TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Twice as many boys (aged 5-10) have mental health issues compared to girls. Ignored in article, but appears in graph.

BaronBilgewater

November 22, 2018
2494 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46295719
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Twice as many boys (aged 5-10) have mental health issues compared to girls. Ignored in article, but appears in graph.
Author

BaronBilgewater

Upvotes 2494
Comments 73
Date November 22, 2018 1:53 PM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9ze9x5/twice_as_many_boys_aged_510_have_mental_health/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/twice-as-many-boys-aged-5-10-have-mental-health.1183690
https://theredarchive.com/post/1183690
Top posts by BaronBilgewater

This female teacher pretended to be a 14 year old girl to accuse a male teacher of sexually abusing her. No jail time for this calculated attempt to destroy a man's life.

16640 upvotes
February 1, 2017
/r/MensRights

Footballers branded rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 in damages to woman who says she was too drunk to give consent. There was never a criminal trial.

582 upvotes
January 17, 2017
/r/MensRights

Most female homicide victims are killed in the home... (BBC quietly mentions later that 80% of murder victims are men).

249 upvotes
November 25, 2018
/r/MensRights

BBC Newsnight just described falling sperm counts as "another blow for western patriarchy", and did so with a smirk. What the hell is happening?

222 upvotes
July 26, 2017
/r/MensRights

Robin Thicke's ex-wife says he "traumatised her and their son by demanding visitation". He is now only allowed supervised visits, despite being cleared of her abuse claims.

185 upvotes
January 27, 2017
/r/MensRights

Men are the ruling sex in politics? Not in the UK; Prime Minister and Queen are both women, neither were voted in. There's a Minister for Women and Equality (a woman) and no minister for men. There's a Parliamentary Committee for Women and Equalities (chaired by a woman) and no committee for men.

182 upvotes
January 11, 2017
/r/MensRights

"Clearly, a drunk can consent" - says Canadian judge

158 upvotes
March 4, 2017
/r/MensRights

BBC tricked me. This article about the challenges of being a man is actually just about ‘toxic masculinity’. No mention of fear of false accusation or misandry. Sources of material were replying to Caitlin Moran.

115 upvotes
October 20, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]jackcos 445 points446 points447 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

It's the '19% of journalists killed are women' stat all over again.

Twice as many boys ages 5-10 have issues, twice as many young women aged 17-19 have issues... but they lead with women instead of children and young people in general.

Worse still, as I posted elsewhere on the sub just a few moments ago, there was nothing for men's mental health awareness on International Men's Day. Inexcusable.

[–]Hadashi_blacksky 184 points185 points186 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

And the other reason women lead the stats is because men have learned to suppress it by that age.

[–][deleted] 207 points208 points209 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, by puberty most men have figured out no one fucking cares about theirs mental health.

[–][deleted] 75 points76 points77 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I’ve battled crippling anxiety my entire life, I’ve described it in many ways, but the earliest I can recall is when I was just 8-9 years old and relating it to a large rock on my chest, suspended by a very thing string that might break.

I only realized last year that I’ve always had anxiety. I’m 26. I cried “like a girl”

:(

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I had the same thing happen to me but with OCD at age 24. Fucking brutal. I don't blame my parents but at the same time I wish they would have recognized I wasn't just quirky and actually had a problem when I was a lot younger.

[–]Hadashi_blacksky 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you or /u/The_Tightest_Anus want to tell people about your anxiety and other issues, I'm willing to make an article about it for www.menarehuman.com. Absolutely no pressure, and you can be completely anonymous. I have it myself, so I do understand.

[–]DarthCallidous 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You sound exactly like me. We're even the same age.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

At 19 I reached a point we're I just don't care about it and try to continue my life

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Welcome to living exactly how society expects men to deal with their problems and feminist have zero interest in fixing it despite their virtue signaling claims otherwise. One thing feminist absolutely hate is competing with others over pity points. See intersectional feminism the only reason that exists is so feminism can be the blanket statement used to describe a 'disadvantaged' person not to actually help everyone that falls under that banner especially if male, looking at you t.e.r.f's and the fact feminist don't call them out. Decades and decades of lies and inaction by feminism proves me right and then wrong.

