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.