did. He took parenting classes at the library, because he wanted to learn more and didn't think that just because he considered himself successful in business and life, he would necessarily understand pedagogy. To that, I am eternally grateful to him.
It's very hard for people to swallow their pride and admit humility, to say "I don't know" and listen to the experts. I have an immense amount of respect for anybody who does, and it is an example I try to live by (though not always successfully).
> 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.
1. We don't know as much as people think we do about what constitutes "good parenting". At best, we know some behaviours which are typically harmful (molestation, violence), but everyone already knows that, and the people exhibiting those behaviours need therapy themselves, so a parenting course won't fix that.
2. You're basically turning what is normally considered an innate human right into a privilege for which you need to earn a license. This invites all kinds of abuse (only the right kinds of people get this license!).
Would you be surprised to learn that there is something similar in Japan? Though not necessarily required, there are "mama papa" classes done by the government with the basics covered. And there are checkups (1 month, 3 months, 6, 1 year, 2, 3) which have some involvement in checking the child's health, wellbeing, development, as well as that of the parent(s).
> 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.
> 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.
In my country, we had a housekeeping class in school, that taught everything from basic cooking skills, to safety with electrical appliances. There was also a woodworking class, where you were taught how to use various tools correctly and safely. Later, in university, there were courses that concerned things like paying taxes in more detail, employment law and how small businesses work etc.
I think that parenting classes sound like a good idea. It can also help people figure out when they're absolutely not ready for something or are not comfortable with it - like happened to me and getting a driver's license.
Along this same thought - if you know anyone who has ever adopted the process and review procedures of the adoptive parents can be intense... and this is for people who desperately WANT to be parents, meanwhile at least in the USA you have a ton of people not being able to terminate a pregnancy that they are not prepared for and this leads to children raising children, hurting both.
My city (Munich, Germany) automatically sends "parent letters" to every child registered here (they are addressed "To the parents of <child's name and address>), which contain advice on dealing with common problems and questions as well as providing information about support services, sorted by age.
So for example, the one for 3,5 years has sections on how to deal with food pickiness, or with excessive preference for one parent.
There’s a saying: “it takes a village to raise a child.”
Historically, the role of the “parentin school” you’re proposing has been played by the family, most importantly grandparents. As we move away as a society from relying on family structures, we need to recognise their utility and find equivalents.
We moved away successfully from family structures in many areas of society: succession of rulers, for example. So this doesn’t need to be a bad thing. But I think the role that grandparents played should be studied carefully when proposing certain types of schooling for parents.
One of the things that Finance people do is force employees to have short computer-based trainings every year. They seem stupid and bother everyone, but I think they are fairly effective (and they've been going on for years, so they must have proven some level of effectiveness).
Health insurance providers could be forced to have parents do a yearly 1-hour training on how to handle kids to enable benefits.
You're not going to solve the biggest problems, just like SEC trainings don't prevent money laundering, but whateveer moves the needle a little bit may be worth doing...
> 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.
I think it’s a situation where we can’t stop people from having babies so we don’t even attempt to limit.
There have been attempts to prevent births in “undesirable” populations that people thought weren’t capable of properly raising kids. [0]
But unless we’re going to have a super controlled society with forced birth control and abortion, there’s not a qualification to give birth. And developing nations have really low birth rates so anything to further lower birth rates has some negative societal and economic impact.
That being said, there are many free programs available to parents but they have to reach out to find them. I live in a pretty backwards, relatively speaking, state and there were numerous state, county, charity, and religious programs to help with parenting coaching before and after birth.
It does seem like a good idea to add coaching into the maternal health programs to give more education and support to expecting and new parents.
Something I don’t think many people know about is that marriages licenses, (yes you need a license to gain some tax benefits) often have an incentive to do pre-marital counseling. Tennessee, for instance, at least halves the price of the marriage license if you got any premarital counseling. Which they very broadly define, so you could get it from just about anyone a reasonable person could call trained in counseling.
Something along those lines, such as cheaper hospital stays or government covering part of childcare or some incentive like that could support what you are thinking. Not required, but a financial incentive. This is especially useful because it targets lower income families, hopefully reducing the correlation from parental income and career/health/etc outcomes.
PS: Smart of you to wear your nomex, this thread is a conflagration.
I guess this is simply straight-up unenforceable. Making babies is the one thing almost anyone over 12 is capable of doing, with no effort. A key tenet of public policy is that it must be achievable, else forget about it.
<< 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.
The issue is that in US driving license is trivial to get and it shows on the roads ( queue explanations that it is just the function of car being a necessity -- true, but irrelevant too the point ). Even if instituted, I don't think people would accept that kind of infringement though I admit this is probably one place, where we should be able to self-regulate ( we clearly can't though and some systems are built for ever increasing population, which is a separate force that would prevent that kind of change ).