We men need to be the change we need because unlike women we don't have the other 50% of the population or the government by extension of that other 50% to fall back on.

[+]Emperorerror -35 points-34 points-33 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Hey man, this is incorrect. It's been very robustly shown that depression, anxiety, etc. are much more common among women than men, and not just through self-reporting. Yes, it's true, men are less likely to see someone about their mental issues, but that's not the only measure we have.

[–]Intifi17 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Can I have a source?

[–]mods_are_a_psyop 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide.shtml

Edit: Had to step away, but I'm back to add to the conversation. It's incredibly difficult to measure things like "how much anxiety are men and women experiencing?" or "How common is depression?". I'm not a social sciences denier, I've spent a decade working in mental health and have a degree in Psychology from a program that had a heavy emphasis on statistics and hard data collection. Yes, we can ask a population to rate themselves on a scale of 1-10 for how anxious they've been and ask how many times they've had suicidal ideation in the past year. Also, there are some very good studies with concrete data, taking information from self reporting measures, mental health service rates of participation, and using hundreds of data points to analyze the comparative rates of mental illness. Yet, ultimately those data are reliant upon the subject's willingness to confront the reality of their mental illness and disclose that information to strangers, and to do so within a subjective context of an environment that may be working to stop people from expressing these experiences of problems.

This is why I turn to data on successfully completed suicide. I've worked with many kids who've made suicide attempts. Yes, boys and girls both make attempts. Yes, sometimes these kids will admit that deep down they didn't want to die, only to draw attention to their need for help. Yes, it's more common for girls to make "suicidal gestures" than boys, and yes, it's more common for these gestures to exist without an underlying suicidal drive. As I stated above, ultimately that data comes from self reporting.

Which means that one of the best measures of mental illness within a population is the rate of successful suicide. Sure, sometimes a journalist succumbs to two bullets in the back of the head and government officials rule it a "suicide", but for the most part, a suicide is easily identified by anyone who makes a small examination of the details surrounding the death. Successful suicide isn't reliant upon a cultural lens for identification. It can't be over exaggerated by an extremely vocal subset of the population making more claims about their illness than other subsets. It's hard data which cannot easily be misconstrued.

The data is clear. In the western world, men kill themselves at about four times the rate of women. If this were the only data available regarding mental illness, I would conclude that men suffer mental illness at four times the rate or severity of women. That's a MASSIVE difference. Clearly society is failing men in some significant manner.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks. Great post. Cuts through all the crap.

As always, just imagine if the genders were reversed: Feminists would be bleating that women are forced to repress their real state of anxiety and depression by the patriarchy, and that their higher suicide levels “prove” that they are suffering more.

[–]the_unseen_one 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sure women are diagnosed more often, but they're also far more likely to seek help because society accepts that as good and necessary for women.

[–]Hadashi_blacksky 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Self reporting is the only metric we have here - and that is what is lowering those stats. It's the same deal with domestic violence and rape - men don't lead the statistics because nobody really wants to count them (except the CDC, who show that they lead those stats). For example: nobody knows that my boyfriend has extreme anxiety and depression because he won't seek help - he doesn't think he 'deserves it'.

[–]Towns-a-Million 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mental health awareness should be the number one focus of international men's day imho. There are too many men who end up homeless and/or addicted to drugs because of the lack of help.

[–]ST07153902935 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These gaps are starting to gain attention in academia:

https://economics.mit.edu/files/8754

[–][deleted] 74 points75 points76 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"The young people with mental health problems were more likely to say their mood was affected by the number of "likes" they got and they were also more likely to compare themselves to others on social media."

[–]seraph85 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like being a kid in highschool is tough these days.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why I deleted most of my social media accounts after high school.

[–]transientcat28 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/mental-health-of-children-and-young-people-in-england/2017/2017

Its a summary table of a more in depth survey... It's also worth noting that the data collection from that age range is suspect based on the study authors themselves...

[–]baileysontherocks 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are an internet sleuth. Thank you for your contributions.

[–][deleted] 73 points74 points75 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Could it be that boys have more mental health issues because psychology has pathologized natural male tendencies?

