Hacker News Reader

Comment by hoka-one-one | Hacker News Reader

I can't help but notice a common thread between all these kids, namely that they're all boys.

What we're seeing is likely an attempt to suppress the more toxic and dangerous traits associated with masculinity. Yes, it causes some kids some suffering, but if the alternative is that they grow up to fight or rape or hurt their peers and colleagues, is there a chance that it's worth it?

I say this, by the way, as someone who has been in a suicide watch room in jail once as a young adult because I refused to answer questions. It was terrible, but after 24 hours I feel it had a lasting positive effect on me. I've been much less rebellious since then. I'm also thankful it happened before my tendency to act out ended up hurting other people.

View on HN

You’re begging the question: does any of this actually prevent the “toxic masculinity” you’re referring to?

The article quite clearly says no. Moreover, “toxic masculinity” is a political dog-whistle, not a legitimate psychological concept.

EDIT: ffs don't flag the parent poster. He's misinformed and possibly ideologically driven (though I've seen far worse), but enough with the censorship bubble, already ...

> “toxic masculinity” is a political dog-whistle, not a legitimate psychological concept.

This is misleading at best. Toxic masculinity has been written about in great detail and at great length in academia (in gender/women's studies literature) for going on 30 years.

> Toxic masculinity has been written about in great detail and at great length

Generating literature about a postulation doesn't make it true.

How would you ever controvert a bad practice like icepick lobotomies, or a false belief like Aristotelian gravity, if the simple existence or popular acceptance of an idea were considered to be its proof?

All-right, I'll bite.

What words would you prefer people use to describe a particular kind of behaviour, common to, but not exclusive to young men that is in generous parts mysoginistic, often homophobic and violent?

Bit of a loaded question, isn't it?

It's a response to a bit of a loaded statement. What does the parent poster even mean that a descriptive term isn't 'true'?

That the behaviour it describes doesn't exist? That would be a truly remarkable claim.

That the term is inapplicable to that behaviour? On what grounds? Is there a term they'd prefer we use?

That the behaviour exists, but we shouldn't slap a label on it? That's almost certainly personal opinion, which is not very interesting.

If the OP would have instead said that particular claims about toxic masculinity are false, that would be an entirely different conversation. But that's not what they did.

>in gender/women's studies literature

I rest my case. It is not a legitimate psychological concept.

But probably also not a mere dog whistle. Psycological "concept" and "dog whistle" are not the only two things an idea could be.

That's fair. 'Dog whistle' is a bit inexact, but it's not completely off the mark either, I think.

> there a chance that it's worth it?

Little to none as there is no evidence of theraputic value.

Indeed, it seems clearly harmful and would qualify as child abuse if it were sone by the parents rather than the school district.

The use of this technique on children with Autism is particularly reprehensible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com