Comment by dsfyu404ed | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dsfyu404ed | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Probably something to do with this:

>The study also showed a correlation between fathers who exhibit negative aspects of traditional masculinity and fathers who are less involved with their children.

>“It’s important to understand what masculinity is and is not,” Shafer said. “In some circles, when people hear terms like hegemonic or toxic masculinity, they think those are attacking all men. Not so. There are some very beneficial aspects of masculinity — being goal-oriented or being loyal, for example. However, we are talking about more problematic aspects of masculinity — like aggression, detached relationships, not showing emotion and failing to ask for help. These are negative aspects of traditional masculinity, and our research suggests it hurts families.”

Some of that I take issue with as well. Being able to seriously turn down your emotions or at least not show them is a really useful skill in situations where emotions run high. I would certainly have no problem if my own children (regardless of gender) were less emotional, I think it's probably better than being the same distance from "average" in the other direction.

The frustrating thing for me is that hiding emotion, physical aggression, and detached relationships are associated with masculinity at all. For men who don't like those things it's basically saying they're not men.

I don't think authors mean that men need to be "emotional" all the time. They seem to be saying that being detached and hiding emotions prevents men from seeking help or forming stronger relationships.

This idea comes from a stereotypically female perspective. Men typically form stronger relationships with other men through shared struggles -- playing on a team together, going hunting, building something, etc. Working together and not complaining builds trust. To say that the female approach of long emotional talks and displays is objectively superior is not justified.

Ask one of your friends who works in a female dominated workplace what it's like. They might prefer a bit more stoicism, less emotional displays, and more working together without complaint.

Being physically aggressive is not a more healthy way to handle emotions than acknowledging emotions exist.

The rest of your post is non sequitur. Improving the unhealthy parts of male life does not mean making everyone stereotypically female.

The practical issue is that men commit suicide more often and it seems like they suffer loneliness more often, especially at later age. The shared struggle only socialization does now work at all when you are sick or in bad situation. They also end up dependent on their wifes for keeping social network, which works until it does not. They also seem to vent their frustration in bigger angry blow ups which harms a.) themselves, b.) their families, c.) mostly other men who are most likely victims of their violence. "Not complaining" is literally about having taboo you cant talk about - it is not the same as being content. So, they lash out instead.

Men do have emotional displays, like constantly. If you work in tech, I doubt you never seen someone lash out over petty difference in coding style, change of requirements, completely loose it on analyst etc. "The lack of social skills" is often euphemism for "can keep control over negative emotions".

The other interesting issue I see is that women are according to stereotypes both a.) more cooperative and easier to work with and b.) horrible to work with - depending precisely on which variant makes women inferior in the context.

If you work in tech, you're not dealing with typical masculine behavior. Much of the anti-male sentiment in tech is from men (from the perspective of women) getting/internalizing the rewards of being successful without acting like a successful man.

Men normally are able to control their negative emotions, but you're right that women can be dichotomous, especially in tech. You can predict it if you know why and how they got into the industry.

There is no more manly profession then working in tech for collage educated people. People are literally choosing tech because, and I am quoting here, "it is good job for a boy". I mean, it is good job, but boys are not loosing masculinity by doing tech at all. Quite the opposite.

Men in tech are somewhat more introverted then the rest. They are not more emotional nor feminine then actors, writers, sales or literally any profession. Speaking of groups, the men with least in control are those who end up in jail and similar troubles.

I'm assuming this is India you're talking about?

>There is no more manly profession then working in tech for collage educated people.

Please state the culture for context. This is absolutely not the case in the West.

Is this the fault of men or a largely "feminized" modern environment? In other words, an environment where women are safer than ever(which I fully support) is incidentally one with very few ways for men to form social bonds with each other; there are very few ways for most men to face shared struggles, at least without being told that their arenas are "too aggressive" for women.

> The other interesting issue I see is that women are according to stereotypes both a.) more cooperative and easier to work with and b.) horrible to work with - depending precisely on which variant makes women inferior in the context.

I challenge the very concept that women are more cooperative; they simply cooperate differently from men. When men are overtly challenging one another, they are usually cooperating in the sense that they are playing by the same hierarchical rules. Women cooperate through covertly challenging each other while overtly playing by rules that limit the amount of displayed aggression and promote hospitable behavior. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but the fact that men tend to be more aggressive to each other is not to say that they aren't very cooperative with one another; if that weren't the case, men on average would be far more underhanded and circumvent rules on a regular basis.

If that would be true, men in male dominated jobs and with male dominated hobbies would not had the above problems - but they do.

A lot of suicide is when men retire, get long term unemployed or divorces (divorces are harder on men statistically these days). In two of those you cease to have "shared struggle", but not because women presence caused it. More like, people you knew disappeared. You are not useful to them anymore.

Workers don't share struggle, because most work is about struggle against colllegues, competition and people change jobs often anyway. Combined with working more then 60 hours a week, female presence is hardly the primary reason for lack of long term friendship that sticks as you get unemployed or sick. (I don't think the job should supply socialization, but it does for people working a lot.)

And men like you just described openly challenge those under them in hierarchy, but rarely those higher then them. So, I have reservations about that openness you talk about. It is less about openness and more about never saying you disagree with higher ups in hierarchy and lashing out when perceived lowers disagree or criticize you - because that is interpreted as challenge.

> Being able to seriously turn down your emotions or at least not show them is a really useful skill in situations where emotions run high.

And that kind of behaviour is neither toxic, nor particularly masculine.

It's the inability to show emotions even when appropriate or helpful that is the toxic bit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com