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. This. Its why so many boys are labeled as having ADHD and conduct issues too.

[–]bluesydragon 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Huh..im curious. like what? Mind elaborating?

[–]ivanovic777 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would rather say that society as a whole has pathologized natural male tendencies, not only psychology.

[–]WorldController -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No, because there are no biologically determined behavioral tendencies that are specific to men. As anthropological research has shown, in egalitarian societies that lack gender roles, behaviors considered "masculine" or "feminine" are not restricted to men and women, respectively. Masculinity and femininity are a function of social roles, not biology. Moreover, generally speaking, human psychology is not biologically determined. There are no genes (or even endogenous psychoactive compounds such as hormones) that produce specific psychological outcomes regardless of environment.

I agree though that psychiatry (not psychology) has pathologized behaviors typical of boys in our society. But I think the damage from this pales in comparison to that resulting from other factors, such as those that account for why men attend and graduate college less than women, are more likely to end up incarcerated/homeless, and the like. It is these issues that we should treat with the utmost seriousness.

[–]Meyright 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Is your post feminist post modern satire?

there are no biologically determined behavioral tendencies that are specific to men

There is MASSIVE scientific evidence for the fact that men and women show biological tendencies which express through behavior. Including the largest study ever done on sex differences from the Cambridge University:

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9wo82u/scientists_at_cambridge_have_completed_the_worlds/

Masculinity and femininity are a function of social roles, not biology.

This is simply wrong. Where did you get your education from on this topic? A gender studies course? There are innate differences between men and women! Humans are a dimorphic species! And this manifests itself in all sorts of things in the grander scheme of human behavior. For example which job we choose.

You are wrong with that.

[–]WorldController 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

There is MASSIVE scientific evidence for the fact that men and women show biological tendencies which express through behavior. Including the largest study ever done on sex differences from the Cambridge University:

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9wo82u/scientists_at_cambridge_have_completed_the_worlds/

Please quote the relevant sections of this article you believe support your claim.

Keep in mind that this is a correlational study, meaning it lacks the power to establish causation. In order to determine whether some variable causes another, experiments are necessary.

Where did you get your education from on this topic?

I am a psychology major.

There are innate differences between men and women! Humans are a dimorphic species! And this manifests itself in all sorts of things in the grander scheme of human behavior. For example which job we choose.

Sure, humans exhibit certain secondary sex characteristics. However, this does not mean the human brain, which controls behavior, exhibits such characteristics. Neither of the sex chromosomes contain codes associated with the formation of the cortex, which is where psychology (and by extension, behavior) is processed in humans.

It is not the position of mainstream psychologists that human psychology is biologically determined. All genes do is make particular behaviors more or less likely to manifest in response to environment; they do not produce specific behaviors regardless of environment. Moreover, as I explained, anthropological research has shown that the expression of traditionally masculine/feminine behaviors is culturally variable. This means it is not biologically determined.

I'd be interested in seeing the evidence you feel supports your claim that career choice is biologically determined, BTW.

[–]Meyright 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

First thanks for staying constructive in your argument. English is not my first language, so be aware of some inaccuracies.

You should be aware to the fact and open your mind to the possibility that your field of study has been corrupted by an extreme political ideology: And there is recent evidence for that: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/. Social constructivism and deconstructing gender is part of the goal of this ideology.

My argument is the following. Men and women on average show different behavior. This difference can be in part explained by biological differences.

Evidence that gender has basis in biology, though, in no way implies a strict gender binary, nor negates the existence of transgender. It merely explains statistical tendencies. Many biology-based gender differences originate from the hormonal environment within the womb, which is very different on average for boys compared to girls. But there’s a huge variation in these environments. Within boys there will be a range and within girls there will be a range. To say it’s biological doesn’t mean it’s perfectly binary.

I am aware that certain environmental circumstances can activate or deactivate certain genes. But I don't think that has much of an effect on our sex differences. Maybe because it doesn't has any evolutionary advantage?

I'd be interested in seeing the evidence you feel supports your claim that career choice is biologically determined

Of course it is not determined on an individual level. Individuals can act out against their inclination. But that doesn't negate those tendencies on a statistical level.

