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."
>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.
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.
Sadly, it's not something that can be taught just by talking, because must be taught at a very young age. Boys need to learn to be strong as young schoolchildren, in order to not suffer the consequences of being weak. Social interaction patterns start early and persist. Fathers know this, so they must start early, so the son is prepared for the cruelty of the schoolyard.
You're right about the lack of talking. It's not literally talking, it's conditioning/training. I was using the expression "the talk" to link it to something else you might understand.
