The Lonely Burden of Today’s Teenage Girls | Hacker News Reader

The Lonely Burden of Today’s Teenage Girls

wsj.com

28 pointslaurex34 comments

> ‘Girls sleep with their phones and react to every notification.’

Maybe it’s just me, but I worry about the chance syncopations of external stimulus and internal emotions mediated by social media. I worry about judgment of cause and effect over social media when constantly connected. And when you’re emotionally effected your threshold to be effected by those judgments is reduced.

I can’t give an example, except that the examples are everywhere. I grew up in the 80s, and 90s. So I take much of the gamification of Mobile Apps with a grain of salt. I grew up with anonymous online personas, and I think that lead to a healthy skepticism of people’s intentions on the Internet. I jealously guard my Personal Information—-It’s an auto filter in my brain now.

You know what a ‘hustle’ is when you meet someone on the street—distraction misdirection and manipulation of your desires.

So I have my own idea of how the ‘Internet world works’, and I can’t imagine how to describe it to a youth who doesn’t share my belief all of the Internet is manipulating your judgement. You have to selectively decide what your willing to be hustled by, because it’s fun, and when to say enough.

Screen time can be had on the cheap, because your parents are paying for Wifi and the phones anyway, and you're on the family Netflix and some other streaming service, or using a friend's. Malls are dying, expensive, and flocks of teens are no longer welcome. Wandering around the Target, the Walmart, or the quirky knicknack store works, if you can get a ride. You spend money on eating out with your friends on occasion.

On the screens, you watch shows, memes, videos, streams, but also interact with your real-life circle and online friends. Your real-life circle overlaps with people at your school, so you can never truly disconnect: time away from school doesn't pause the happenings of the same social environment, and time away from your phone will just make you seem more withdrawn the next day. You can't ever quite get away from them. Then, the people you know from online are a mixed bag: the fans, the creeps, the randoms, a few popular people who replied when you reached out, the more professional influencers who who didn't, and a small number of people you know through a stroke of luck who share a common interest and you've become friends. These online friends are probably really far away, you may never get a chance to meet them, and their lives are probably just as chaotic as yours.

Online, you also read various slants on world events, culture, and justice. People in your circles share tidbits and their takes. You realize people treat each other like garbage, that some people can get shot at little fault of their own and police are rarely held accountable, half the country wants to curtail some people's rights, and the planet's warming and melting. None of these are insurmountable, but it's easy to be swept up in the outcry about these, conclude (immediately, or through later disenchantment) that there's little one can do to personally to bring about meaningful change, and be left with a pessimistic outlook on the world.

When I was about 14 (2002) my parents sat me down and explained that they'd be limiting my computer time to 4 hours on a school night and 8 hours on a weekend day. I cried. I contested, "What am I supposed to do with all of the extra time?". I tried to appeal to logic, "I can watch TV after my time is up, but not be on the computer?".

They wanted me to do anything else because they saw it as a distinct addiction. It was; and I'm still addicted.

Soon I had friends that could drive. I would bum a ride to their houses and use their PCs once I'd blown through my time allotment.

Now I'm a software engineer; and in recent conversation my Dad said to me, "If I knew you were going to make a living like that I probably would have been a bit easier on you about the computer."

Addiction aside, are you using the tool or is it using you? Maybe these girls could be the next digital marketing gurus if they reframed their interactions.

> Mothers and fathers need to protect their daughters (and sons) from the culture’s noxious elements and connect them to life’s goodness and beauty. In an increasingly complicated world, much of the answer is simple: Unplug and do the things families have done since the beginning of time—tell stories, laugh, work together and talk through life’s big questions.

What kind of generic piece of advice is that?

The world of iPhone/Android devices has been around for well over a decade now. Why is this suddenly a crisis? If anything, I would expect the negative effects of smartphone addiction to be trending downward as parents become better educated about safe internet access and the vendors have begun offering tools to limit device usage.

The anecdote about girls sleeping next to always-on phones with constant notifications is bonkers to me. So switch off notifications at night! This isn't rocket science. But a two-line article about how humans (teen girls and literally everyone else) feel better when their phones aren't constantly buzzing isn't sensational enough I guess.

There's a big difference between getting your first phone at 18 when 90% of your friends aren't on social media, and getting your first phone at 8 when 90% of your friends are on social media. You really can't figure out what the difference is today compared to 10 years ago?

Younger people's understanding of how world works and what a person is like comes entirely from the internet.

The moment you try to break out of your internet and go meet new people, it frustrates the hell out of you that life isn't as cool and people aren't as witty as they are on internet.

And you start thinking maybe you aren't with right people, so you try to meet the cool people from internet in real-life and it's again same. The same people you enjoy on internet, you can't tolerate them for even an hour in person.

What internet portrays is only a part about a person (which they've edited then edited and then edited again).

What we assume life is like a Hollywood movie and yes retakes frustrate the hell out of us but life is actually the retakes.