Having said that, here you go:

The present study aimed to ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object) and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin.

https://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/godis/sex.pdf

Despite methodological variation in the choice and number of toys offered, context of testing, and age of child, the consistency in finding sex differences in children's preferences for toys typed to their own gender indicates the strength of this phenomenon and the likelihood that has a biological origin.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/icd.2064

In the current study, we showed that women's interests in more people-oriented, and less things-oriented work environments was a key factor that influenced their career choice in STEM fields. Importantly, not only the choices between STEM and non-STEM careers but also the choices within STEM careers reflect individuals' interest patterns.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189/full

As shown above, male infants are more interested in things which later in live translates to more men in STEM jobs. Of course society can reinforce certain gender aspects. But isn't society an expression of our genes on a macro level to begin with?

What this doesn't mean is, that wearing a skirt or pink clothing has to have a basis in biology. Of course there are certain aspects of gender expression which probably have no direct causality in biology and vary across culture (can you provide those studies please?). But maybe for example the segregation of boys and girls at a young age through clothing actually serves a purpose and has had evolutionary advantage which got imprinted into our genes? Who knows.

I really encourage you to watch this documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs&t=2s

It explores exactly this topic at hand

[–]WorldController -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You should be aware to the fact and open your mind to the possibility that your field of study has been corrupted by an extreme political ideology

First, all social science theories have underlying political assumptions. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. As cultural psychologist Carl Ratner notes in Macro Cultural Psychology: A Political Philosophy of Mind:

Contrary to popular assumption, the political assumptions of social science doctrines, particularly psychological doctrines, can be objective; they are not necessarily antithetical to objective social science. Political assumptions can distort or reveal the origins, characteristics, and function of psychological phenomena.

Social science doctrines that are based upon political ideals of individual freedom are incapable of appreciating the cultural nature of psychological phenomena. In contrast, doctrines based upon political ideals of humanizing the structure of cultural factors—and criticizing adverse cultural factors—are attuned to the important cultural origins, features, and functions of psychological phenomena.

In fact, a certain politics is necessary to become objective in social science. Consequently, identifying political issues is crucial for attaining objectivity. (38)

Political assumptions are commonplace in social science, particularly in theories about human psychology. Whether they hinder objective analysis depends on how accurately these assumptions comport with the reality of psychology. Regarding biological determinism, Ratner observes that it is ". . . politically conservative in that it exempts culture from critique, while sociocultural prevention [of psychological dysfunction] is progressive because it critiques the status quo" (40). If we believe that life outcomes are resultant of biology rather than structural factors, this implies that social change is futile, since it wouldn't improve those outcomes. Biological determinism thereby bolsters the status quo, hence why it's a conservative ideology. (For an interesting analysis of the history of biological determinist thought in the field of psychology, along with its association with conservative politics, I highly recommend this article: Genes, Evolution, and Human Nature: Is Biology Destiny?)

Second, you're wrong that the field of psychology in particular is corrupted by this "extreme political ideology" you're referring to. In fact, this is precisely why critical psychologists take issue with mainstream psychology—due to its undue emphasis on the individual, it fails to apprehend human psychology's socially constructed nature. It is the hopes of critical psychologists that this ideology does someday "corrupt" (or rather, correct) this error on mainstream psychology's part. To date, however, they've yet to have any major luck.


Many biology-based gender differences originate from the hormonal environment within the womb, which is very different on average for boys compared to girls.

First, the behavioral effects of psychoactive compounds (including hormones, drugs, alcohol, etc.) are context-specific. For instance, consuming alcohol in the company of family and friends may engender feelings of warmth and happiness. However, when consumed in uncertain situations around strangers, it can induce aggression. As you've probably heard, the effects of psychoactives depend on set and setting. They do not produce specific effects regardless of context. (Incidentally, this holds true for biology in general.)

Second, in order for gestational hormones to produce sex-specific behavioral effects, they would have to alter the brain (specifically, the cerebral cortex) in particular ways. This is because, in humans, psychology is governed by the cortex. There is no evidence of such hormonally-induced cortical alteration.


