Comment by graycat | Hacker News Reader

Comment by graycat | Hacker News Reader

That's all just because the father never read 'Girls 101 for Dummies -- Boys', and that's partly because I have not written it yet. Material such as in the OP would be some of the best in the book, along with much, much more about girls that boys just have no clue about. They should have much more than a clue, as boys, when meeting, dating girls, when picking a wife, and certainly when they have one or more daughters.

The old norm that boys/men get to ignore such things about girls easily leads to a lot of hurt and harm.

The lessons are not very complicated, but they are next to impossible for a boy to discover when following through the usual paths in life. E.g., I've been a student in five colleges and taught in two more, and I doubt that any of those schools had a course that covered what is in the OP or what would be in my book. Why? The norms are, just don't explain that stuff, especially to boys/men. So, get hurt and harm. Bummer. Instead, get the info out there.

E.g., an approximation to the lesson in the OP is the Erich Fromm remark in his 'The Art of Loving'. I paraphrase:

For humans, the fundamental problem in life is doing something effective about feeling alone.

This statement is especially true for girls/women. A man who does not appreciate this statement has some modules between his ears powered down.

Fromm went on to say that only four solutions have been found, and one of those was "membership in a group". Presto: That's the solution the girls in the OP were working for.

Then the father needs to know about two of Fromm's other solutions: One of them is "love of spouse". So, such a girl can be very tempted to get a boyfriend, maybe sooner and more 'intimate' than her father might wish. Another is 'orgiastic' behavior, that is, get drunk on alcohol, high on drugs, have an orgy, and, thus, suppress the pains for a few hours at, of course, some costs in addiction, infection, social rejection, etc. Fathers need to know this, too. From some news stories, apparently some college girls with 'the hookup culture' and 'bar scene' have discovered this solution.

This stuff, and more should be taught. If I write the book, then one thing to do with it, maybe good, would be to have some good Hollywood people dramatize parts of the book, that is, illustrate with facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, scowls, tears, etc.

> That's all just because the father never read 'Girls 101 for Dummies -- Boys', and that's partly because I have not written it yet.

I think I'll do without your hateful book, thanks.

Sorry, nothing "hateful" intended. Saying "for Dummies" in a book title is now famous. It's supposed to be to have sympathy for someone struggling to understand and, thus, feeling like a "dummy"

For the subject of girls, quite broadly, boys just don't understand, e.g., on points such as in the OP. Then, commonly boyfriends, husbands, and fathers don't understand either.

Here is a little of why? There was some recent research that showed that in the crib, girls pay attention to people, faces, eye contact, and tone of voice, and boys pay attention to things, as a joke, maybe to hack the latch on the crib or get to the toy firetruck on the floor.

For more, can read how the differences continue in D. Tannen, 'You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation'. Tannen became a famous professor at Georgetown University. Tannen's book is not at all "hateful", and neither is what I would write.

And paying attention to Erich Fromm is not at all "hateful".

Instead, as I wrote in my post just above, girls are being harmed and hurt now, also in their relationships with boys, and I would hope to help the situation.

> Sorry, nothing "hateful" intended. Saying "for Dummies" in a book title is now famous. It's supposed to be to have sympathy for someone struggling to understand and, thus, feeling like a "dummy"

But emphasizing the audience - boys - is less common (but the audience would I guess be implied, anyway. But I don't imagine literal boys would pick up a for-dummies book on the opposite sex).

It's also become in vogue to regard boys as psychologically and emotionally stunted, compared to girls. The title just seemed to hint toward that trend.

> Sorry, nothing "hateful" intended. Saying "for Dummies" in a book title is now famous. It's supposed to be to have sympathy for someone struggling to understand and, thus, feeling like a "dummy"

And yet, women and men seem equally mystified by each other. Women and their higher social/emotional intelligence doesn't seem to fair better than their knuckle-dragging partners. There are plenty of men who cling to unhealthy relationship, plenty of women who do the same, and many of them seem equally irrational in their insistence of clinging to it.

No, I'm not someone who is of the opinion that men and women are on average equal, and that any perceived difference is all about "selection bias" or whatever. But some universally "accepted" differences, I find questionable. Like women being emotional and men being rational - though women may be more emotional, men are just as much slaves to their emotions as women. And women's higher social/emotional intelligence doesn't seem to help them in their relations towards men. I guess it's like the misunderstood geniuses - too smart for their contemporaries (partners)?

> But I don't imagine literal boys would pick up a for-dummies book on the opposite sex).

I would have jumped at such a book when I was 15 and trying to understand my girlfriend of 13.

First lessons: She has a LOT of deep concerns about her life and family; e.g., is she pretty enough; some of these concerns are strong enough to be anxieties. From these concerns, she has low self-esteem. She is just painfully lonely and desperate for friendship, approval, emotional security, not feeling alone, and maybe romance. She has raging emotions, likely including about sex and romantic relationships, and, thus, is terrified about her 'reputation', getting hurt emotionally, and maybe about getting pregnant. You need to understand her and respond to her, to give her what you can of what she needs.

So, need to think a lot about how she has been behaving, what she has been saying or not saying, etc., guess what is going on, get into some non-stressful conversations that can shed more light, understand her, and then help her.

In simple terms, yes, not much of a surprise, she is 'needy'; it's easy to suspect that Mother Nature finds that this has 'reproductive advantage' and likes it.

But after school you want to take her for an ice cream cone, hold her hand, if only by some subtle means let her know you think that she is really terrific, and see her smile. For making her smile, with the right feelings for her, you might like her smiles so much you suspect you could give up food and water and live just on her smiles.

After the ice cream cone, hidden behind a tree, you might kiss her six times on her forehead. That afternoon will be burned into your brain, and for the rest of your life you will no more be able to forget it or her than you could forget your own name.

Not many boys of 15 know these things, and they very much need to, these things and many more, before picking a wife or having children, especially daughters.

> It's also become in vogue to regard boys as psychologically and emotionally stunted, compared to girls. The title just seemed to hint toward that trend.

Sorry, but "in vogue" or not, once with an expert I told him that it seemed that women were so darned emotional. Then right away the expert explained, "Of COURSE women are MUCH more emotional than men. That is the cause of all the problems.". He was both very much an expert and not joking at all. Also read some of D. Tannen that I referenced. Or read some of E. Fromm where he says, "Men and women deserve equal respect as persons but are not the same.". Look up the recent study I mentioned that showed that in the crib girls are interested in people and boys, in things. Be around some children and just observe, even in a grocery store: The girls will make eye contact, and the boys will play with things. YMMV, and I don't have more careful scientific evidence for you, but it would be a radical claim that boys and girls are the same 'socially' and 'psychologically'.

The norms are common in movies: E.g., watch 'Back to School' and look at the girl: She is socially insightful, 'understanding' (in the sense of forgiving), sympathetic, empathetic, emotionally supportive, a peacemaker, etc.

> And women's higher social/emotional intelligence doesn't seem to help them in their relations towards men.

No, that 'EI' is just crucial for both girls and women; other than physical beauty (quickly fades?), physical love making, and motherhood, it's a lot of all the rest they have "in their relations towards men" and, really, one of the crucial ways they have to keep 'him' happy "'till death do we part".

But, yes, still women do have big problems. My proposed book, if not just a joke to illustrate the need for such a book, would be intended to help.

An old but common joke is that girls, girlfriends, and wives don't come with an instruction manual. I believe that boys and men need one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com