How is it obvious that the OP's top-level comment on the article thread was not referring to the article? Why even bring it up in the context of the article?
I’d rather not have a debate between two people here, speculating on what a third person might have meant, when that third person is right here and you can comment to them directly. To me it was obvious that rich_sasha supported the article and wanted to comment on the larger issue in society. If you disagree then take it up with rich_sasha.
It's not clear to me if I do, actually. The backdrop to all this is drastically dropping outcomes for men, including mental health. TFA, in broadest strokes possible, implies that a lack of emotional empathy for boys is to blame.
Who am I to argue with psychologists? But as a parent and, well, man, I think the anguish is coming precisely from the effort to reinvent masculinity, banish the "bad" bits like competitiveness or assertiveness. Wherever I look, and I'm happy with my life, I see celebrations of women, complaints that there aren't enough women in key positions and so on - many of these valid! But I'm a white guy from someplace random, no one cares - and worse, a key pillar of my happiness and sense of worth, qualities such as bravery, cool-headedness, reliability, are discounted and mocked.
Now, if the white guy from someplace random is Warren Buffet, well, he'll be fine. But if it's an unemployed blue collar worker, no surprise he is in poor mental health. It's like getting a dog that likes to bark and run around, and sticking him in a small back yard, then wondering if he needs therapy.
I'll note that these dropping outcomes for men are a relatively new thing. Historically this was somewhat inflated by the suppression of outcomes for women, but IIUC this is not the whole story. So the past "toxic" upbringing of boys didn't, seemingly, cause that. Maybe it caused other issues, but not this.
I read an article by a leading feminist, whose name sadly escapes me. She wrote, candidly and seemingly without seeing the irony, how feminism managed to suppress the bad bits of masculinity and patriarchy - which she thought was good - but still needs to invent a new role for men in the society, and that's the next challenge for feminism.
This article smells to me a bit like that. Yes, boys need emotional support, but it has to be boys-specific. They need space to grow up as boys, with boyish attributes. To learn what character traits and decisions lead to good and bad outcomes. They need schools that cater to their needs, not in some condescending manner, but as a matter of equality. Hugs and kisses and listening - that too. But I don't see that denied to boys these days. But oh boy, so to speak, are they denied their masculinity!
...so do I agree with it? Not sure. But clearly it made me write a lot!
> qualities such as bravery, cool-headedness, reliability, are discounted and mocked
They're mocked? I guess I don't see that.
> But if it's an unemployed blue collar worker, no surprise he is in poor mental health.
Of course. But isn't that an economic problem?
> So the past "toxic" upbringing of boys didn't, seemingly, cause that. Maybe it caused other issues, but not this.
Right. IMO the two issues are largely tangential. I understand that a lot of men are disgruntled, but feminism seems to me like just a scapegoat. The economy has increasingly become globalized yet centralized, benefiting a small percentage of people while leaving a lot of others behind.
> Yes, boys need emotional support, but it has to be boys-specific
Sure. The article is clear that boys need emotional support specifically from their dads, who are effectively role models.