I am aware that certain environmental circumstances can activate or deactivate certain genes. But I don't think that has much of an effect on our sex differences. Maybe because it doesn't has any evolutionary advantage?

There is no one-to-one correspondence between genes and specific complex behavioral traits. As I said, all genes do is make particular behaviors more or less likely to manifest in response to environment; they do not produce specific behaviors regardless of environment. Biology merely serves as a general potentiating substratum for human psychology. It does not have a deterministic role in this regard.

Further, as Ratner explains, evolutionary psychology is an untenable theoretical orientation:

It takes thousands of generations for genetic changes to accumulate via a sufficient number of organisms’ out-reproducing other organisms to produce a new morphology. Yet humans have produced only 100 generations since the founding of the Roman Empire; this is not enough time for new morphology to genetically evolve. And human behavioral change does not involve morphological changes in genes, neurotransmitters, or cortical structures, which obviates genetic evolution’s pertinence to human behavior at all. Naturalistic theories of human psychology such as evolutionary psychology are false. [my emphasis] (87)

The vast diversity of human culture, psychology, and behavior throughout history cannot be explained by biological evolution. Instead, cultural evolution accounts for this diversity. The implication of this is that the specific form and content of human psychology is fundamentally cultural rather than biologically determined.

Keep in mind that, strictly speaking, biological determinism is scientifically baseless. For instance, it hinges upon what's called the modularity of mind thesis, which holds that the brain contains genetically predetermined cortical modules tasked with processing specific psychological phenomena. No such modules have been found. Instead, researchers have discovered that the brain is highly plastic. As Wayne Weiten notes in Psychology: Themes and Variations (10th Edition): ". . . research suggests that the brain is not "hard wired" the way a computer is. It appears that the neural wiring of the brain is flexible and constantly evolving" (85). Genes do not construct the brain in ways that produce specific behaviors. Again, they only provide for a biological substratum that potentiates rather than determines psychology. Moreover, because of what's called the missing heritability problem, which is the failure of researchers to pin specific genes to particular behaviors (and not for lack of trying), biological determinism lacks the direct physical evidence necessary to confirm it. As these issues show, it has proven to not be a scientifically viable hypothesis.


The present study aimed to ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object) and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin.

The problem with these studies is that they infer "preference" based on what psychologists call habituation, defined by Carol K. Seligman and Elizabeth A. Rider in Life-Span: Human Development (8th Edition) as a "simple form of learning that involves learning not to respond to a repeated stimulus; learning to be bored by the familiar" (p. 594). Genuine psychological preference has cognitive underpinnings, so it makes no sense to ascribe this capacity to infants, who as this study notes have not been enculturated and thus lack the tools necessary to form cognitions. Explains Ratner in Vygotsky's Sociohistorical Psychology and its Contemporary Applications:

"[Bornstein and Sigman] also create a misimpression about the nature of infantile attention when they use terms such as "preference for novelty." In fact, there is no indication whatsoever that infants prefer novel stimuli; they simply look at them. The impression that six-month-old infants are processing information and exercising volitional choice (preference) akin to intelligent children masks crucial differences between infantile and later processes.

. . . There is no evidence that infantile attention involves mental representations. Even the lowest organisms sense differences between stimuli without mentally representing them, and there is no reason to assume that sensorimotor infants engage in mental representation either. Lacking symbols and concepts it is difficult to imagine how they could form mental representations. Therefore, no tangible connection can be made between childhood mental representation and infantile attention. (162)

Because infants lack the capacity to acquire culture, they are unable to meaningfully integrate incoming stimuli and develop specific preferences for them. Habituation does not imply preference. It only implies familiarity.

BTW, there are a few flaws in this study, but I don't have the space to go over them in detail in this post. Basically, though the results were statistically significant, since the majority of participants in neither sample "preferred" their corresponding sex-typed stimulus, this indicates that confounding factors rather than biology account for said results.

[–]ReasonableVictory1129 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Wait, you mean shaming boys, teaching them they're broken, purposely empowering women, and then later empowering women's sexuality at their expense, effectively making sex the most ayn randian objectivist dog-eat-dog nightmare possible for one sex while a sexy fun free for all for the other sex has negative implications? You mean punishing one gender while constantly talking about how awful it is, while simultaneously rewarding that behavior (and the boys notice this) on the sly, thus being massively unfair and dishonest, has negatives?