> Younger people's understanding of how world works and what a person is like comes entirely from the internet.

They (we?) do/did go to school you know... Replace internet with tv and your argument goes through just as well, which is to say, not at all.

TV was passive. You just sat there and watched what was broadcast after you selected a channel to watch.

The internet is interactive. This easily allows the internet to become a much larger part of someone's life than TV could.

This is a big enough difference between TV and internet that I don't think you can really use TV as a refutation of his argument about internet.

We are more unhappy when we compare yourself to people we see as being close to us. Most people wouldn't be jealous that brad pitt is living the dream but they would be very jealous if billy or jenna from down the street is always partying and living the good life.

This seems to be the perfect example of extrapolating generalities from personal experience alone. I don't know if there is a cognitive bias that describes this, but if not, there really should be. The world is much more complex than your personal experiences. It is really tempting to believe the larger world matches what you experience, and I think that's the default state, but it's completely wrong.

How do you even know there _is_ a larger world outside your experiences?

I can't tell if you're trying to make a joke or make a serious point. If you want to believe you're a brain in a vat, that's your choice.

If in practice you accept that other people exist, then you should also recognize that their experiences are probably going to be different from your own.

But notice you are the ultimate authority to yourself on what is real. And I would posit to you that if you do enough self-inquiry you will find that reality is not physical, and that this is an absolute truth that is true regardless of the circumstance or perspective. The question becomes, have you become directly conscious of this? I don't believe brains in vats, all beliefs are false.

I've had quite the opposite experience. I've made maybe 20 real life friends that I met first on the internet (primarily Twitter) and almost all of them have proven to be at least as funny intelligent and likeable as online. Almost all of them I now just try to interact with IRL vs online.

I've never encountered this issue of expecting this cool person based on a manufactured illusion and then finding them to be mundane. And I know without the internet I might have more of a sense of community in general but I don't think I would have found people as unique and weirdly on my wavelength.

If you grow up comparing yourself to what you see on the social media, you are going to have profound unhappiness and anxiety. This almost always leads to withdrawal from the world for both men and women.

I've also seen that people are losing ability to tolerate each other in relationship.

Every relationship advice offered on internet sounds like, "he is abuser, breakup now" and people are assumed as perfect who make one mistake and they have to be walked out of your life.

There is also rise of movements like Femminism and MGTOW.

A lot of females are now career focused and have no time to maintain relationship. A few are able to manage both at once. But many come out for dating when they are in 30s and they are confused like "I am educated and indepdent girl, why guys aren't interested in me". Men don't seem to value a women with career as much as females would like, they find it favourable yes but it's extremely weak.

Sometimes back I read in study that younger couples have more attractive kids and the kids who are product of love marriage are more attractive than those of arranged marriage.

Now, I can see why it could be that because when we are younger we are more superficial, we are more optimistic, more shallow and as we've less disappointments under our belt (due to less experience) we aim for most good looking and those who are able to succeed (maybe because they are themself good looking?), obviously end up with good looking partner and it can also be possible that reproductive process is better (less errors?) when we are younger.

Women also have very high standards when it comes to dating, they want too 10-15% men in looks and they compete for them. In such system, obviously the men who are in demand will see that they are rare and will exploit the opportunity and many women will be disappointed.

Repeated failures can also lead a person to depression and anxiety.

Plus, lot of people look at Instagram and find perfect looking people and start thinking of themselves as inferior. Attractive people are rare 1 in 1000 looks stunning without makeup or other camera effects. This rate could be higher in developed economies due to proper nutrition received throughout life and better healthcare facilities. It also depends on individual's and their family's awareness. But it's not a hard rule, people marry quite late in developed countries which can lead to unattractive kids.

Just looking at the number of people subscribing to those groups on Reddit, seems alarming.

A lot of people just do what internet tells them to do.

Kids often say, "leave it, you'll not understand" instead of making you understand what their problem truly is.

These are all valid points, but it cannot be the explanation because the anxiety in teenage girls happens before there are any meaningful romantic relationships.

Love this comment, 100% agree

I've experienced this dating women in their 20's.

The problem in a nutshell is, the roles are changing right now, and nobody knows what they're supposed to be doing. There's a very, very large disconnect between what people are being told vs. what is actually happening.

The young women I've been involved with want you to be manly and aggressive while simultaneously cowering and politically correct. No matter what you do, you're always wrong. They pick some fight, then move onto the next person.

I've been dumped for being too strong (physically). I've been dumped for having the wrong political opinions. For not agreeing with obviously false statements. Never a discussion. I've been dumped for "being smart." I've been dumped for wanting to be monogamous. It's always easier for them to move on then to self evaluate.

Then around 25, the dating scene changes. From 18-25 women control the dating because they control the vagina supply. However, the moment a woman decides she wants to get married, men control the wedding ring supply.