In short, I agree. I don't think we are doing it well now.
What to do about multiple parenting styles that are at odds with one another (sometimes even in the same household)?
How about the baggage that parents are carrying that influence how they’re gonna parent, many of those suitcases inherited from their parents?
That’s one thing for sure, but some parents aren’t even parenting for various reasons, not enough time, lack of responsibility or not being around for various reasons. If we could tackle all that we’d basically get a much better society but it’s a nearly impossible problem to solve in a practical way…
People aren't having enough children. Every extra hurdle is going to reduce the number of people who end up parents.
> Potentially break the cycles of bad parenting
You can't break cycles of bad parenting, because they are 2nd order effects of cycles of trauma. And cycles of trauma have been a fundamental part of human civilization since we've existed. We absolutely should teach compassion, good parenting 101s and basic logistical upskilling as a part of high school for both men and women.
But, expecting humans as a whole to suddenly start acting with decency is not going to happen.
I think a society would have better outcomes by teaching young people the consequences to their lives of having children, such as time and financial costs. In one of the classes in my high school, students had to carry around a sack of flour for a week without damaging it.
It is funny that you mention driving as an example. Driving and cars are not designed for pregnant woman. As a typical man with passion for cars and driving, this never occurred to me until my wife got pregnant.
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.
I have a similar sentiment. I remember growing up with jocks and bullies and really not identifying with the whole “group showers and snapping towels at asses” masculinity not pleasant and spent a lot of time getting beaten up or avoiding being beaten up.
So at first I liked the pushback against toxic masculinity as I didn’t like jerk men. But then the concept expanded to everything. “Mansplaining” isn’t something unique to men, but it’s ok to point out “mansplaining” but not non-men explaining stuff. “Manspreading” is used quite a bit, but there’s a reason why men sit with their legs open so there’s a polite about of space that’s ok for comfort. Etc etc.
I hope this is overcompensating for a long time of jerks being jerks but I fear that the bullying resulting from “strength = power” and jocks has now changed to “money = power” and people other than jocks have power.
I go to an esports bar quite a bit and an esports team was there. And they were totally bullying people and it was weird because it was multiple genders and races being total jerks to people. But the bully’s were strong, tall, handsome jocks. They were esports-types. So the jerk dynamic was still there.
I don’t think it’s progress if we end up with the same number of “toxic” jerks.
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."
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] dang|2 years ago|reply
Please make sure you're up on the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
[+] [-] noname2021|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] somenameforme|2 years ago|reply
To me it seems quite trivial to create unfalsifiable arguments, for near anything, using extremely nebulous terms like "reducing public health risks." It's not like anybody's ever going to say, "No way man - I really think we should work to increase public health risks!" But what separates science from pseudoscience is falsifiability. So it's only once you break things down into actual, specific, and measurable goals that the conversation can even begin.
---
As but one example, the most fundamental component for a society to perpetuate itself is fertility. And so, in my mind, a child's upbringing should absolutely be focused on ensuring this person will be able to both raise and support their own healthy family in the future. Yet of course even this simple goal is going to prove controversial because there's some conflict between it and certain cultural norms. And you'd need to reconcile this in some way that people, independent of worldview, can be generally happy with. I'm not sure this is possible.
[+] [-] antigonemerlin|2 years ago|reply
It's very hard for people to swallow their pride and admit humility, to say "I don't know" and listen to the experts. I have an immense amount of respect for anybody who does, and it is an example I try to live by (though not always successfully).
[+] [-] naasking|2 years ago|reply
1. We don't know as much as people think we do about what constitutes "good parenting". At best, we know some behaviours which are typically harmful (molestation, violence), but everyone already knows that, and the people exhibiting those behaviours need therapy themselves, so a parenting course won't fix that.
2. You're basically turning what is normally considered an innate human right into a privilege for which you need to earn a license. This invites all kinds of abuse (only the right kinds of people get this license!).
[+] [-] orasis|2 years ago|reply
Good parenting is foremost about growing up before your kids do.
[+] [-] mc3301|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KronisLV|2 years ago|reply
> 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.
In my country, we had a housekeeping class in school, that taught everything from basic cooking skills, to safety with electrical appliances. There was also a woodworking class, where you were taught how to use various tools correctly and safely. Later, in university, there were courses that concerned things like paying taxes in more detail, employment law and how small businesses work etc.
I think that parenting classes sound like a good idea. It can also help people figure out when they're absolutely not ready for something or are not comfortable with it - like happened to me and getting a driver's license.
[+] [-] monkeywork|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brazzy|2 years ago|reply
So for example, the one for 3,5 years has sections on how to deal with food pickiness, or with excessive preference for one parent.