Have we ever considered that men and boys are just broken and their feelings maybe worth 1/4 of a girl's?

Yeah, by puberty most men have figured out no one fucking cares about theirs mental health.

Seriously. Even family cares more about random women than their own boys. As long as random unaffiliated women are happy, the boys can deal before fellating a shotgun after a life without love. Boys are meant to be punished and hurt, women are meant to be pleased and helped.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sad world we live in today isn’t it.

[–]mktoaster 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Something could be said about the recent Chicago hospital shooting. Dude shot his ex-fiance because he couldn't handle it I guess. All news pointed towards the tragedy of the female and barbarity of guns and crazy boyfriends. I wish more attention was brought to mental health and society's influence on it.

[–]DigitalisEdible 33 points34 points35 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Western society does not care about men. In fact it actively hates men, and I’m convinced the main driver behind men’s mental health issues is our hugely feminised society that shits on men while telling them they live the existence of a god. I’ve suffered depression, discrimination, bullying in the workplace, unemployment due to injury in the workplace, you name it. What support have I received? Nada, nothing, nobody cares, nobody gives a fuck. I have to suffer in silence yet every news outlet on the planet constantly tells me that my shitty existence is a life of privilege. NOT ONLY do I have to read about how privileged I am, I’m also told I cannot reach out. If I reach out I’m an enemy, I’m an “MRA”, I’m a trump voter, I’m a nazi, I’m alt-right, I hate women, ALL OF IT. CONSTANTLY.

So yeah, I suffer in silence until the day I put a gun in my mouth.

[–]WorldPeace645 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey be safe man, I will listen to you if you have any problems.

[–]raikonai 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I hope everyone is joking about the gun thing, just in case tho please dont kill yourself

[–]blette 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It does not matter if boys have mental health problems.

Boys cannot have babies, so they don't matter.

Children don't need mentally stable fathers, they only need a mother.

​

(sarcasm warning)

[–]TheAndredal 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So why do we never hear of this? All we hear is about women having issues and problems. Yet nobody talks about boys. This is so bad

[–]J03SChm03OG 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also by the time the young women are the larger number of people with mental health issues they have been indoctrinated for years with the victim mentality and have been force fead the entitlement by the feminist media barrage since childhood. And the young men have been told how little they matter for the same amount of time from the same media.

[–]BroaxXx 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What worries me is exactly what these issues these 5-10 boys are having. Because I fear that normal energetic boy behavior is being labeled as a mental disorder....

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately I'm not even surprised reading articles like this anymore :(

[–]Littleknight 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We gotta help our young boys.

[–]Mikelod123 points 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Ive been abused by my mother for 18 years, I just got out of it and I have ptsd

[–]curious-inquirer 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Find some good help. I was sexually abused by my.mother for 14 years & didn't get help for over 30 years. Please do it sooner than I did. Hugs.

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I saw you got no real response on SurvivorsOfAbuse.

You could try /Abuse and /PTSD.

Give /r/CPTSD a look, it is for Complex PTSD which is what continuous abuse during your formative years causes.
They have a link for Pete Walker's site. He has a bunch of excellent and substantial free articles on CPTSD, and a plug for his book which is highly regarded.
http://pete-walker.com/index.htm

Have a look at /r/RaisedByNarcissists. Even if your mother isn't a narcissist she likely showed some narc patterns so you may find it useful. There are a lot of good links in the sidebar including a diagnosis list, since they practically never present for formal diagnosis.

You could also look up the symptoms of BPD, you might see some familar patterns.
It can be helpful to know if these things are just you or are a typical symptom.

It might be informative to find out about all your mother's blood relatives too. For narcissists it can often be traced back three generations.

[–]sneakpeekbot 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's a sneak peek of /r/CPTSD using the top posts of the year!