Suddenly, for the first time, these women find themselves with very little leverage and very bad attitudes, and some of them never adjust.

A lot of them don't know how to read body language or facial expressions, or how subtext works — leading to lots of awkward moments. A woman invited me to her place once (for sex). When I got there, we sat on the couch, and she hugged a giant pillow very tightly and never got close to me. We just ended up talking for a bit, and she texted later and asked, "Why didn't we have sex? Are you not attracted to me?" I explained that her body language was not that of a person who wanted to have sex and I was being respectful.

With all of these women I've seen, there's just a disconnect from the reality of the situation. I have a friend whose married, has four children, two very tough jobs, and is in a poly marriage. She complains to no end about how men "only want sex." Well, yes of course my dear-- you're MARRIED.

Now, I'm not saying dating men is any easier for women. I just haven't been on that side of the table. I would love to hear from someone.

Ctrl/Cmd-f "boy"

0 matches

What about the boys?

> Girls in 2019 tend to be risk-averse, focused on their studies and fond of their families. They are also experiencing high levels of depression and loneliness. A 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 36% of girls report being extremely anxious every day. They are particularly worried about school shootings, melting polar ice and their ability to afford college.

These don't seem like issues exclusive to teenage girls.

There are articles about boys as well. Please don't turn a thread like this into yet another gender war. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

I think it's a perfectly valid observation if an article that purports to talk about the problems faced by girls ends up talking about problems shared by both sexes (especially if by doing so there's a hidden implication that boys don't have those problems). Parent's example wasn't cherry picked, the whole article is like that - you can substitute 'teen' for 'girl' in almost every sentence. I know that young girls have problems unique to their sex - why not talk more about them? My intellectual curiosity is not very gratified by this article.

I still find it informative to know they're worried about many more things like everyone else. Filtering this out and leaving just "boys" and such would paint a vacuous picture.

The possibility of gender topics turning into a gender war should not preclude any and all discussion of the topic.

It seems like a valid and substantive comment that adds to the discussion to me.

"Kids these days" articles should be against the site's guidelines.

"Over the past 18 months, we have conducted interviews and focus groups with around 100 American girls aged 12 to 19 and their mothers, most of them Midwestern and middle class."

I, too, would like to read about how young boys deal with modern life. But I would not expect to find such information in research with the stated goal of investigating how girls do the same.

Saying "group A experiences these problems" does not imply exclusivity or that group B experiences the opposite. It is merely a statement about group A.

umm... well.. not exclusive, sure, but the title of the article is quite explicit:

"The Lonely Burden of Today’s Teenage Girls"

Girls. It says girls. Ctrl/Cmd-f "boy": 0 matches

It's an article about girls.

The article doesn’t _exclude_ boys. ‘what about x?’ is just a language game.

There was mention of sons.

I’m not sure if you read the article but it’s exclusively talking about girls so why would you expect it to talk about boys?

Because the issue mentioned begs the question, since there isn't any reason why the boys wouldn't be feeling similarly.

Why would you read an article about girls and be concerned that it isn't about boys?

Would you express similar concerns about an article like "Anxiety Looks Different in Men[0]?" Did you Ctrl-Cmd-f "girl" when you opened that article? Judging from your comments there, you took no issue with that article not discussing women.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20679231

That's an article specifically about differences. It's even in the title. Women are being used as a contrast. They are not omitted from the majority of the discussion. That omission comes with the implication that a set of problems is exclusive to one group, instead of those issues being shared between both (with different degrees of severity).

>Anxiety problems can look different in men. When people think of anxiety, they may picture the excessive worry and avoidance of frightening situations that often plague those who suffer. These afflict men, too. But there’s a growing recognition among psychologists that men are more likely to complain of headaches, difficulty sleeping and muscle aches and pains. They are more likely to use alcohol and drugs to cope with anxiety, so what looks like a drinking problem may actually be an underlying anxiety disorder. And anxiety in men often manifests as anger and irritability.

This paragraph is also about women, even if they are not explicitly labeled.

>They (men) are more likely to use alcohol and drugs to cope with anxiety

Also means

>(Women) are less likely to use alcohol and drugs to cope with anxiety

You can use this for the rest of the article in order to determine how the author views anxiety in both genders. It's not an exclusionary discussion or analysis. You should be able to understand this from the title alone.

You picked a pretty bad example. Maybe you can find something better if you dig a bit deeper. I'm not entirely sure you wouldn't find something further back in my comment history :)

Ok, I think I understand. You'll object to any woman-focused article that doesn't explicitly limit its topic to issues which only affect women, unless it also gives equal time to men for any issue conceivably shared by both genders?

Still seems a bit pedantic and defensive, but ok.

>Maybe you can find something better if you dig a bit deeper. I'm not entirely sure you wouldn't find something further back in my comment history :)

Not worth the effort, I didn't need to look deeper to find your particular bias on this subject, but thanks for conceding my point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com