[+] [-] earthnail|2 years ago|reply
Historically, the role of the “parentin school” you’re proposing has been played by the family, most importantly grandparents. As we move away as a society from relying on family structures, we need to recognise their utility and find equivalents.
We moved away successfully from family structures in many areas of society: succession of rulers, for example. So this doesn’t need to be a bad thing. But I think the role that grandparents played should be studied carefully when proposing certain types of schooling for parents.
[+] [-] hadlock|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d--b|2 years ago|reply
One of the things that Finance people do is force employees to have short computer-based trainings every year. They seem stupid and bother everyone, but I think they are fairly effective (and they've been going on for years, so they must have proven some level of effectiveness).
Health insurance providers could be forced to have parents do a yearly 1-hour training on how to handle kids to enable benefits.
You're not going to solve the biggest problems, just like SEC trainings don't prevent money laundering, but whateveer moves the needle a little bit may be worth doing...
[+] [-] prepend|2 years ago|reply
I think it’s a situation where we can’t stop people from having babies so we don’t even attempt to limit.
There have been attempts to prevent births in “undesirable” populations that people thought weren’t capable of properly raising kids. [0]
But unless we’re going to have a super controlled society with forced birth control and abortion, there’s not a qualification to give birth. And developing nations have really low birth rates so anything to further lower birth rates has some negative societal and economic impact.
That being said, there are many free programs available to parents but they have to reach out to find them. I live in a pretty backwards, relatively speaking, state and there were numerous state, county, charity, and religious programs to help with parenting coaching before and after birth.
It does seem like a good idea to add coaching into the maternal health programs to give more education and support to expecting and new parents.
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/43208...
[+] [-] beau_g|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itsoktocry|2 years ago|reply
What is "state of the art" in psychology? A bunch of irreproducible papers?
[+] [-] EligibleDecoy|2 years ago|reply
Something along those lines, such as cheaper hospital stays or government covering part of childcare or some incentive like that could support what you are thinking. Not required, but a financial incentive. This is especially useful because it targets lower income families, hopefully reducing the correlation from parental income and career/health/etc outcomes.
PS: Smart of you to wear your nomex, this thread is a conflagration.
[+] [-] rich_sasha|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afpx|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] A4ET8a8uTh0|2 years ago|reply
The issue is that in US driving license is trivial to get and it shows on the roads ( queue explanations that it is just the function of car being a necessity -- true, but irrelevant too the point ). Even if instituted, I don't think people would accept that kind of infringement though I admit this is probably one place, where we should be able to self-regulate ( we clearly can't though and some systems are built for ever increasing population, which is a separate force that would prevent that kind of change ).
In short, I agree. I don't think we are doing it well now.
[+] [-] grugagag|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] screye|2 years ago|reply
> Potentially break the cycles of bad parenting
You can't break cycles of bad parenting, because they are 2nd order effects of cycles of trauma. And cycles of trauma have been a fundamental part of human civilization since we've existed. We absolutely should teach compassion, good parenting 101s and basic logistical upskilling as a part of high school for both men and women.
But, expecting humans as a whole to suddenly start acting with decency is not going to happen.
[+] [-] natmaka|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itronitron|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] novok|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esalman|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcroixx|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] literalis|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] brigandish|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nprateem|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rich_sasha|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] prepend|2 years ago|reply
So at first I liked the pushback against toxic masculinity as I didn’t like jerk men. But then the concept expanded to everything. “Mansplaining” isn’t something unique to men, but it’s ok to point out “mansplaining” but not non-men explaining stuff. “Manspreading” is used quite a bit, but there’s a reason why men sit with their legs open so there’s a polite about of space that’s ok for comfort. Etc etc.
I hope this is overcompensating for a long time of jerks being jerks but I fear that the bullying resulting from “strength = power” and jocks has now changed to “money = power” and people other than jocks have power.
I go to an esports bar quite a bit and an esports team was there. And they were totally bullying people and it was weird because it was multiple genders and races being total jerks to people. But the bully’s were strong, tall, handsome jocks. They were esports-types. So the jerk dynamic was still there.
I don’t think it’s progress if we end up with the same number of “toxic” jerks.
[+] [-] Khaine|2 years ago|reply
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."
[+] [-] ineedasername|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jl6|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] 93po|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] _xnmw|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] version_five|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] 93po|2 years ago|reply
Maybe public, unashamed contempt is more recent?
[+] [-] dayvid|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lapcat|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foogazi|2 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] MattGaiser|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mark_mc|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] motohagiography|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dauertewigkeit|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] radicalriddler|2 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] newacct3|2 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] mu53|2 years ago|reply
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.