#1: r/wholesomememes looking out for us | 18 comments
#2: <3 | 27 comments
#3: 👀 | 68 comments


I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact me | Info | Opt-out

[–]ThreeLF 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

In defense of the quality of the article:

It is very likely that the huge gap from ages 5-10 is accounted for by developmental disorders such as adhd, autism, and down's syndrome, etc. Virtually all of these developmental disorders which are present in childhood affect boys more than girls.

While this certainly is a problem that deserves more attention, it would have dragged the article so far off track to include information about that statistic. It would have changed the headline.

Maybe that article should have been written instead, but I don't know if we have a right to say what individual journalists should be writing about.

[–]DiamondxCrafting 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

AFAIK, none of these just disappear when you get older so why would it change after?

[–]theAnalepticAlzabo 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

They learn to suppress it. Women do not tolerate men who freely express their 'flaws'.

EDIT: I don't mean massive disorders like Downs or autism, obviously.

[–]NaturalisticPhallacy 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women do not tolerate men who freely express their 'flaws'.

Oh they tolerate them. From a safe distance. And then actively ignore that they exist forever.

[–]DiamondxCrafting 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You don't just suppress Autism/Down Syndrome, not how it works.

[–]Emperorerror -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You can't suppress downs syndrome lmao

[–]love-me-tendies 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What about Jimmy Kimmel?

[–]ThreeLF 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Because many other mental disorders such as gad, bpd, depression, and schizophrenia generally will not develop until individuals get older.

[–]DiamondxCrafting 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Mhmm. Have you looked at other studies about mental illness and sex?

[–]ThreeLF 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's really complex. For instance depression affects adolescent women worse than adolescent men, but affects middle-aged men far worse than middle-aged women. I couldn't make an archetypal statement other than it's complex.

[–]antilopes 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

BPD doesn't get diagnosed until older, I think it can't formally be diagnosed until 16 or 18. But its roots go much younger, I believe many cases involve problems in the attachment window of 0.5 - 2.5 years.

Generally there is a huge underdiagnosis of some mental disorders in children, and there will be a gendered influence on which disorders get more under-detected for each sex. E.g. inattentive ADHD and autism are both under-detected in girls for gendered reasons, while hyperactive-type ADHD is over-diagnosed in bo

Boys get diagnosed more because boys are more likely to externalise their problems. Girls tend to internalise and suffer in silence.

[–]ThreeLF 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I suppose that's a fair point.

It also supports the data we see.

[–]DavidByron2 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's probably more than double because women get better health services than men.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gynocentrism refers to a dominant or exclusive focus on women in theory or practice; or to the advocacy of this. Anything can be considered gynocentric when it is concerned exclusively with a female (or feminist) point of view.

[–]AANickFan 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wait can’t that just be because boys have more autism?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I will say that this is likely because young boys are held to the standards of a female in elementary school and diagnosed as hyperactive or compulsive because they're just being a little boy, not because they actually have more health problems at that age.

[–]SerialSection 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The age bins are pretty weirdly distributed too. 5-10 is 6 years, 11- 16 is 6 years, then all of a sudden 17-19 is 3 years? Seems like someone was testing a way to manipulate the data to show a difference.

And where are the error bars? Is the difference significant?

[–]oggyb 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This was on radio 2 news as little. More than the headline. I figured there was much more to it than meets the eye. My first thought was how much easier it is for older girls and young women to talk about their mental health and get diagnosed.

[–]Luchadorgreen 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ofc. BBC explains it all.

[–]lordtyp0 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not seeing the graph reference..

[–]littlefilms 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't feminists not want women to be seen as weak and vulnerable, needing of extra care etc, but have no problem endorsing articles like this? Where's the rage?

[–]nemansky 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In USA, if one speaks too much he has a "mental health issue". If you smoke a cigarette you have a mental disorder etc etc etc etc etc etc. These mental health stuff ain't serious. Mental issues are like Reptilians: everyone talk about them but no one can prove their existence.

[–]corinarh 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

((((BBC))))

Nobody cares about men, especially neo-liberal media.

[–]Dragofireheart 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe this is their plan to make Single Payer work: just kill off all those sick evil men!

[–]cjay_2018 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Aren't all women crazy? find me one normal girl I will wait

[–]antilopes 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

God gives us all talents. Yours is to attract crazy women. Be kind to them.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter